Best 'portrait' 50mm lens

Yes, Raid. It was after reading your 50mm testing threads months ago that I started to became REALLY aware of the trouble I'd got myself into by falling for rangefinder gear. There are sooooo many intriguing choices... so many different 'characters' lurking amoungst the Leicas, Zeisses, Canons, Jupiters, etc.. Its getting so difficult to make decisions given my very limited budget that I'm almost at the point where I could welcome a DSLR and a homogenous line of lenses. :)
 
No wonder Raid has all those 50s!! I mean, I'm just looking for a portrait lens thats sharp in the middle and soft at the edges. Then add one for low-light, sharp across the frame, one for daylight... on and on. I can picture having to build a shelf running across my office here to hold them all! :) I was hoping I could get away with just two! Well... maybe after I attach a price tag to all those lenses you've all described your love for, I'll find one that fits the bill, so to speak. :)

Thanks, again RFF members for always having a ton of useful info.
Jamie
 
Jamie Pillers said:
Thanks, William. Are the Elmars the only reasonably priced Tessar designs around?
Click to expand...

Shooting M/LTM lenses, you will find nice user Elmars for much less than other western made Tessar derivative designs. However a nice condition Industar 22, 26 or 50 (collapsible or rigid does not matter other than for aesthetics) is a good quality Tessar design for much less cost. Usually these lenses were simple enough that even the FSU couldn't FUBAR them. But not always so there is still an element of chance with the Industars. Buy an Elmar and you'll have a damn good guess what you have.

The other option is a Kiev & a Jupiter 8 but that's a whole different (perhaps better, perhaps not) can of worms.

William
 
Thanks, William. I notice that Steven Gandy, in his Leica M lens User Guide, says good things about both the Elmar 50/2.8 and 50/3.5. Any thoughts about these?
 
I have the Canon EF 50/1.4 and CZ P50/1.4 C/Y: these are way too sharp and clinical for portrait, plus the bokeh is unpleasant. My fav is the original M-mount Elmar 50/2.8 with its gentler rendition. The bokeh is just lovely, and the 15-blade diaphagm keeps the specular blurs circular at all apertures. Price is right, too.

That said, I prefer tighter framing, and use 90-100mm lenses.
 
Jamie Pillers said:
Thanks, everyone for your ideas. I forgot to mention that I use primarily color negative film. Tom, that last image you posted is the look I like. Rich color, soft at the edges.
Click to expand...

i realise this is the exact opposite of all the old, uncoated lenses that everyone is mentioning.... one that fits your needs to a T is the Zeiss ZM C-Sonnar.

there has been discussion of the focus shift, but i recently had mine recalibrated to f/1.5 (can't say enough about Zeiss customer service!) and have no trouble focussing now. wide open, it's as soft as you could want with beautiful bokeh and gives faces a dreamy look whilst still sharp. the colours are lush and gorgeous.
 
The first version Summilux 50mm (1959-1961) has the qualities you are looking for and lovely out-of-focus rendering. Great for people, both b/w and color. The lens can/should sell for significantly less than the second version, and may be obtainable for not much more than you are looking to spend, with good luck.
 
Jamie Pillers said:
Thanks, William. I notice that Steven Gandy, in his Leica M lens User Guide, says good things about both the Elmar 50/2.8 and 50/3.5. Any thoughts about these?
Click to expand...


My choice of a portrait lens would be the Voigtlander heliar 50mm f2 - I have recently become obsessed with the look of the images it makes around f2-f2.8.

Otherwise, I also like the Elmar 50mm 2.8 for it's beautiful gentle rounded yet sharp look @ 2.8. I will be buying a heliar soon though.
 
Jamie,

The discussions above reveal to all of us that personal preference is driving the choice of 50mm lenses. The rest seems to be cost. While I would love to use a Noctilux, I settle for a Canon 50/1.2.

I managed to find a Zeiss Tessar 50/2.8 LTM. It was modified at one time from an M42 mount Tessar lens into LTM. It has some nice features, but having so many other options, it is a lens that is not my first choice. Again, this is a personal view.

The [old model] Elmar 5cm/2.8 is pretty sharp, and it may be a very nice portrait lens. It is sharp enough to reveal all faults in the skin ... etc. It is not a soft lens. The Elmar-M is even sharper wide open.
 
Hi Jamie,

I actually quite like the lens you have now for portraits, the Canon LSM 1.4. If you like a different kind of Bokeh, what about the ZM C-sonnar 1.5?

Otherwise Raid would be the reference here. He has compared dozens of 50mm lenses in the past, look for his past posts.
 
Jamie, you might be able to find a type 1 Summilux for $450 but at that price the glass will more likely than not be junk and you will need a CLA. No way I would part with my ZM Sonnar for that price, though that was the first lens I thought of when I read the OP. The old Summarit is in the price range if you can live with the lens' sagittal coma - if you have followed threads on the Summarit here you know some love it, others don't.

AFAIK there are no "fast" Tessar lenses - the design is not capable of it. Stating the obvious - under the same lighting you will be shooting Fuji 1600 with the Elmar instead of ISO400 with a Sonnar.

And BTW - Brian Sweeney doesn't work on the J-9. I think Kim Coxon does, or you can DIY.
 
Last edited:
jmkelly said:
Jamie, you might be able to find a type 1 Summilux for $450 but at that price the glass will be junk and you will need a CLA.
Click to expand...
I got mine, cosmetically nice and mechanically smooth with pristine glass, for $420 at a camera show from a dealer who knew Leica very well. I think this was a nice, lucky find but also not out of the question for a lens that most people bypass.
 
Hi Jamie,

Either the 50/2.8 or 3.5 versions of the Elmar will give you a good lens. The older 50/3.5 lenses are probably one of the truely great bargains in Leica glass. I prefer a slower lens and using the light & film to make up for it as I find them to be very high quality lenses. When pushed to 50/2.8 & from before about 1960, the Tessar design is getting to the ragged edge of it's technical performace limits. That's not saying it's bad, but the slower ones can be more consistant in their performance.

That said, I find of late, my 50/2.8 Tessar is mount far more often than my 50/2, 50/1.8 or 50/1.5 lenses. It all depends on what you like the look of.

William
 
I will enjoy reading this thread to see what people think as I would like some tips on rangefinder lenses for portraiture myself. But must admit I have been shooting digital SLR quite a lot lately and can report that I have been getting good results from three lenses on my D200.

The Nikon 50mm f2 (an old pre AI one converted to AI.) This lens produces a lovely rounded image. The later 50mm f1.4 (AIS) which is sharp but especially wide open produces lovely soft bokeh and similar comments can be made about the 105mm f2.5 (the early Sonnar type) for those occasions when you need to go longer. So for anyone diverging into digital they give some ideas. For rangefinder I have three 50s that I think would be nice but have not experimented with much in portraiture. The Leica 50mm DR Summicron, the Summitar (late coated) and the Canon 50mm f1.4 (I prefer the 1.5 Sonnar but do not own it.) You have reminided me that I need to get out and give these a try.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom