Discussion in 'News - Discussion' started by CSBC, Jan 6, 2014.
They can keep it, there is no such thing as a portrait lens, and a thousand quid that's a nice holiday for two in Spain........
Most of the great Hollywood portraitists would argue with that; so would owners of Thambars, Imagons, SF Fujinons and more.
Indeed; there most certainly are portrait lenses - the only falsehood would be in pretending that no other lenses could be used for portraits.
Very true, but is anyone pretending that?
Historically, most specialist portrait lenses have sold very badly, so a high price for this one is no surprise.
It's one of those chicken and egg situation isn't it?... Are they a high price because they sell badly or do they sell badly because they are a high price?
To a certain extent you are of course right, but equally, how many people care enough about portraiture to buy a special portrait lens at any price? For the manufacturers it must surely be a reasonable assumption that you won't sell many, at which point, the price needs to be fairly high in order to make it worth making any.
There is no such thing as a portrait lens, and I will never be a great American photographer! However a nice lens for taking portraits with is between small format 85mm and 105mm, larger format 150mm lens, but really you can take great portraits with any lens! In this day and age who would pay a £1000 for a lens just to take mugshots with?
No-one. But someone who wanted to take portraits, rather than mugshots, might be interested.
Mugsots whoops! I have a nice portrait in my passport it looks just like me! The cost? Just a £1
'Portrait lens' is one of those slapdash shorthand phrases but it is quicker to say than 'short to medium telephoto lens combining a fast aperture for depth of field control with a smooth and pleasing bokeh'...
I would like to know more about the control available on this lens. Past Portrait lens have given you the ability to control spherical aberration for a defined sharpness while maintaining tonal separation.
This enables the use of lighting to define shape with out excessive texture.
However most modern portraitists use soft overall bland lighting that destroys all sense of shape depth and contour in a face, and so may have no use for such a lens.
Results reminiscent of those captured with film. Personally I can think of a far cheaper method of achieving this and authentically!
Quite a lot of people take the viewpoint that "I don't want this therefore nobody needs it", whether we're talking about fast lenses, extreme telephotos, high ISOs, long-range zooms, extreme wide-angles, even film.
This is however the first time I've encountered "I don't want this therefore it doesn't exist", or possibly "I don't understand this therefore it doesn't exist".
This all makes it pretty clear why it's going to be expensive: not many people are likely want it, especially those who can't distinguish between a portrait and a mug shot or passport picture, or for that matter those who favour a different kind of portraiture, such as environmental portraits with a standard lens or wide-angle.
Would I buy one? No, because I already have a couple of soft-focus lenses I like very well for portraiture on 35mm/24x36m digital, namely a 100mm Dreamagon and a 90mm Thambar, and I have a 21 inch uncoated Ross Anastigmat I like very well on 8x10 inch. I don't use them very much, because I am no great enthusiast of portraiture, nor am I very good at it. But anyone who can't see the difference between the effects produced by these lenses and those produced by (say) a standard zoom, probably can't see much.
A portrait lens=A short telephoto lens=£1000.......A landscape lens=£???....A wildlife lens=£???...
Indeed. Spending £2000 on a 70-200/2.8 seems to be the way a lot of folk go these days.
Given that the Nikon 105 f2 AF-D DC could be classed as a "portrait" lens I see nothing wrong with Fuji expecting to sell these lenses at £1,000. OK so the Nikon is "only" £799 and I paid less than that for mine but just because it has the defocus control doesn't mean it isn't also an excellent 105mm general purpose lens.
This lens has been designed to give a short depth of field, which is hard with the small sensor sizes of digital cameras. I think this is going to be a superb lens for taking portraits, especially in low light situations and weddings.
If you are a doing a lot of weddings or portraits this would soon pay for itself, but are any professional using Fuji X series cameras?
I have a 105 Micro Nikkor lens, I have had this lens for years, as it name suggests this lens was bought for close up work which does the biz! however I have often used this lens for portraiture again with really good results, is this a portrait lens no its not, its a close focusing lens, I also have a 50mm 1.8 standard lens it cost £89.00 new its as good as any other lens to take portaits with. Would I spend a £1000 on a portrait lens (short telephoto) no I would not that amount would be better spent on 2 weeks in Spain!
Separate names with a comma.