Portraiture..45mm f1.8 or 60mm f2.8?

Andrea Georgia wrote:

The first one really is a great portrait, Kaziklu, the lady with the red hat. Thanks for posting that. It illustrates my point about the 60, i.e. that it works for hard high contrast shots when well employed. But as you can also see on this image, this lens is unforgiving through its sharpness and high contrast, for instance when it comes to various kinds of skin imperfections. I found that it can also easily age people, emphasizing wrinkles and shadows. When used well, that can look cool, though. But it's not what I'd call a flattering lens. The 45 and 85 are much more flattering.

Regarding the FLs, yes, some think it's all about compression through telephoto. But I have no problems shooting a fast 50+ mm FF equivalent to get some lovely portraits. That being said I think that the 85/128 equiv. is also FL-wise actually the best portrait lens among the three. The 60 macro/90 equiv. is clearly good FL wise as you say, but I don't think it's a good enough portrait lens as I explained. Despite its relative shortness, the 45/68 equiv. works very well for portraits, trust me. I think Kaziklu doesn't have the 45 (or the 85). They have a very different character when compared to the 60 macro, and not just in terms of their compression rates. You guys should try them!

Andrea

I would much rather have the detail and soften if I choose to, than not have it. I have never ever had an issue using the 60. Soft focus lens have their time and place, for general purpose portraiture I want a good sharp lens.

I don't have the 45 that is a choice because I don't shoot at that focal length. 30 I do. 85 I haven't gotten because again I rarely shoot at that focal length, I tend to shoot 60 or 100.

The 85 is a nice compromise and I may pick up the Rokinon. As I shoot is a small space I have to pick the right focal lengths.

Complaining a lens is too sharp.. suggest you shoot a different kind of Portraiture.
I don't know though, I haven't seen any.