csemetko
Member
Hello All,
I've read the reviews and comparisons between the pre-asph 50 summilux and the 50 asph summilux, but I'm wondering which lens would be better for head shots for actors. I'm guessing people will say the ASPH for young actors and pre-ASPH for those with wrinkles, but if you have any other thoughts or actual portrait comparisons they would be appreciated.
I will be shooting portraits on an M8.2 in color at iso 160 or 320 and 125 shutter speed and 2.0 or 2.8 aperture. The background is non-descript smooth gray concrete. I am using the pre-asph now, and the results are very good, but if the ASPH will give me a little more punch, or "wow" factor, the difference could mean more business. I occasionally use the 75 Summilux, but have a harder time focusing it. Attached is a head shot taken with the pre-ASPH 50 lux, last version before the ASPH. Punched up the contrast a bit, and sharpened a bit also. The color is out of the camera.
If I buy the ASPH I would also be using it for street photography, either on an M8.2 at 640 or on an MP with tri-x. I live in LA where the sun shines an awful lot, but most of my street photography will be shot elsewhere. I suppose I could keep both, but that seems a bit extravagent and would probably sell the pre-asph if I buy the ASPH.
Boiled down, for my needs, should I keep the pre-ASPH or buy the ASPH?
Thanks in advance,
Craig
I've read the reviews and comparisons between the pre-asph 50 summilux and the 50 asph summilux, but I'm wondering which lens would be better for head shots for actors. I'm guessing people will say the ASPH for young actors and pre-ASPH for those with wrinkles, but if you have any other thoughts or actual portrait comparisons they would be appreciated.
I will be shooting portraits on an M8.2 in color at iso 160 or 320 and 125 shutter speed and 2.0 or 2.8 aperture. The background is non-descript smooth gray concrete. I am using the pre-asph now, and the results are very good, but if the ASPH will give me a little more punch, or "wow" factor, the difference could mean more business. I occasionally use the 75 Summilux, but have a harder time focusing it. Attached is a head shot taken with the pre-ASPH 50 lux, last version before the ASPH. Punched up the contrast a bit, and sharpened a bit also. The color is out of the camera.
If I buy the ASPH I would also be using it for street photography, either on an M8.2 at 640 or on an MP with tri-x. I live in LA where the sun shines an awful lot, but most of my street photography will be shot elsewhere. I suppose I could keep both, but that seems a bit extravagent and would probably sell the pre-asph if I buy the ASPH.
Boiled down, for my needs, should I keep the pre-ASPH or buy the ASPH?
Thanks in advance,
Craig
Last edited:
aizan
Veteran
if it's a business decision, i'd stick with the pre-asph.
Sam N
Well-known
Can't you avoid the focusing issues with the 75mm by shooting at 2.8? It seems like 75x1.3 would give you a much more appropriate FOV for headshots.
FA Limited
missing in action
i agree, get a longer lens. in your headshot, the guy's nose is really prominent.
MikeL
Go Fish
That might not be due to the lens, with the OP farther away for the equivalent field of view on the M8.
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Keep the pre-asph for portraits and use the hell out of it.
RichardB
Well-known
Portraiats are normally shot with 75mm and above. I use the 75mm ASPH which is one of the sharpest M lenses ever made and just prefect for head shots. Focus on the nearest eye and take mulitple shots.-Dick
35mmdelux
Veni, vidi, vici
Tell that to HCB...
Tell that to HCB...
The 90mm and 105mm are far better for head/shoulder shots. In portraiture, sharp is not always better. The 75mm is too wide for head shot, IMO.
Tell that to HCB...
The 90mm and 105mm are far better for head/shoulder shots. In portraiture, sharp is not always better. The 75mm is too wide for head shot, IMO.
cfc247
Established
i agree
i agree
I agree with the other comments on focal length. I think if you were simply shooting environmental portraits, the 50 or even a 35 would be perfect. But actors take head shots for very different reasons and for agencies.
I have the 50 pre ASPH as well and for my type of shooting it is fine. But if I was shooting actors and was paid to take head-shots, I would either use my 90 elmarit or consider buying the 90 AA (though very bulky not an issue if you are doing studio shooting on sticks).
Here is a sample of the framing difference between the 50 pre ASPH and the 90 Elmarit. The first is shot with the 50 pre ASPH lux, at pretty much the min. focus distance. The second was taken with the 90 Elmarit.
i agree
I agree with the other comments on focal length. I think if you were simply shooting environmental portraits, the 50 or even a 35 would be perfect. But actors take head shots for very different reasons and for agencies.
I have the 50 pre ASPH as well and for my type of shooting it is fine. But if I was shooting actors and was paid to take head-shots, I would either use my 90 elmarit or consider buying the 90 AA (though very bulky not an issue if you are doing studio shooting on sticks).
Here is a sample of the framing difference between the 50 pre ASPH and the 90 Elmarit. The first is shot with the 50 pre ASPH lux, at pretty much the min. focus distance. The second was taken with the 90 Elmarit.
thomasw_
Well-known
Respectfully, I do disagree with sonofdanang, there are many times when I do wonder which lens was involved in the image. Not only that, I sometimes wonder which paper or developer, etc., was used. Those questions of a technical nature can arise from the final image in my experience. I guess I am rather alone in thinking this way?
But, more to the OP, I do agree that for head shots with a RF a longer FL like a 90 or 135 is desirable. Especially if that is the main end for which you are aiming the lens. Yet if you want a more versatile longish lens, that 75 lux is already the bees-knees; and although there are more functional lenses for head shots per se, that lux can still do them in grand mandler style. I find it straigh-forward focussing my lux 75 on a mp .85, but when I use it on any VF with .72x it gets really tricky. I can only imagine what it would be like on a M8's .68x. Back/front focussing aside, that could be part of your hit/miss experience.
Good cheer,
Thomas
But, more to the OP, I do agree that for head shots with a RF a longer FL like a 90 or 135 is desirable. Especially if that is the main end for which you are aiming the lens. Yet if you want a more versatile longish lens, that 75 lux is already the bees-knees; and although there are more functional lenses for head shots per se, that lux can still do them in grand mandler style. I find it straigh-forward focussing my lux 75 on a mp .85, but when I use it on any VF with .72x it gets really tricky. I can only imagine what it would be like on a M8's .68x. Back/front focussing aside, that could be part of your hit/miss experience.
Good cheer,
Thomas
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Talent and lighting trump lens model every time. Sonofdanang is right on.
A few years back I shot some portraits for what amounts to the National Gallery of the Tibetan Government in Exile: guerilla warriors, a nun who had been tortured, that sort of thing. I used a 1980s 90/2 because it was what I had.
Today I'd as happily use my 75/2 or Thambar or 90/3.5 Apo-Lanthar.
The only actors' head-shots I've done, I've totally forgotten what kit I used. They were good pics and he was happy. That's all that matters.
Cheers,
R.
A few years back I shot some portraits for what amounts to the National Gallery of the Tibetan Government in Exile: guerilla warriors, a nun who had been tortured, that sort of thing. I used a 1980s 90/2 because it was what I had.
Today I'd as happily use my 75/2 or Thambar or 90/3.5 Apo-Lanthar.
The only actors' head-shots I've done, I've totally forgotten what kit I used. They were good pics and he was happy. That's all that matters.
Cheers,
R.
Last edited:
Al Kaplan
Veteran
I agree with Roger on the lighting. That's very important. I've done plenty of these, but they were on film, full frame, so an 85 or 90mm lens was what I used. I wouldn't choose a 50 unless I was far enough away to be shooting waist up. For a 50 get a first version f/2 Summicron or a 50/1.8 Canon
I also wouldn't be wasting money on aspheric lenses. A single coated lens forty or fifty years old is fine. A few scratches or cleaning marks on the front element helps too. Nobody wants to see tack sharp pores on their face. Two good candidates would be the 8.5cm f/2 Nikkor and the original "long" 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit, although they're both pretty sharp lenses.
I also wouldn't be wasting money on aspheric lenses. A single coated lens forty or fifty years old is fine. A few scratches or cleaning marks on the front element helps too. Nobody wants to see tack sharp pores on their face. Two good candidates would be the 8.5cm f/2 Nikkor and the original "long" 90mm f/2.8 Elmarit, although they're both pretty sharp lenses.
peter_n
Veteran
I agree with Al. Who wants a dermatology lesson? I find the Nikkor 85/2 and the Summicron 90/2 (pre-ASPH E55) do a great job.
Fraser
Well-known
Head Shots=SLR
Head Shots=SLR
Head Shots=SLR
Head Shots=SLR
Head Shots=SLR
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Head shots can be done with anything that can focus fast - and does not alert the subject. Manual focus no motor SLRs are fine, and rangefinders are even better because they don't even have a mirror slap to give the subject a advance warning. Most people manage to build up at least some traces of tension within these fractions of a second between mirror snd shutter.
Accordingly, AF and motor cameras are a poor choice for head portraits - though you may get away with them on actors if you want their public rather than their private face, for the reasons above.
Sevo
Accordingly, AF and motor cameras are a poor choice for head portraits - though you may get away with them on actors if you want their public rather than their private face, for the reasons above.
Sevo
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Why?
Many of the greatest head shots (Hollywood 30s) were taken on 8x10.
I've used Leica, various formats of SLR from 35mm to quarter-plate, various view cameras up to 8x10...
Tashi delek,
R.
Fraser
Well-known
Head shots with SLR
Head shots with SLR
This is my opinion take it or leave it, I think as soon as you go over 90mm its much easier to use an SLR especially when you want a flattering head shot, buying a decent autofocus Film SLR is so cheap now with a good 135 or 80-200 that it does'nt make sense to me to spend money on long lenses for your leica M.
Here's a head shot using an SLR, he's a bit of an actor.
Head shots with SLR
This is my opinion take it or leave it, I think as soon as you go over 90mm its much easier to use an SLR especially when you want a flattering head shot, buying a decent autofocus Film SLR is so cheap now with a good 135 or 80-200 that it does'nt make sense to me to spend money on long lenses for your leica M.
Here's a head shot using an SLR, he's a bit of an actor.
Attachments
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Hold on. You're saying that you can do it with an SLR, so you should do it with an SLR.
Well, yes, if that's all you've got,and all you have the experience/skill for. And I totally agree that agonizing over which of two totally unsuitable 50mm lenses to use is pointless.
Here are three of my favourite head shots. In order. left to right, the pic of Frances was taken with a 90/2.2 Thambar on an MP; the Tibetan freedom fighter with an M4-P and 90/2 Summicron; the male head shot with a 21 inch Ross on an 8x10 inch De Vere. And they're head shots, not reportage, unlike your pic of Gordon Broon. Tomorrow I'll try to find a head shot of an actor (the three above are on www.rogerandfrances.com).
Tashi delek,
Roger
Attachments
Last edited:
Fraser
Well-known
Im saying make life easy for yourself.
MCTuomey
Veteran
what roger said. better to consider lighting which, for some reason, you didn't mention at all. perhaps describe what you you're using. from the sample pic i was thinking you had window-based light, but i also see small catchlights so not sure.
as for lens, if it's headshots you're producing, choose by focal length. any one in the preferred FL will do just fine. i don't think the fifty works well in the pic - largish nose and lack of compression as mentioned earlier. for me, a fifty suggests a portion of the environment will be part of the composition. how will you incorporate your nondescript wall effectively?
i think attention belongs on lighting and background use/positioning of the subjects.
as for lens, if it's headshots you're producing, choose by focal length. any one in the preferred FL will do just fine. i don't think the fifty works well in the pic - largish nose and lack of compression as mentioned earlier. for me, a fifty suggests a portion of the environment will be part of the composition. how will you incorporate your nondescript wall effectively?
i think attention belongs on lighting and background use/positioning of the subjects.
Last edited: