Bipod

You're going to love that soft portrait lens! I've tried all the alternatives--vaseline on a filter, various "soft" filters, defocus--
nothing looks right. The closest was a Heliopan "Softar" filter (originally made by Zeiss). But there really is no good
substitute for a genuine portrait lens.

I just read the Canon brochure: it says that a ring controls the amount of spherical aberration.
How cool! You can even set it 0, and use the lens as a general purpose 135 mm lens.
(a handy focal length).

Nikon also makes a portrait lens of sorts-- the Nikon 135mm f/2 DC AF -- but it has a "Defocus Control"
that adds bokeh. Looks OK, but it's not the same thing at all. Some reviewers rave about it--but
I'm sure they've ever seen a real portrait lens (such as the famous 1935 Leica Thrambar 90 mm f/2.2).

Climb aboard the Wayback Machine for a little time travel:

Nikon 135mm f/2 DC AF (1990-current)
https://cdn.fstoppers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Shoot-with-Taylor-16-710x473.jpg

Canon EF 135mm f/2.8 with Softfocus (1987-current)
https://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Pics/2005/2005-04-10_11-42-21.jpg

Leica Thrambar 90 mm f/2.2 (1935-, this one a current re-issue):
https://2.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS600x450~sample_galleries/1148566037/8295180209.jpg

Petzval lens (1840) by Josef Petzval and Peter Wilhelm Friedrich von Voigtländer.
Recreated as the Lomography 85 mm f/2.2 Petzval Lens. (in Canon EF or Nikon F versions)
Crowd-funded and made in Russia!
https://assets.community.lomography.com/bb/b868b9cc31f83bed6960b081f464e4dd8c38ef/512x718x1.jpg?auth=6c06a45a9c58b8fc077f348398436b25a34ed4f4

My two cents worth:
The Canon is by far the most versatile lens. The Petzval looks great, bu the field curvature
limits what can be done with it. But I'd buy it (in F-mount) before I'd buy the Nikon 135.
The Leica looks wonderful, but is just too expensive--and not as versatile as the Canon.

jwoj69

O wow. Thank you. I used to use few Tiffen Soft Focus Filters, but you right, you can spot a filter from a mile. I hope that my lens gets to my hands before Xmas, as is coming from Japan. For some reason Japan sells lenses much cheaper than US right now. It's worth the wait. I will let you know as soon as I get the lens. Jack.

topcat Loc: Alameda, CA

jwoj69

I was comfortable once too, than I got sick. Life is life. Now I was able to get great camera, which I enjoy a lot. So no complaints from me.

Bipod

Zooms.
Pros:
* Fast focal length chanages
* Proces subsidized by prim lens sales
Cons:
* Expensive
* Complex designd
* High geometric distoration
* More Petzval field curvature
* Not as sharp as a prime
* Much less contrasty than a prime
* Encourages "lazy feet"

You decide.

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

I think you may have overlooked the most important "Pro", for me at least; the ability to crop in-camera. The "lazy feet" idea is BS to me, I spend a lot of time finding my desired camera position(s) without even looking thru the camera, then use a good zoom to crop in-camera rather than having the prime dictate the camera position or require lots of cropping in PP.

digit-up Loc: Flushing, Michigan

Clever!!! I have to remember that LINE. TOO COOL!!

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

This is an argument that no one is ever going to win. It comes down to the preferences of the individual photographer and his or her shooting goals. I mostly shoot fast primes when I'm in low light situations or when I want a shallow depth of field. I also often use them for candid street photography. I have several zoom lenses that I use regularly, but I sometimes go out with just a 35mm fast prime because it forces me to look at things differently than I otherwise might, and to frame things within the context of that focal length. I've captured some of my favorite images that way. I don't think however that I would ever consider giving up all my zooms and just use primes.

Bipod

Well you know, moving closer will make the subject look bigger .
So no need to crop unless you want to change the aspect ratio (e.g., from
rectangular to square).

There is no such thing as "cropping in camera"---sorry. It's called "composition".

From an optical engineering point of view, "good zoom" is an oxymoron.
"Least bad zoom" describes one that is state-of-the-art and costs $6000.
(Faced with a very contrasty subject---say old ruins in the desert--I
might choose a zoom lens in order to reduce the contrast to stay within
the camera's dynamic range. This works quite well.)

Yes, if you change prime lenses, you probably will have to move. Deal with it.

One picks a particular lens not for convenience's sake, but because one wants
its optical qualities for a particular shot. The more lenses one has, the more
choices one has.

For example, for a head and shoulders portrait I might choose a 200 mm lens--
not because I happen to be standing 15 feet away, but because I need to be
standing about 15 feet away to get optimal perspective, and this is the correct
lens (anything from 200 mm to 300 mm) for a subject about 2 feet high from
that distance (it will fill the 35 mm frame).

The first step to taking a good portrait is to grab the correct lens--not just focal
length, but also it's other characteristics that one might desire in a portrait.

But hey, with a zoom you can stand 3 feet away and just zoom to 18 mm.
Won't that make lovely portrait!
https://c8.alamy.com/comp/DGPP0M/man-with-a-big-nose-distorted-portrait-DGPP0M.jpg

In photography (as in any art form), what is easy and convenient is almost always
wrong. Also, one must accept the following: you can't get every shot--and it wrong to
settle for whatever you can get. A portrait taken in an elevator is not worth taking---
so the camera stays buttoned up in its case or bag.

Unless you are a photojournalist, sports photographer, or on an assignment where you
have to come back with something (no matter how mediocre), you should be
willing to walk away from a great subject if it's not feasible to get the shot that you
envisioned.

There is a 100% effective way not to take a bad photo: don't press the shutter button.

Bipod

"Why did you use a telephoto lens?"

Bad answer: "Because the subject was far away."

Good answer: "Because the subject was close to a confusing background
and I wanted to use very shallow DoF to pick it out."

(Exception: the first answer is valid if the photographer is buried up to his
waist in sand and required by law to take a photo....or for photos of birds
in flight or naked celebrities on the beach. )

MauiMoto Loc: Hawaii

😄

jackm1943 Loc: Omaha, Nebraska

I don't think I'm getting my point through to you. When possible, the first thing I do with most photos is to determine the perspective (camera position) I want, before even thinking about what camera or lens to use. Perspective is the single most important thing to me when composing an image, I am not going to walk back or forward to "deal with it" and change that perspective to suit some prime lens. Then, and only then, I set up the camera and "crop in camera" or "compose" as you call it, same thing, to maintain that perspective. If I don't have the perfect prime lens, then I have to adjust for that in PP, probably by cropping the image. For example, If I need 66mm for the composition that I want and all I have is a 50mm lens, then the image will need cropping in PP. My goal is always to minimize the amount of cropping required in PP.

Anyway, this works for me. If it's not your cup of tea, fine. And if you're OK with changing the perspective to make the prime work it's fine with me.

jwoj69

OK I just finished my lens inventory. 10 prime lenses and 7 zoom lenses. I should prime when ever I can. However, I was shooting a Xmas party at work today, and my Sigma 17-50 HS OS 2.8 was just right for the occasion, when people turn their backs on you as soon you point the at them. So speed of composition matters. Unfortunately prime lens it would take me too long, especially since I'm in the wheelchair. But even in wheelchair, I'm trying to use prime lens first, choice zoom second. Like today.

jwoj69

Hello, This is great! I see so much compassion, mostly for prime lenses. Sure that zooms are convenient, but prime lenses are brighter inmost cases, have better optics and take unbelievable shoots!

jwoj69

Now for the prime. I just got 135 mm Canon soft focus. You can't find soft focus in zoom. As well you can't find zoom tilt shift lens.