]I cant decide which lens I prefer, this or the Minolta 50. Depending on the sitution i find it difficult to predict which will be more useful, but hopefully that will become more natural over time. Saying that, I cant actually decide what kind of portrait I would like [to be able] to take, but do seem to favour quite close up. I think for me its the easiest at present, when I try different, more active shots, I more often fail. {} The somewhat creepy (or maybe creep like) 'Movember' look... {} {} {} And this is Erin, sort of. She likes this picture of herself, suprising, considering she isnt really in it. Who can fathom a 16 year old?? {}
Both lenses are obviously excellent optical performers Teefin1. Their difference lies in the perspective they produce (little as it may be). The equivalent SLR focal length of the Konica 40mm on the NEX is 60mm which is sort of 'long standard' lens. The Minolta 50mm is more like a 'short telephoto' at a 75mm equivalent. The 40mm needs to be closer to your subject (portraiture), whereas the 50mm needs to be a little bit further away... that's if your composition is critical and you don't want to post-crop. Because of this distance factor, the perspective changes although it may hardly be noticeable between these two lenses. But generally, a telephoto is more flattering with regards to facial features... while a standard or wider angle lens will induce a reaction from your model because of your close proximity. This may work for or against you, depending if your model is shy or extroverted. So perhaps you may want to take your subjects personality into consideration if you're at a loss as to which lens to select. I think "Movember" is a fantastic portrait. The lighting (source and shadow effect) works so well in making your models facial expression even more dramatic. I would've called this portrait "Bogart Eyes!"
Ha, ha , thank you Dioptrick, my husband will be pleased, there are other titles that portrait may inspire. I think, outside of the house, that 50mm or greater is a better fit for portrait, say, in the park/woods etc. as per the following, started off with the 40 (tonight, as Casey was concerned we may have forgotten Casey, and at 3200, so not toooo bad) but switched to the minolta quite quickly. Apologies for partial colour in some. ] {} {} {} {} {}
^^Love it!!! Such a great shot (even tho I'd prefer it if her beautiful hair were whole in the frame)
Teefin you're posting excellent after excellent shot ! And since you're into portraits, I'm all the more sensible to your work. The only thing I really don't dig (never did) is the partial color.
Thanks Nick, Kira's hair was obscured by some part of the play apparatus I'm afraid, so I cropped it out, and of all my children (3 girls and 2 boys) she is the only one with rubbish hair, so a compliment indeed! Thanks so much Nianys, I'm always pleased to receive feedback from you, a truly talented portraitist, and I've learnt much from your posts. I almost issued a health warning in the title, remembering your aversion to partial colour. I'm digging the 7 a little more now IQ wise and I hope that translates to photo.
You have a lovely family teefin... Tell 'Hubby Bogart' he's my hero for doing such a great pose for the camera!
