p_b_

Mark, I'm not convinced that focal length has no effect on perspective, but this topic belongs in another discussion.

One more thing. Don't use the 50mm for head shots. Even with the D200, it's still a 50mm focal length. The 1.5 crop factor does not change the focal length. All it does is crop the image. 50mm will give facial distortions when doing head shots. The focal length for head shots is 85mm or 105mm.

Portrait photographers don't need f/1.4 or f/2. I've had both lenses. If you do head shots, you will need about f/8

so the ears are still in focus. I've thrown away a lot of shots

that I took using f/1.4 because the focus was off by a hair. I prefer the f/1.4 lens because I shoot in low light situations where

the sharpness at f/1.4 is important, but these are not portrait shots.

I don't know about the Canon non-USM lenses, I think they have gears and no motor in the lens. The Nikon AFS lenses require the body to use a little screwdriver that connects to a slot in the lens mount. The body directs the auto-focus activity, but the lens uses its motor to move the glass elements with a very fast and quiet operation, compared to the non-AFS lenses.

The Nikon AFS lenses have the motor in the lens like the Canon USM lenses. All the other Nikon AF lenses depend on the motor in the body and have a gear mechanism in the lens that makes noise.

Well, any feedback is relevant. I am trying to figure out what photo.net is all about. I had certain expectations. I have been a little too hostile. I should probably move on and try to open my own studio and face the real world head on. Thanks to everybody who

contributed some feedback. Even if it was negative, I can learn from

that too.

I only mentioned one photographer. One = 1. Patrick Demarchelier.

If you don't like what I said, you are amateur for sure. I didn't expect 90% of you to understand anyway. 500,000 images means

nothing if there is not much quality there. Some of you guys just

don't have talent and get mad when someone implies that you don't.

If you think you are great because amateurs like your work, you are

decieving yourselves. I prefer to know the truth, and if I am no

good, then move on to some other profession. (I know don't tell me,

I am terrible, right?).

Now here's a good photograph ...<div></div>

I've been visiting photo.net for about 1 year now and noticed that

about 90% of the photos are not professional quality. I have seen

lots of praise for portraits that would get an "F" in Photo 101, just

because the girl is pretty.

 

I see very few instances of really good portrait lighting like

Patrick Demarchelier/Christy Turlington photos. If someone gets this

kind of lighting it is by accident.

 

Really now, if a guy is truly a professional, he is busy with clients

and doesn't have time for this photo.net and doesn't care about

comments from amateurs.

 

Me? I am not a working pro and kill time by viewing photo.net trying

to learn. But I learned more from one portrait class than I learn

from photo.net.

 

Are there any pro's out there reading this and care to comment?

And are you really a professional with paying clients ??

And why do you post photos to photo.net ??

I don't recommend the Nikkor 85mm f1.8 AF lens, the 85mm f1.4 AF has

much better mechanics. My f1.8 lens developed a loose focus mechanism

and rattled a lot after about 2 years. The Nikkor 105mm f2.5 AIS is

far superiour to this 85 f1.8 junk.

The inexpensive way is to get a Nikkor 105mm f2.5 AIS lens and a

doubler, TC-200, or TC-201. I have these. However, this combination

will not let you go down to life-size (1:1) for micro work. Only goes

down to about 1:3.

 

For head shots only, I recommend the Nikkor 135mm f2.8 AIS, because

the longer working distance than 85mm or 105mm lets people relax

more.

 

For 1/3, 2/3 or full body shots the Nikkor 85mm f1.4 D AF is great!

And you can shoot from higher up looking down with this lens better

than a 105mm or 135mm (without using a ladder). I have this 85mm.

 

I've read that the ultimate micro lens is the Nikkor 200mm f4.0 AF.

That's what Bjorn Rorslet and Rod Plank use.

 

The problem I had with the Nikkor 105mm f2.8 micro lens is that

when I did manual focus for head shots, one slight amount of turn

makes the focus point change quite a lot. I found it to be too

sensitive for manually focus. I do not use auto-focus for head

shots because I don't want to be limited in my composition (I may

not want the eye located at a focus point). I got rid of this

lens for this reason.

I've heard from a guy who works in a darkroom,

that the Pentax is very precise in its framing

operation, so I assume that there is a problem

with your camera.