Choice

Landscapes: DA35 Macro or FA43 (because you tend to want everything sharp back-to-front and these are the best lenses I've ever used for achieving this - plus they both give a normal(ish) perspective which I prefer for landscapes).

Portraits: FA77 or M85 (I used the think the FA77 couldn't be bettered but actually the M85 has a lovely soft fuzzy feel to it that makes for very flattering portraiture. Not the sharpest lens I own by some margin but you don't neccessarily want portraits to be too sharp - something the FA77 can be guilty of).

Not too many folks realise that the FA77 is an update on the A*85 design, but is much smaller and easier to use. FA*85 is too big to be practical for me. I'd feel like a Canon shooter.

As for the FA43, nothing renders like it that I have ever seen.

Of course the FA*85 is also nice, for studio work especially.

So the choice is clear then

Portrait: FA*85 or DA70 Ltd
Landscape: Sigma 10-20 EX or DA*16-50 if it's raining

Regards,

John

That's absolutely correct... 90mm is too long for conventional portraits really, you are a long way from the subject, and a lot of the shots I have tried to do with this lens are bit tight, because I kept underestimating how far I needed to 'back off'!

However for taking candid portraits at a distance it's lovely, because the working distance becomes an advantage, and the DOF isolates your subject beautifully.

This is where the DFA 100 has a slight advantage (though the differences between these three are a toss-up really): it isn't as sharp wide open as the Tamron is (it's slightly sharper stopped down instead).

I have just written up the article Perspective Distortion, Sensor Size And Portraiture for those who would like an introduction to these issues.

I actually asked that question on another forum and later here, specifically about the distortion

The conclusion for me was that you should shoot at the distance you want to view the photo at to get the most natural look since the distortion on the print is the same as real life. Like you said it's not the lens but the distance that make the distortion.

Has anyone done a test on distance to subject and sweet spot for there particular choice of portrait lens to find out the best range and setting.
Ian

Landscapes: almost anything really but if forced to pick one the SMC Takumar 28mm f/3.5.

Portraits: Jupiter-9 85mm or SMC 50mm f/1.2.

K.

Ah yes, but (almost) all of the photo mags are rubbish.

Portrait lenses really depend on how much of the subject you want to capture and how close you want to get. A 120mm is good for head and shoulders shots from about 3-4m away.

Landscapes, the K or M 28mm f3.5. The K version is predictably harder to find, the M is a close second by the sounds of it but it's still light years ahead of the f2.8 versions. The only thing I could replace mine with would be a DA 21mm Ltd. It's one of those lenses where you can compensate for lack of focal length (say if you see something interesting and don't have time to change lenses) by cropping and enlarging with little loss of sharpness.

Landscapes DA 18-55mm 1:3.5-5.6 WR
Portraits FA 50mm 1:1.4 (or alternatively the long end of the 18-55)