Color-Heliar 75mm or Apo-Lanthar 90mm???

[mdspace]

Somebody can give me an advise and suggestion, I want a lens for portrait photography. Considering that I have a Bessa R2 which lens can be better for me.

-The Color-Heliar 75mm f2.5 can be faster and be used in some dark conditions.

-The Apo-Lanthar 90 mm f3.5 can give me a better closed up.

Some experiences about it???

 

[Kim Coxon]

I prefer the 75mm lens. The difference in focal length is not that much. The extra stop in speed may not be that important for the exposure but it does give greater control over DOF.

Kim

 

[Ronald M]

I find 75 a little short for head and shoulder portraits because I have to get to close. 90 works well for me at 5 feet.

If you want full upper body or more, 75 works fine.

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

I had the Apo Lanthar, a couple of years back, and now regret parting with it,- it's great for 'tight' portraits - If I was thinking about 'general' shooting, though - I would probably now go for the 75

Dave

 

[Marsopa]

I've the two mentioned lenses (with a Bessa R) and it's difficult to decide which one is the best. The main con of the 90mm is it's size, too big for a RF IMHO, 75mm is lighter... with respect the extra stop I find it very useful. In addition 90mm it's a bit more difficult to focus with the Bessa R rangefinderBase and magnification, adding the narrower DOF for the same appertures due to greater focal length...

Two examples with 90mm (just received from the lab.)

 

[kalokeri]

I agree with Marsopa. 90 mm is harder to focus. Another advantage of the Heliar is the 75mm frame in the rangefinder. It just shows one focuslenght - you do not get confused.

All considered well I would vote for the Heliar 75/2,5.

Thomas

 

[Spyderman]

IMHO the 90 framelines on R2 are better, because you see the corners - I don't like the framelines where you only see central part of edge of the rectangle... but that's just my 2 cents.

 

[Todd.Hanz]

the 75 is great wide open, haven't used the 90:

 

[mdspace]

Thank you very much guys, I will consider all your advices.

By the way, I like your pics Marsopa and Todd.Hanz

Some more suggestions?

 

[kb244]

Well seems like (especially if you look at the examples above)

The 75 will give you a more shallow depth of field.
But the 90 will give you better perspective.

So totally up to you.

 

[dazedgonebye]

Actually, I think dof is a wash between these two lenses.

75mm at f2.5 at 3ft = 0.07 ft dof
90mm at f3.6 at 3ft = 0.07 ft dof (f3.6 is as close as the calculator would go to f3.5).

For me, it came down to the ability to get tighter shots at minimum focus. For others, the faster aperture would be more important.

 

[Todd.Hanz]

Actually, I think dof is a wash between these two lenses.

75mm at f2.5 at 3ft = 0.07 ft dof
90mm at f3.6 at 3ft = 0.07 ft dof (f3.6 is as close as the calculator would go to f3.5).

For me, it came down to the ability to get tighter shots at minimum focus. For others, the faster aperture would be more important.

Exactly, to me a shallow DOF is important in a portrait, I also like to show a bit more enviroment in my pics, YMMV!

Todd

 

[BillBingham2]

The fact that the R2 has a 75mm frame with no other frame lines in it would make it my choice.

B2 (;->

 

[payasam]

Naturally the 90 is better for tight portraits, but the 75 can serve both as a portrait lens and as a "normal".

 

[Marsopa]

As I've stated before I've both and I usually carry the 75mm and, sometimes, when I realize I've got a 90mm I mount itm and I do a full film... after that I'm very happy I've the 90mm... Uhmmmm I think that doesn't clarify too much... Shortly, if you want a useful, always ready and don't forget to take away take the 75mm, the 90mm will give you great moments too but (at least in my case) I have to sacrifice a little and let home the 75mm or make an effort and give it a little work

 

[spiderfrank]

same dilemma for me... Finally I bought the 90mm: I must say it's a fantastic lens, and I had no focusing problems, but I cannot say anything about the 75mm, it seems to be almost as good as the 90mm...

 

[hammerman]

i have the 90, had to make the same decision a while back. the 90 flattens depth perspective nicely at the longer end of the reach and is still sharp. framing on the R4M is tricky so i just centre the subject and work from there (i sometimes like to offset a subject in a wider lens). i'd get both, eventually, because they do different things. that's my four cents.

dj

 

[Marsopa]

If you can get both... I did even knowing that I'll use one of then few times and I don't regret the decission. (I can't resist GAS attacks)

 

[Fred]

For me it depends on what I'm out shooting with. I cannot do justice to the capability of either lens and I'm lucky to have them both.

Out with a two lens lightweight outfit I use CV35 and CV75 but a three lens outfit if I carry 28 - 50 - 90. Performance wise the 75 and 90 are both very good. I think I'd base my choice on what other lenses I had IMHO.

I don't think that you'd regret either.

Oh and some cracking examples posted on this thread,

 

[pvdhaar]

I've had the 90/3.5, and it was a good lens by itself. But I sold it after a while, as there were some things about it that kept me from being my cup of tea..

For starters, the physical length of the lens made it a tad awkward to handle, it also caused the camera to topple forward when hanging on the neck strap. But that's something that goes with long lenses I guess..

The main reason however was the framing. At the time, I had a 0.6x viewfinder Hexar RF, and the 90 frames were so small that it was a drag to compose a portrait.

Finally, the f3.5 aperture wasn't giving me fast enough shutter speed to handhold it in lower light conditions.

So, to me the 75 looks a lot better. Easier framing, more compact, and a full stop faster...