Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Pentax Lenses

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 15, 2007, 9:15 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
danielchtong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,890
Default

My daughter's cat finally allows me to take a portrait of her. It was a FA135mmF2.8 with bounce flash from my Sigma ST 500












Daniel , Toronto
danielchtong is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Jun 15, 2007, 11:20 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

With the graduated fur works quite well for a human and such shallow DOF might not as well.

135mm is going to be ~200mm on a digital..... well above the portrait range. Unless you can be like 20 ft away.
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2007, 3:24 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
bilybianca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hassleholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,435
Default

I really like the longer lenses for portrait (ooooh, I'd love to have the A* 135 1.8...), it allows you to get near without getting near, so to speak. A lot of people (and cats) feel a bit intimidated when you put your camera up their nose. I guess your cat portraits would have been impossible with a 50 mm (or your Zen:-)), the cat would have started playing with the camera or would have gone away to sleep undisturbed.

My avatar was taken with a 600 mm, I don't think I would have been allowed in his playing grounds...
Attached Images
 
bilybianca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2007, 4:20 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

But again with an effective 200mm lens on a digital... you are talking being a LONG ways away.... fine if you have the space.... again like 15 to 20ft

Hardly a small studio or enclosed area lens..... even a 50 (75mm) can be confiniing in those situations on a digital... and you still aren't right on top of them.... good 7+ ft away for just head and shoulders.

Now I know danielchtong is probably going to tell me they were closer.... but again uniqness of subject... small (and shallow DOF) face and naturally blending out fur.... doubt it would work that well on a typical human situation/subject at same distance.
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2007, 7:04 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
robar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: D/FW area Texas
Posts: 7,590
Default

daniel, nice shots.

the other?? as usual , GIGO
robar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2007, 7:44 AM   #6
Senior Member
 
danielchtong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 2,890
Default

Oops I accidentally edited this post
danielchtong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2007, 7:52 AM   #7
TDN
Senior Member
 
TDN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,288
Default

danielchtong wrote:
Quote:
Kjell, Roy,

Hey thanks for taking time to comment. I am nuts. I posted birdie shots from my 16, 28 & 50mm before. And I use 135mm & 300mm for close up portrait. No harm in trying. This comes from my 16mm

Daniel
you're crazy daniel, experimenting with focal lengths and all, what were you thinking?

Nice pictures of the cat! I have 2 myself, and since LBA hit me, they've been officially converted to "lens test subject":G

Tom
TDN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2007, 8:39 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
bilybianca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hassleholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,435
Default

Hayward wrote:
Quote:
135mm is going to be ~200mm on a digital..... well above the portrait range. Unless you can be like 20 ft away.
Yes and of course a 200 mm ("being 300 mm on a digital") is just out of the question which this real life experiment proves. I'm ashamed of even trying, had to knock down a wall in the studio to get further away from the subject.

Kjell
Attached Images
 
bilybianca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2007, 8:50 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Hayward's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,318
Default

AGAIN..... NOT THAT it CAN'T WORK.....

But as you said yourself had to streatch things to the PHYSICAL limit (what if you needed to go 6" farther?)

On a digital, 135 is hardly a Portrait lens.... on a FF I'd put it at 75-85mm...(maybe even 90 with space)..... about what a 50mm is on a digital on a Practical Level..
Hayward is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2007, 9:03 AM   #10
Senior Member
 
bilybianca's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hassleholm, Sweden
Posts: 3,435
Default

Hayward wrote:
Quote:
But as you said yourself had to streatch things to the PHYSICAL limit (what if you needed to go 6" farther?)
Haward, look up the word "irony" in your dictionary. And in Europe we use our feet for walking metres further.

Kjell
bilybianca is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:01 PM.