[yorik]

I get a little creeped out when I post a thread asking for advice about lenses, and folks post images of children.

You asked for advice about portrait lenses and people replied, including examples of portraits that highlight the lenses that they recommended. Speaking for myself as an amateur, the only decent examples of portraiture that I have are of my children (fully clothed and not provocative), so I shared two of my daughter. My operating assumption is that this forum is a safe and friendly (for the most part) one. Your response, with the implication that there is something pornographic about the images we shared with you is offensive and inconsiderate, to say the least.

Perhaps its all innocent...

What else would it be?

I know I certainly wouldn't post images of my children online.

Good for you.

Makes you wonder !

I have seen many images of children on this forum, and I have yet to see one that `makes me wonder'. Sadly, I can't say the same for some of the comments I read here from time to time.

[DennisH]

Photography is only a hobby for me, and I have considered going to college to obtain a diploma of photo-imaging. Now having purchased the 50-135, I have a really good portrait lens/telephoto, plus my 50mm 1.4. I am hoping that some day I might be able to turn it into a small weekend business, and do some nice pics for friends. But thats a long road.

At college you have access to models from the courses in fashion, and that really interests me - studio photography which pays the bigger bucks. I get a little creeped out when I post a thread asking for advice about lenses, and folks post images of children.

Perhaps its all innocent, but when I ask my next piece of advice on a lens, I will clearly state to not post images of children on my thread. I know there are syndicates who engage in such practices, plus police techies who do this for entrapment purposes. I once had a friend who was being bombarded with child pornography by police techies, their hope was to turn him into a pedophile, and take the bait and then bust him - all highly unconstitutional, unlawful and an act of criminal malice by the government.

I know I certainly wouldn't post images of my children online. Makes you wonder !

What a remarkably strange post.

[grispie]

Perhaps its all innocent, but when I ask my next piece of advice on a lens, I will clearly state to not post images of children on my thread. I know there are syndicates who engage in such practices, plus police techies who do this for entrapment purposes. I once had a friend who was being bombarded with child pornography by police techies, their hope was to turn him into a pedophile, and take the bait and then bust him - all highly unconstitutional, unlawful and an act of criminal malice by the government.

Aren't you overreacting a bit? or a lot...?
I think it's a bit offensive towards the people that bothered to share a picture with you showing what a certain lens looks like.

[audiobomber]

Perhaps its all innocent, but when I ask my next piece of advice on a lens, I will clearly state to not post images of children on my thread. I know there are syndicates who engage in such practices, plus police techies who do this for entrapment purposes. I once had a friend who was being bombarded with child pornography by police techies, their hope was to turn him into a pedophile, and take the bait and then bust him - all highly unconstitutional, unlawful and an act of criminal malice by the government.

[ChristianRock]

Edit: nevermind.

[Rondec]

I apologize if my photos were upsetting to you. I just happen to own a few of the lenses you were looking at and the photos I have are of my kids. Hopefully you can look beyond the fact that they are kids at the rendering of the individual lenses...

[JibbaJab]

Never before have I seen a legitimate OP transform so quickly into a troll.

[Nigli]

+1 on the FA 50/1.4

[Sandy Hancock]

Warning: this is a picture of a child. The young woman on whose lap he sits is his cousin (and mine).
For those interested in photography, I reckon the FA77 renders humans very nicely. This is at f/1.8



The DA*55 isn't too shabby either. This is at f/1.6. Luckily it's a grown-up this time.



The FA43 doesn't suck either.



You know what? Even the DA*16-50 can do portraits of a kind

[Driline]

Thanks for the Warning Sandy. I quickly turned my eyes away so I wouldn't go blind on that first picture.

[Gray]

The best portrait lens? Use whatever you have. Each of my DA 15 / FA 31 / FA 43 / FA 77 / FA135 is good and works in its own way. (But I do prefer the FA 77 Limited )

Some (uncropped) examples... [click images to enlarge]


FA 31 | FA 43


FA 77 | FA 135


DA 15

[mikeSF]

. I get a little creeped out when I post a thread asking for advice about lenses, and folks post images of children.

...

Do you also avert your eyes when you see children in public?
Actually, something may be wrong with you; you might want to have that checked before you try to interact with regular people on a public forum.

[Blue]

Photography is only a hobby for me, and I have considered going to college to obtain a diploma of photo-imaging. Now having purchased the 50-135, I have a really good portrait lens/telephoto, plus my 50mm 1.4. I am hoping that some day I might be able to turn it into a small weekend business, and do some nice pics for friends. But thats a long road.

At college you have access to models from the courses in fashion, and that really interests me - studio photography which pays the bigger bucks. I get a little creeped out when I post a thread asking for advice about lenses, and folks post images of children.

Perhaps its all innocent, but when I ask my next piece of advice on a lens, I will clearly state to not post images of children on my thread. I know there are syndicates who engage in such practices, plus police techies who do this for entrapment purposes. I once had a friend who was being bombarded with child pornography by police techies, their hope was to turn him into a pedophile, and take the bait and then bust him - all highly unconstitutional, unlawful and an act of criminal malice by the government.

I know I certainly wouldn't post images of my children online. Makes you wonder !

This is a family oriented site. That is why we are relatively strict with swearing for the sake of swearing. We also adhere to the NSFW in the post your photos section in part for that reason as well as work issues. PF will not allow Chester the Molester type photos to be posted here so you don't need to worry about the police. We get some flack for those rules on occasion, but there is a reason for them. As far as your Constitution comment, I don't know if you are talking about Australia or the U.S., but it is moot in this case. This is the end of the subject. Carry on.

[Blue]

Thanks for the Warning Sandy. I quickly turned my eyes away so I wouldn't go blind on that first picture.

That 3rd image could be hazardous!

[audiobomber]

Sandy, your Cousins photo has an amazing 3D look.

I've been considering portrait options, that's why I subscribed to this thread. I'm waiting to see what Sony/Zeiss come up with at Photokina for my a6000, but the FA 77 is still on the list, and your photo shows it will be hard to match, even for Zeiss.