Portrait lenses

alfa · 01-30-2006

There no better place to ask than this: which the best bargain? which M-mount portrait lens with the best quality over price ratio? better 75 mm or 90 mm?

I'm not specialized in portraiture even though I find it everyday more interesting. I would use it with my R2 at the moment, until I find the cash for a Leica M.

Thanks and take care!

rover · 01-30-2006

Good news for your, they are all good!!!!

CV 75 and 90 are great and inexpensive
Old Nikkor 105 and 85 are legendary
Every Leica 90 is exquisite
The Canon 85/2 and 100/3.5 are sharp and highly regarded

I would warn that on the R2 shooting a fast/long lens takes more care to focus, so I would shy away from a 90/2 and be aware to take care when focusing, but you can't make a good go with any of them.

Here is one of my first shots with the CV 90/3.5. It was taken at 1/15 or 1/30s wide open, so consider that, the steadiness of my hand is more at fault for flaws than the sharpness of the lens.

Justin Viiret · 01-30-2006

I agree with Rover -- pretty much everything you can get for an RF that's normal or longer (some might even say 35mm or longer) is good, and some are superb.

From Leitz or Leica, I've had very good results with the 50/2 summicron (both DR and rigid type 1), the 90/4 collapsible elmar and the 90/2.8 "thin" tele-elmarit. I take a lot of indoor candids with the CV 40/1.4, which I really like. Some samples in here on Flickr, and they should be all tagged with which lens was used.

The CV 75 and 90 have very good reputations, too. I'm not sure if the R2's baselength is long enough to accurately focus some of the faster other lenses, like the Canon or Nikon 85/2s, but someone else here will know.

I'd say that if you like the low-contrast look, an older Leitz 90 or a Nikon or Canon 85 would be the way to go. If you want a more "modern", higher contrast look, go with CV -- it'll likely cost you a little more, but you'll get a modern, coated lens with no scratches and good flare suppression for the extra money.

TEZillman · 01-30-2006

A couple months ago I shot portraits of 24 members of our church's Board of Elders with the current 90mm f4 macro elmar -M. The results were excellent. Several members commented that their's was the best portrait that they'd ever had taken. Other members were a bit taken aback about just how sharp and revealing the portraits were. One thought he looked a bit too much like a corpse and another was surprised how old he looked.
If you're looking for soft, flattering portraits, you may want to look at an older version of one of the portrait lenses or use one of the several techniques for softening a lens, such as covering the lens with a "soft" filter or a clear filter smeared with a bit of vasoline or by covering the lens with a piece of stocking or pantyhose material.

laptoprob · 01-30-2006

The old uncoated Elmar 50 has done wonders for me. So did the 1,2 Canon 50. I can't wait to compare them to the upcoming Quinon Sonnar 50.
The Summicron 90 is quite another beast. Big, heavy and fantastic. Maybe I will not sell it after all.

Rob.

Fritz K. · 01-30-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by ferider

Just a vote for the 90/2.8 thin Tele Elmarit. Very small, great performance, and I got mine in almost mint condition for less
than US 300. You will need a hood though.

Best,

Roland.

Indeed. This lens gave me very good pics last year. And was one of my lucky buys from evilbay. Highly recommended.

best regards,

peter_n · 01-30-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by ferider

Just a vote for the 90/2.8 thin Tele Elmarit. Very small, great performance, and I got mine in almost mint condition for less
than US 300. You will need a hood though.

Best,

Roland.

I'm with Fritz and I say amen to everything in this post. The thin TE is an awesome little lens. Having said that I got a new APO 90/2 ASPH a couple of weeks ago and I can't wait to see the results from that one.

raid · 01-30-2006

I would add the Canon 85mm/1.9 lens as a good peformer for a good price. Of course, the 90mm Summicron is a great lens. I am glad I did not sell my old style Summicron. What a classic lens it is.

Todd.Hanz · 01-30-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by alfa

There no better place to ask than this: which the best bargain? which M-mount portrait lens with the best quality over price ratio? better 75 mm or 90 mm?

I'm not specialized in portraiture even though I find it everyday more interesting. I would use it with my R2 at the moment, until I find the cash for a Leica M.

Thanks and take care!

I hate to sound like a broken record but "for the money" the CV 75/2.5 heliar is a great portrait/short tele. A couple samples...

Todd

wlewisiii · 01-30-2006

Bargain? Well, if you are willing to live with/learn to love uncoated lenses there is little other ill that can be said about the 90/4 Elmar. I've only just started using mine, but it is a wonderful lens.

Uncoated lenses are a different world if you haven't used them, but some of the effects can be quite delightful, especially when doing portraits with color film.

William

alfa · 01-31-2006

Thank you for all your suggestions. The problem is, effectively, focusing with the R2 at close distances....that's why I can't use the 50 mm summicron I allready have. I needed closer, tighter shots, soft in the out of focus areas, very sharp where focused.
I haven't decided what to buy yet though, I'll have to go through a few galleries to decide what's best for my use.

pvdhaar · 01-31-2006

Something that hasn't been mentioned so far is the convenience factor. Quality of the optics aside, you'll frame with either the 75 or 90mm framelines. Make sure that the focal length you end up with can be comfortably framed with the framelines you have available in the viewfinder. A frame that's too small for you is no fun to use..

Another consideration is the working distance. If you're often working in confined spaces, the 90mm may be too narrow to be able to step back far enough.

As for isolation of subject matter, the 90/3.5 and 75/2.5 have identical DOF of approx. 6cm (2.5") at their max apertures for a focus distance of 1.5m/6ft. For the same magnification as the 90 has at 1.5m, the 75/2.5 focused at 1.25m distance has an even shallower DOF of ca. 4.5 cm (1.75").

sgy1962 · 01-31-2006

I believe you need to ask yourself how you intend to use the lens -- inside with natural light or outside; with family and freinds or candids of strangers, what other focal lengths do you have or intend to obtain, do you intend to take head and shoulders or half body shots, what is your main focal length, ect. The answer to these types of questions will give you some idea of the focal length needed, as well as the speed.

A very good lens, which can be picked up on the used market fairly economically, is the current 90mm Elmarit. At a max. aperture of 2.8, it will be somewhat limited in available light situations, which is the forte of rangefinder photography, but its optical performance is excellent; much better in my opinion of Leica's prior 90mm lenses, which tend to be soft wide open. As a practical matter, you probably will not want a larger aperature on a 90mm lens used for portraits for depth of field reasons.

The field of view of a 75mm lens is not much different then that of a 50mm lens. So if you have a 50mm lens, then the 75mm lens, in a sense, is somewhat duplicative.

The 75mm lens, however, makes a good companion to a 35mm lens. But so does a 90mm lens. I'm starting to believe that a 75mm lens would be a great indoor portrait lens, especially for friends and family where you can get as close as you want.

There is a cost consideration also: Leica 75mm lenses -- whether a Summilux or Summicron -- and, whether new or used, will be very expensive. Leica 90mm lenses can be obtained relatively cheaply.

The 75mm lenses are all (they are only two) optically great, even wide open. The same cannot be said for the 90mm lenses, except the current generations. But some degree of softness is not bad for portraits.

raid · 02-01-2006

The earlier 90mm Summicron is not bad at all when used wide open. It is very sharp when closed down a little.

Josef Isayo · 02-01-2006

I'm mostly an enviromental portrait shooters so the 35 and 50mm are my favorite focal lenghts.

Josef

paulh · 02-01-2006

Try the 50 summilux. Very nice for portraits with shallow depth of field at 1.4. Focus on the eyes and the rest fades away in a super creamy way!

Cheers,
Paul

payasam · 02-02-2006

I have a 100 and an 85 with which I'm satisfied, but I think a 75 makes a great deal of sense. For one thing, it's not so long that it can be used only for head shots. For another, the shorter focal length will make possible longer hand-held exposures. Finally, being a minimalist at heart, my ideal combination is two lenses: a 35 and a 75.