Best portrait lens

[StephensRange]

Hi, What's a good mm for taking portrait shots of people? I'm using a Bessa T and a Leica M3 and need lens advice. So, far I have a 50 mm on both, which I guess is the "standard" for everything. I know low mm like 15-28 are for landscapes. Should I use a macro for portraits? Please advise. Basically, I'm somewhat bored with the 50 mm...looking for something unique, creative and different. Will I notice a difference between a $300 CV compared with a $1300.00 Rollei lens...picture quality-wise? I know. Too many questions...any advice greatly appreciated.

Steve

 

[doubs43]

For portraits, it's generally agreed that an 85mm, 90mm or 100mm are the best choices. Some may extend that range to include 75mm and 135mm. It you're on a limited budget, you may want to consider the less expensive alternatives which would be the 135mm (Hektor f/4.5) followed by the 90mm (Elmar, f/4). Either lens will give you excellent shots. Their limitations are the relatively slow maximum apertures. The faster f/3.5, f/2.8 & f/2 lenses will cost considerably more.

Walker

 

[eric]

Have you seen HCB's "PhotoPortraits" book? I think I read somewhere that most of the photos were taken with a 50mm Leica something lens (I'm Leica disadvantaged so I don't know which one it was).

 

[ray_g]

Should I use a macro for portraits? Please advise. Basically, I'm somewhat bored with the 50 mm...looking for something unique, creative and different. Will I notice a difference between a $300 CV compared with a $1300.00 Rollei lens...picture quality-wise? I know. Too many questions...any advice greatly appreciated.

Steve

Opinions on this vary. Some like using very sharp, and even macro lenses for portraits. I tend to do this more on men, especially older men, if I want to emphasize facial features. A light blue filter would also add to this effect.

For women, a softer lens may be better, to minimize blemishes and to lend a creamier look. You may also want to use a yellow or a diffusion filter, or even IR film to obtain this effect.

I would first try an inexpensive lens, until you know exactly what you need, before investing quite a bit of money. Personally, I prefer to use an SLR for portraits.

 

[jlw]

Hi, What's a good mm for taking portrait shots of people? I'm using a Bessa T and a Leica M3 and need lens advice. So, far I have a 50 mm on both, which I guess is the "standard" for everything. I know low mm like 15-28 are for landscapes. Should I use a macro for portraits? Please advise. Basically, I'm somewhat bored with the 50 mm...looking for something unique, creative and different. Will I notice a difference between a $300 CV compared with a $1300.00 Rollei lens...picture quality-wise? I know. Too many questions...any advice greatly appreciated.

Steve

I feel that lens selection for portraits is more a matter of your comfort level and style of relating to the subject than of perspective etc. You want to be far enough away that you don't make the subject uncomfortable, but close enough that you don't lose emotional contact.

It also depends on whether you want to make full-length portraits (showing all or most of the subject's body), environmental portraits (showing the subject in context of his/her surroundings) or head-and-shoulders portraits.

If head and shoulders, the easy answer is to go with a slightly longer lens; it makes the perspective of facial features look more like what we're accustomed to seeing, since we seldom actually look at other people from an "in-your-face" distance; the longer lens lets you shoot from a more conversational distance but cut out the extraneous background.

It's about the same issue with full-body portraiture, except that you'll want to choose a somewhat shorter lens to avoid being too far away. Personally I find a 50 is just about ideal for shooting casual full length portraits with the camera held vertically.

If you're trying to show the subject in his/her environment, then you'll need to choose a lens that includes some of that environment, so a moderate wide-angle might be the best choice after all (they're not just for landscapes; just be careful to use one in a way that doesn't distort the body's proportions, unless that's an effect you really want.)

Creativity and uniqueness are more a function of how you relate to the subject than what lens you stick on the camera; anyone else can buy the same lenses you can buy, so it's HOW you use them that determines how distinctive and personal your portrait photos will be.

PS -- I don't think it's likely you'll notice image quality differences between a CV and a more expensive lens. The CV lenses are all very well designed and produce high-quality images. And compared to the low-end bargain zoom lenses many people use on their SLRs, they're not cheap, either!

Basically, among currently-manufactured RF lenses, you're not choosing between "cheap" and "premium" optics -- it's more like your choices are "premium" or "super-premium." At this level, the differences between one lens and another are more of the style and "look" of image they create; it's a fine point that you probably don't need to worry about until you've got everything else about your portrait-shooting style dialed in and are looking for just that last little bit of expressiveness...

 

[peter_n]

Hi Steve and welcome to the forum! I think some people would consider 75mm a little too close to the 50mm, but anywhere in the 85-105mm range would probably be considered a "portrait" lens ("portrait" being head & shoulders).

See if you can find a slower lens, say an f2.8, that users describe as being a bit soft wide-open. That will be a lens that will be kind to older people yet if it is stopped down one or two stops will be much sharper. Then you'll have a bit of flexibility with a single optic. CV lenses are good but they are modern designs with high contrast, maybe an older lens would be more suitable for portrait work but it doesn't have to be a Leica or a Zeiss.

 

[GeneW]

If you Photoshop your results, a sharp lens may be preferable. You can turn it into any kind of soft focus look you want to, with simple techniques, but no technique can turn a soft lens into a sharp one. $0.02 ...

Gene

 

[bmattock]

The Canon Serenar 85mm v1.9 is a nice choice for portraits and doesn't cost too much. I agree with all the advice I've read so far in this thread.

 

[wlewisiii]

The Sonnar 85/2 lens is, by all accounts, an utterly marvellous portrait lens. It's FSU counterpart, the Jupiter 9, is available in LTM so it plus an adapter is a realatively cheap way to get an excellent lens. The catch is that in making it into an LTM lens, the Soviets really made a complex lens out of it and it's all too easy to get a bad example. OTOH, if you buy it from a reputable seller - Oleg or Fedka come to mind - then you'll have a much better chance of success and have the ability to easily return a bad example.

I have a Jupiter 9 in Contax/Kiev mount and it's an amazing lens. If I needed to do a true portrait, it would be the only lens I own that I would consider using.

William

 

[MCTuomey]

If your portraits will involve children I would tend to the 85mm and up focal lengths, Stephanie, if you're looking for something quite different from the 50s. I shoot the CV 75/2.5 and the Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8 and like them for candids. For portraits, lens "feel" is more important than focal length, IMHO. My T-E softens up a bit wide open, and so is kind to most faces. I like that, so do the subjects.

I think the sleeper portrait lens for the money would be the Canon 50/1.2, though I don't own it (but will one day). Get close, focus on the eyes, and whew - good stuff will happen. It's the RF equivalent of the EOS Canon 85/1.2, at about 1/5 the cost.

 

[nwcanonman]

The J-9 lens at 85mm is a cheap lens to see how you like "portrait" style lenses. Mine in LTM is sharp and has good OOF look too.
In an SLR, I use the Nikon 85mm f1.8, super results.

 

[pvdhaar]

If you're bored with the 50mm, then I can only suggest going wide. There's no reason to restrict yourself to long lenses for portraiture.

A wider lens allows a more environmental approach, where you can include the context of the subject, or when you're going closer allows a much more intimate rendering. In the latter case, you need to take special care to keep the camera level to avoid perspective distortion, and don't overdo it on getting up too close to avoid overemphasizing the center of the face (i.e. leading to big noses).

Wider lenses for portraiture are especially suitable to children photography. Small kids have relatively flat faces (very small noses in contrast to adults), where emphasizing shape does help, and here the intimacy of a wide lens also works well.

 

[simonankor]

I prefer 28mm or 35mm for portraits, and 75mm or 90mm for landscapes! I just like the option of isolating things in landscapes, and putting people in their environment in portraits. Mostly.

 

[Pherdinand]

If you can get close enough, a wider lens can produce very interesting perspectives for you. They certainly will NOT be "conventional" portraits, but in many cases I find them much better. Don't be afraid to go even ultrawide with portraits. Also, the myth of very large DOF with wide angles is just a myth; using a wide angle for people, you will have to focus much closer than with a 50-85mm lens which will mean the background will be relatively much further, so it will be out of focus plenty enough, unless you use a small aperture. I'll try to find an example to attach it here.

I'd say the only restriction you have is the space you have behind you()for longer lenses) and between you and your 'model' (for wides). The rest is up to you.

Also, you can explore a 50mm lens more - different angles, different backgrounds, high key, low key, and most importantly, the light itself; there are so many nice things to do with one single lens; a new lens is not always compulsory when you got bored of the old one.

Macro lenses are good to take portraits with only part of the face, e.g., which also can be very interesting.

 

[Pherdinand]

Here's an extreme example wit 17mm on delta3200 (not even wide-open but at f/8-ish)
and another one at 135mm, f/2.8 (could not find a longer-lens example; in fact i don't have a longer lens anymore)

 

[Richard Black]

Stephanie,
As you can see everyone has worked out their own preferences. I think all the advise is excellent and will give you mine. I have the Jupiter 9, 85mm, in 42mm mount, SLR, and cannot think of a way to improve on the images taken wide open. The OOF, out of focus area, is exceptionally smooth without harsh highlights, and it sharpens up as you stop down. It won't cost you alot and you can see if you like working with this length. My 2 cents!

 

[Beniliam]

I believe that the perspective of 50 mm its great for portrait. I have in my gallery some portraits that I did with the Nokton and the Elmar. I think that the only problem with the rangefinder lens its the minimal focus distance... With the Elmar I win 20cm compare the Nokton, but in the SLR exist some lens of 50 mm that have a very interesting minimal focus distance...

Other opinion that I have its that the wider lens, like the 28 mm, 24mm, 21mm, are great complement to take some intimate portraits of the model. I have the 21 mm Skopar of Voigtlander and its great! The wider perspective allows to compose very well. Because you fit the personage within a context.

 

[Skinny McGee]

90mm f4 prewar elmar soft

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

It is a matter of taste or application. I'd say either a Summar, Summitar, the 90mm Elmar, or, if you have money to burn, the 75mm Summilux, which I don't own, but man the bokeh of that lens is marvelous.

 

[Doug]

Skinny McGee, what kind of monster is that in the right-side background in that first pic (of the little girl)? Gargoyle-like face... makes for a nice contrast...