1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Fuji set to debut £1,000 portrait lens

Discussion in 'News - Discussion' started by CSBC, Jan 6, 2014.

  1. IvorCamera

    IvorCamera Well-Known Member

    All the weddings I have been to in the last 10 years the pro photographer has been using either Canon or Nikon with a something to 200 2.8 lens on the end of a pro body. I have never seen anybody using a Fuji pro camera! But I try not to go to weddings anymore I had a bad experience at one over 50 years ago, I got married!
     
  2. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    But possibly if you were REALLY keen on portraiture you might. That's the point. We all have different priorities. What is "better spent" for you is not necessarily the same as what is "better spent" for someone else.

    OF COURSE you can use any lens for portraiture. But equally, if there's a particular effect that someone wanted, a purpose-designed portrait lens might look like a much better buy to them than it does to you. You have a Micro Nikkor. Lots of people would be happy enough with a close-focusing standard zoom. You're not. That's because you want to do something others don't. Does it not occur to you that serious portrait photographers might feel the same way?

    You seem to equate "portrait" and "short telephoto". While it is true that most portrait lenses are in the 75-105mm range (full frame), this is not the same as saying that all 75-105mm lenses are portrait lenses. The logical fallacy is known as the omitted middle: all apples are fruit, therefore all fruit are apples.

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  3. IvorCamera

    IvorCamera Well-Known Member

    Will this lens be any good for any other types of photography?
     
  4. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Who cares? If it's the best lens for a particular kind of portraiture, and you REALLY like that kind of portraiture, and you want to use it on the camera it's designed for, what does it matter what else it can do?

    You are no doubt familiar with the saying, "Jack of all trades, master of none."

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  5. IvorCamera

    IvorCamera Well-Known Member

    Will this lens be any good for any other types of photography?
     
  6. Craig20264

    Craig20264 Well-Known Member

    I believe Fuji are not marketing it as a portrait lens, but a lens that is perfect for portraits, a subtle difference.
     
  7. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Indeed, not so subtle. But the point still remains: some people will find it useful and worth buying, while others won't. What puzzles me is why the ones who don't want it are unable to understand (a) that some lenses are better for some kinds of portraits than others and (b) others' viewpoints.

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  8. Craig20264

    Craig20264 Well-Known Member

    Absolutely Roger, I agree. While this lens is probably good at a lot of things, it may just have the edge over other lenses for portraiture, even if the difference is tiny, if that is what you shoot then you would want it, and who's to tell you not too.
     
  9. IvorCamera

    IvorCamera Well-Known Member

    Lenses never puzzle me, wide angles to get more in, standard lenses which more or less see what a normal eye see's, longer lenses brings distant scenes closer! but all these lenses can be exploited, to one's particular personal requirements and uses. Most of us who can remember just owning fixed focal length lenses in the past either moved forwards or backwards left or right to get the picture in! No problem.
     
  10. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    So you think that all lenses of the same focal length deliver the same image?

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  11. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Exactly. Some people see small differences. Some don't. Some don't even see big differences. Some see differences that aren't even there. But I can't understand someone who apparently denies that there can be differences.

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  12. Terrywoodenpic

    Terrywoodenpic Well-Known Member

    A lens has other important attributes other than focal length.

    A purpose built Macro lens has attributes balanced for macro work.
    A wide aperture Long focus lens is balanced for sports and wild life.
    A portrait lens is balanced for portraiture.
    These special qualities can be very costly to attain.

    Of course you could dig a ditch with a tea spoon but only the stupid might try.
     
  13. IvorCamera

    IvorCamera Well-Known Member

    They can do but with a different perspective, such as the squashing up effect when using longer lenses.Which brings me back to a point of using a longer than normal lens being classed as a portrait lens, which could slightly distort the human face.
     
  14. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    You may do well to expand on this. "They can do". "They" being...? And "do" what? I can't understand the second sentence at all.

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  15. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Precisely. This is what I'm trying to find out if IvorCamera admits or possibly, given his reactions so far, even understands. It is of course possible to be overly precious about tiny differences, but it is also possible to be overly dismissive of differences that others can see clearly.

    Cheers,

    R.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2014
  16. IvorCamera

    IvorCamera Well-Known Member

    Quote "A lens has other important attributes other than focal length." I never said it didn't. All I am trying to say is that what I said at the start of this thread, I only ever used and owned at one time one single lens that was a 50mm lens on full frame,and on my 2 and a quarter film camera it was a 75mm that was my standard lens for everything, the only drawbacks then was at times I just could not get enough into the shot! but for portraits they were fine, as time went on lens makers were starting to name their lenses as, good for landscapes, good for portraits, and good for wildlife lenses, just to sell the lenses. A thousand pounds for a fixed so called portrait lens is a no no for me.......but for you it maybe a yes yes I need one.......photographers can be very different in their approach to portraiture and it looks like mine is! and thoughts about lenses.......
     
  17. daft_biker

    daft_biker Action Man!

    The speed of it means it's unlikely to be of interest to those wanting distortion free images anyway. I've tried 2 Canon f/1.2 lenses and neither of then can keep straight lines straight throughout the image and neither has anything like a flat plane of focus.....they are pretty hopeless as macro lenses! ;)

    Close portraits from f/1.2 lenses often remind me of Pob and his chubby cheeks....
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Not suggesting it's always a bad thing or that folk don't do nice work with them though....I just tend to prefer slower lenses with less distortion for the stuff I shoot.
     
  18. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Highlight 1: Time started going on quite early. Voigtlander's Portrait Anastigmat was introduced in the 1890s, and it certainly wasn't the first: see http://www.earlyphotography.co.uk/site/entry_L88.html for portrait lenses dating back to the 1850s. Dallmeyer was selling a lens specifically for landscapes in the 1860s.

    Highlight 2: It would be odd if manufacturers didn't want to sell lenses. But unless photographers found them useful, they wouldn't buy them.

    Highlight 3: Do you deny that some lenses are more suitable for some purposes than others? If you accept that some lenses are better for some kinds of photography than others, why should some lenses not be better for portraits than others?

    Cheers,

    R.
     
  19. IvorCamera

    IvorCamera Well-Known Member

    Highlight 1. Sorry I have no answer for this its way before my time

    Highlight 2. Yes and No, most intelligent photographers don't fall for advertising names given to products!

    Highlight 3. Yes I do. But why name them landscapes lenses, portraits lenses, wildlife lenses?

    When I am out and about I may have a 24-85mm FX on the end of my camera and if I see a person that I want to photograph in most cases I would use the lens whats on the camera, I don't own a so called portrait lens and I certainly would not buy one just for the sake of owning and using one!
     
  20. Roger Hicks

    Roger Hicks Well-Known Member

    Highlight: Um... because people might like to shoot landscapes, portraits and wildlife? And they might appreciate being told which lenses from their line-up the manufacturers think might be best for those subjects?

    Your comments about "intelligent photographers" are peculiar. You mean that "intelligent motorists" can't tell the difference between a sports car and a family saloon? Fast cars and slow cars? Your persistent and misguided use of "so called" when referring to lenses is about on a par with denying the differences in cars. "Intelligent photographers" have certain expectations about what a portrait lens might and might not do. If you don't, I'd suggest you're hoist by your own petard.

    As for "out and about . . . 24-85mm FX. . . " what has this to do with portraiture? You're right: only a fool would buy a specialist portrait lens for snapshots. But someone who was really serious about portraiture might well feel differently. Just because you don't care about portraiture, don't assume that no-one else does either.

    And I fear you are becoming incoherent with rage. "I don't own a so called portrait lens and I certainly would not buy one just for the sake of owning and using one!"

    I mean, why does anyone buy any lens? Sometimes, possibly, just for the sake of owning it, but a lot more, I'd suggest, for using it. Why would you buy a lens you weren't going to use? Well, you wouldn't buy a portrait lens because you do not concentrate on portraits. But your "24-85 FX"? Didn't you buy that "just for the sake of owning and using" it?

    As I said, I wouldn't buy one, because I neither own nor want the camera(s) it is designed for. But I do have at least one lens, the 90/2.2 Thambar, that was specifically designed for portraiture (though it can be used for other things as well), and it gives a "look" that my other lenses of the same focal length (90mm) don't. I can take a different kind of portrait with my 90/2 Summicron, but that's the point: a different kind. Or do you deny that the same picture can be taken in different ways, with different "looks"?

    I'm not sure why I'm continuing to argue. Perhaps it's in the hope that others who read this thread will realize two things. First, when a specialist lens is described as being especially suitable for a particular subject, the manufacturers are probably telling the truth. Otherwise, why would they choose one subject over another? If they're the unprincipled liars you make them out to be, why would they not say that a 35mm tilt-shift was ideal for wildlife? Second, there's no such thing as a universal lens that does everything perfectly, not even your "24-85 FX". In fact, you admit this: you own a Micro Nikkor, a specialist lens.

    Cheers,

    R.
     

Share This Page