Originally Posted by
Ulophot
Jim, thanks for your comment. As I tried to indicate, perhaps inadequately, the 135 would be for portraits in which a smaller figure would occupy much less of a more "environmental" composition. In interior settings, one doesn't always have the room, for such compositions, to back up sufficiently with the 210; outdoors, the perspective and depth-of-field of the shorter lens may suit some ideas better than the 210 would. I have tried for decades to abide by the advice of Walter Rosenblum, who once told me that the key to using a wide-angle lens (back in my early 35mm days in the late '60s) was to avoid the appearance that a wide-angle lens had been used.
Bookmarks