swmcl
31-May-2017, 16:10
So tell me...
Why wouldn't more people be using macro lenses for portraits ?
It occurs to me that a head and shoulders 5x7 is very much in the sweet spot for a macro lens in terms of its best performance.
Aside from the issues of getting every single blemish you could imagine, are 'portrait' lenses designed for a sweet spot around 1:2 to 1:5 ??
I have no lenses which are best at closer magnifications and my portraiture looks fuzzy to me. Perhaps it is my psychological bent to initially record things with great detail in the first instance and then if I wish to fuzz it up I can do it after scanning....?
The other issue of course is depth of field which will be better served with a smaller format ie. 4x5. for LF shooters but even smaller is better again.
Cheers,
Steve
Why wouldn't more people be using macro lenses for portraits ?
It occurs to me that a head and shoulders 5x7 is very much in the sweet spot for a macro lens in terms of its best performance.
Aside from the issues of getting every single blemish you could imagine, are 'portrait' lenses designed for a sweet spot around 1:2 to 1:5 ??
I have no lenses which are best at closer magnifications and my portraiture looks fuzzy to me. Perhaps it is my psychological bent to initially record things with great detail in the first instance and then if I wish to fuzz it up I can do it after scanning....?
The other issue of course is depth of field which will be better served with a smaller format ie. 4x5. for LF shooters but even smaller is better again.
Cheers,
Steve