portrait lens at 35mm?

[jsherman999]

.

More & more, I really think the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 makes a wonderful portrait
lens - you can get the full body shots or head & shoulders from up close
at 28-40mm, and have traditional portraiture focal lengths from 40-75mm.

It's a very, very sharp lens, but at f/2.8 is soft enough for traditional "no-pores"
portraiture, although it's still very sharp even at f/2.8.





Still, nothing beats a fast lens for lower-light or indoor portraits.

(FA 77 1.8)

[d.bradley]

Getting off track here folks! I know people use 50/1.4 lenses on film for portraits, so the 35mm is definitely a portrait capable length on APS-C.

Here are some shots from my 35/2 SMC Tak:

Mid-length


Head-shots


Full Body


Groups


Bust distance


There were all shot on a camping trip where I had ONLY the 35mm lens to do all my photography. Very versatile, but I never shoot above f2.8 with this lens due to blooming highlights at f2.

So to go back to the question...how valuable is having a 35mm at f2 or f1.4 for portraits versus the f2.8 I have been using on my tak or the upper limit of the DA35?

[k100d]

is it just face portraiture? 35mm is too close

Perspective Distortion in Portraits
Untitled Document

[d.bradley]

Originally Posted by k100d

is it just face portraiture? 35mm is too close

Perspective Distortion in Portraits
Untitled Document

I disagree. First, see my photos. Second, suggesting a perspective is "too close' is black and white. Art is not so clear cut. Third, 35mm on APS-C does crops out much of the distortion that a 35mm lens has at the edge of the frame, so it acts more like a 50mm on film which is much more reasonable. Fourth, I'm talking about wider portraits, not just faces....as mentioned in the post.