I agree with you concerning your statement: It all a matter of your personal perpective - I happen to find that flatten facial features make such portraiture look unsightly - sort of like a face pressed against a glass plane. The "normal" curved image plane gives the face a illusion of depth which in turns makes it look more 3 dimensionable which translates itself to a more pleasing image. Side by side comparison would make this clearer. I feel a need to make two points. First, I think that we need to clarify that Ian Lenord did not make the entire statement quoted in your post; he only made the last part below the dotted line. I was the one who made the statement quoted above the dotted line. I come away from Ian Lenoard's satatement with the impression that he thinks all Planar lenses are flat field macro lenses, which they are not. Most of the Planar lenses (including those in the focal lengths he describes) are regular non-macro, non flat field lenses. Indeed, the REGULAR Planar lenses in the focal lengths he describes are regular (non-soft focus) portrait lenses for the cameras he identifies. This brings up the second point which is the difference between sharpness in a lens and softness in a lens versus flat field and macro qualities of a lens. There seems to be a confounding of these distinctions. Some regular lenses which are called portrait lenses are of a given focal length for a given format and have very sharp qualities while others, which are specialty lenses, that are called portrait lenses are of the same focal lengths of a given format but are deliberately soft focus lenses meant to blur the image and disquise skin blemishes and flaws. Both are entirely different from flat field or macro lenses of identical focal lengths, which are also specialty lenses like the soft focus portrait lens but whose qualities revolve around a dimension of flattness of field and closeup capabilities as contrasted to the dimension of sharpness. -----Original Message----- From: owner-epson-inkjet@leben.com [mailto:owner-epson-inkjet@leben.com]On Behalf Of ellery Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 9:01 AM To: epson-inkjet@leben.com Subject: Re: Mamiya 120mm Macro for portraits On Mon, 29 Nov 1999 09:46:42 -0000, you wrote: > > >Since, at shooting distances, >beyond two feet, it does not do as good a job as a standard non-flat field >lens would do in terms of sharpness toward the edges of the frame, given >that the lens is corrected to be a flat field close-up lens whose use would >be in situations with shallow depth of field such as macro-photography. > >------------------------------------------------ > >Are you suggesting that flat field lens' are not suitable for portraiture?? >I'm sorry, but I find this amazing, What about all those 80mm and 135mm >planars on Hassleblads and Rolleiflexes around the world, surely zeiss >couldn't have got it that wrong? > >Ian Leonard. > Ian, It all a matter of your personal perpective - I happen to find that flatten facial features make such portraiture look unsightly - sort of like a face pressed against a glass plane. The "normal" curved image plane gives the face a illusion of depth which in turns makes it look more 3 dimensionable which translates itself to a more pleasing image. Side by side comparison would make this clearer. 8-) about all those planars well maybe they are not used for head & shoulder shots or even only for portraiture work after there is also fashion and glamour too to consider.. ellery - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions. - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.