|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
03-08-2008, 08:18 AM
|
| |
I have used only primes for the past 20 years shooting film, mainly because I couldn't find a zoom with a 1.8 max aperture like my Canon 85 1.8.
I almost always use a tripod, and after doing this so many times, setting up the camera at the right distance became automatic. I would usually divide a roll of 36 exposure film like this:
1.) 9 shots full-length
2.) 9 shots 3/4
2.) 9 shots roughly 1/2 body
3.) 9 shots head to mid chest (I don't like close head & shoulders)
As I've stated in other threads, I prefer dreamy, soft-focus portraits most of the time. I have also learned over the years that the full and 3/4 shots looked better not diffused, while the closer ones are when the soft-focus filter should be used, unless you want the entire frame soft-focus.
The 2 zooms I have right now are more than sharp enough for my needs, but I plan on getting either a DA70mm or 50-135 soon more for the bokeh of their wide maximum apertures, than the sharpness they offer.
This now raises another question: If a photographer shoots mostly soft-focus-type images, does he/she really need an expensive, top-notch lens if they're only going to put a filter on the end defeating the lens' sharpness?
I like my zooms now, but when I get a DA70mm, I'll probably use that most of the time.
I also prefer primes, because they make you think a little more when setting up/composing the image.
Good thread. :)
Mike
|
