pvdhaar
Peter
Make your Bessa-T hang vertical instead of leaning back on the neck strap.. Weirdest placement of strap lugs ever, requires quite a heavy lens to hang straight.
peterm1
Veteran
For the most part I prefer shooting with longer lenses too. Mainly for the reasons you mention. I do however tend to succumb to the charms of fast 90mm's and the like, though but am trying to force myself to stop down more in most cases as I realize I can get shallow DOF with them at f4 or less. I am not altogether averse to carrying heavy fast (mainly longer) lenses though so long as they perform both open and stopped down depending upon my needs on the day. But I seldom shoot with less than 50mm lenses no matter how fast they are.
Last edited:
ellisson
Well-known
Yes, for portraits a 90mm f2.8 or even f4 can work for me on my mirrorless cameras. I admit a fascination though - and I emphasize fascination - with Leicas 75 f1.25 and 90mm f1.5 M lenses. These big, heavy and fast lenses are tripod-worthy and house down-payment worthy items. I haven't researched them very much because the cost is prohibitive and I just can't see the advantage of that much speed in these longer lenses, assuming you can obtain focus with any of them wide open without an EVF of some type. Maybe using with M to L adapters to their SL cameras is more practical. But the gain beyond 75mm 1.4 in their summilux or the 90 mm f2 in their summicrons? Night shooting?: Dial up the ISO. Bokeh?: go closer, and not even that close! I think they are truly engineering wonders of lens design without a real artistic application beyond themselves.
phojsu
Member
I share your fascination of the 7Artisans 75mm f/1,25 and frequently pair it with my CV 35mm f/1.2 as a specific lowest light kit for my pair of M-9 bodies. These only get used between WFO and f/2.8. Another pair of lenses I much prefer are my CV 75mm f/1.8 and 35 Summicron IV, much less bulk and better ergonomics.
As to DoF, I agree that f/4.0 is sufficient to limit the depth in close-ups.
One lens that I very seldom use anymore is my 90mm Elmar. This image was made in 2009 with my then M-8.2 ( I have a real distaste for crop sensors going back to the early ditcams my paper issued me) with the 90 Elmar likely WFO and near the close focus distance.
As an aside my daughter then a high school senior now has two baccalaureate degrees and is nearing completion of a MFA in graphic design. Still this is among my favorite portraits of her.
Leica M8.2 with 90 Elmar, 1/500 @ (likely) f/4.0 @ ISO 160, uncropped.
As to DoF, I agree that f/4.0 is sufficient to limit the depth in close-ups.
One lens that I very seldom use anymore is my 90mm Elmar. This image was made in 2009 with my then M-8.2 ( I have a real distaste for crop sensors going back to the early ditcams my paper issued me) with the 90 Elmar likely WFO and near the close focus distance.
As an aside my daughter then a high school senior now has two baccalaureate degrees and is nearing completion of a MFA in graphic design. Still this is among my favorite portraits of her.
Leica M8.2 with 90 Elmar, 1/500 @ (likely) f/4.0 @ ISO 160, uncropped.
Last edited:
Dogman
Veteran
Fast lenses had more utility when people used film cameras (and for those who still do). Slow ISO--ASA for those of my generation--required wider apertures. But with today's digital cameras capable of not just usable but superb images at stratospheric ISOs, high speed lenses are really not a necessity. They're more of a fetish. The out of focus elements are now treated with the same importance of the main subject by some photographers. I'm not sure what constitutes "great bokeh". To me, if the background is not distracting, it's what it's supposed to be.
Despite all this, I still have several fast lenses I really like. They are versatile in their abilities. They have that "look" when shot at wide apertures and they are very, very sharp when stopped down to smaller apertures. In the end, I still prefer a photograph that emphasizes the subject and the light over one that just shows how a lens performs.
......................
Despite all this, I still have several fast lenses I really like. They are versatile in their abilities. They have that "look" when shot at wide apertures and they are very, very sharp when stopped down to smaller apertures. In the end, I still prefer a photograph that emphasizes the subject and the light over one that just shows how a lens performs.
......................
Bill Clark
Veteran
They make your wallet lighter.
Mcary
Well-known
That is so so true lol,, I'm currently trying very hard not admit to myself that my Yashica Mat-124g with its 80mm F3.5 does an equal if not better job of isolating a subject than my M2 with its 35mm or 50mm lux for less than 1/10th the cost.
Rayt
Nonplayer Character
With modern Leica lenses the Summilux will have less contrast than whatever else Summicron and Elmarit available. I prefer lower contrast. The current 28mm Elmarit has cornea slashing high contrast while the Summilux is not. Same with 24mm 3.8, 35mm f2 asph and apo, et al.