The pro version is an f/2.8 (if you’re talking about the 50-150 Olympus lens. I’ve used one and combined with the (IBIS) In Body Image Stabilisation, makes a amazing combo.
When I think of a portrait lens, sharpness isn’t the first thing that I think of. I don’t want to see every pore. It’s how it renders the image- the bokeh (never heard of that word until I started shooting digital) I usually use my Nikon 70-200 2.8. The bokeh isn’t always the greatest, but portraits aren’t my main work, so I go with what works best for me. In film days I was putting Softars on the ‘blad’s 150mm or some soft focus discs into the Mamiya’s 180.
The pro version is an f/2.8 (if you’re talking abo... (show quote)
For a lot of the older lady choiresters super sharp is definately the last thing you want. I usually soften the images slightly (except for the eyes) before publishing them
Chris TLoc: from England across the pond to New England
RichardTaylor wrote:
Thats f2.8 not f2. From personal experience once you get down a couple of stops or so it doesn't make a lot of difference. However shooting wide open is where it does make a big difference. That image was shot at ISO 4000. Also keep in mind better lenses generally focus a lot quicker.
When shooting in good light levels, for a lot of subjects a cheaper lens will be fine especially if you are not making large prints. The example below was shot, hand held, with a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 which is not regarded as good lens.
Thats f2.8 not f2. br From personal experience onc... (show quote)