Lenses that are great up close

N

notturtle

Well-known
Local time
7:17 AM
Joined
Feb 21, 2009
Messages
342
View My Gallery
I am finding a number of my lenses leave me wanting when it comes to their close up performance. They are OK, but only OK. I am finding myself doing certain types of portraits and that I am not getting quite the razor sharpness up close that I am used to at more moderate distances.

Can you recommend M-bayonet lenses in the various FLs that are known for great close up performance. I am not talking macro here, just regular lenses that hold up well close in. Lenses with floating elements might be out of my price range (like the 24 1.4 Lux) but I may just be able to stretch to something more modest. I am aware that the 50 lux asph and 75 cron have floating elements, but what about shorter lenses?

I am particularly interested in lenses in the 24-35 area.
 
I suspect any of the modern Leica glass that will focus to .7 meters would do well. I work in a big church nursery and take and post photos of the newborns. For this my 50mm Summilux asph is great. Set it to .7 and move in and out to achieve focus. I have never used my 28mm Summicron for that but I am sure it would perform well, it's a great lens. When my daughter was an infant I got out my old DR Summicron and that's a great lens too. Good Luck. Joe.
 
Well my friend, I have the Leica M 35mm f/2 Summicron ASPH, and it's certainly to me very sharp at close range and even at wide open f/2 aperture.

Check this link:

http://www.pbase.com/shanelam/image/114871104

I remember that this snapshot portrait was shot close enough that I had to back off a little bit to get proper focus on the eyes. Aperture was indeed wide open at f/2

Give the lens a try if possible, You might find it more than sharp enough for you ;-)
 
Last edited:
Portraits with biting sharpness? Most subjects don't want to see detail in their pores. Shorter than 85 or 90mm lenses don't give great perspective on tight head shots. If you want a 90 with "biting sharpness" you'll need an SLR body and a 90mm f/2.5 Vivitar Seies One. They're not too common so find the lens first and then pick up an SLR body that'll fit the lens.

The 40mm Summicron-C is extremely sharp but the Rokkor-C is cheaper. The same formula though. Pick up a Visoflex and you can use the 65/3.5 Elmar. The later black ones are a slightly diferent formula than the chrome and supposedly sharper. I've had both and couldn't see the difference.

Really though, you're chasing a will-o-the-wisp. You want sharp? Shoot 4X5. Swings and tilts can do wonders for sharpness in a portrait.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
 
Last edited:
The 24 Summilux is terrifyingly expensive but if you can try one you may well see why.

I seldom disagree with Al but this time I do. Not about the 90/2.5 -- I have one -- but about the wisdom of carting such a heavy lens, plus another body, along with your Leica gear. Also, it's not the focal length you were asking about -- though if you are prepared to consider longer lenses I also have a current 75/2 and it's pretty amazing (floating elements again, as you say).

Cheers,

R.
 
Assuming that your camera is in-spec, I'm wondering if focus shift is cauising a problem. I've shimmed a lot of 50mm lenses to work best close-up and wide-open. Otherwise, they would have been best stopped down a bit. Most focus-shift occurs between the lens being wide-open and F5.6 or so.

I would do some tests with the lenses that you have, to find where the actual best focus occurs when used close-up and wide-open.

My Sonnars tend to be best close-up and wide-open because I shimmed them for it using a through the lens viewer to match the camera's RF.

picture.php
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know you asked for M mount. But ....

... if you want an affordable high IQ fast wide angle with perfect close up performance (correction for focus shift), the Hexar AF has it.

Roland.
 
Not an M-mount and not a wide lens, but I find that LTM Nikkor 5cm/1.4 is very sharp at .7m (mine was modified to focus this close), while also giving you a nice bokeh:
n5cm10.jpg
 
Notturtle, I can't help with wide angle lenses, but in 50mm I find my Jupiter 3 quite reasonable and, in 90mm, my Apo Lanthar is excellent. I do not know why Al chose to be dismissive, even hostile, but he talked sense in the matter of perspective.

[edit] Come to think of it, anyone would be confused by "certain types of portraits ... in the 24-35 area."
 
Last edited:
The vintage Summaron 35f2.8 is very good at the 0.7 setting. In my opinion - better than most of the Summicron 35's (except the Asph 35f2). It is also a bit more modestly priced than the rest of them!
Why discount the Summicron 50 DR with its "eyes" in place. A very good and pleasing 50 portrait lens.
Bot the 50f1.4 Asph and the 75f2 are razor sharp at close focus - but as portrait lenses - they are almost too sharp - every flaw in skin, every wrinkle etc stands out.
The Planar 50f2 is right up there with the Leica glass - as is the Ultron 28f2 when it comes to close up performance.
I suspect that what is more important than absolute sharpness is that the lens and the camera it is used on are well matched - and calibrated. If so - just about any of the current crop of lenses will do a good job.
 
If you are looking for minimum focus sharpness, the 50 and 90mm hexanon-m's are really hard to argue with and likely impossible to beat for the price. These have been my first pick for f/2 fashion work for a long time now.
 
Al Kaplan said:
Portraits with biting sharpness? Most subjects don't want to see detail in their pores. Shorter than 85 or 90mm lenses don't give great perspective on tight head shots. If you want a 90 with "biting sharpness" you'll need an SLR body and a 90mm f/2.5 Vivitar Seies One. They're not too common so find the lens first and then pick up an SLR body that'll fit the lens.

The 40mm Summicron-C is extremely sharp but the Rokkor-C is cheaper. The same formula though. Pick up a Visoflex and you can use the 65/3.5 Elmar. The later black ones are a slightly diferent formula than the chrome and supposedly sharper. I've had both and couldn't see the difference.

Really though, you're chasing a will-o-the-wisp. You want sharp? Shoot 4X5. Swings and tilts can do wonders for sharpness in a portrait.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com
Click to expand...

This is not for classical portraits, Al. If it were I would agree with you. This is a case where I do want biting sharpness in a wide angle lens up close and I am happy to accept the distortion - it is actually something I use to achieve pictorial ends. This is for reportage environmental portraits where every pore, mark and speck of dirt I want recorded. I need to shoot 35mm in the main and have my Mamiya 7 for when I want to use something larger.

I have a 35 biogon and it is a great lens, but not spectacular at min focus and wide open from what I have seen. I have nothing wider that I rate highly up close. I can see that the biting sharpness I get at a few metres is not there at min focus. The equipment is focusing correctly (tested) but there is some loss of performance.

I have the SLR side of things sewn up and a very good 90mm for my RF. What I am after, as I say, is something at the wider end in M-mount that is great up close.

Thanks for the reccs on the 35 asph. I might look into this one further, but it would be an expensive solution. A 28 that is great close up would be the ideal in some respects as it fills that middle ground.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Photar
EL lenses for macro purposes?
Replies
6
Views
349
Photar
Photar
T
Agfa Close-up lens help - Natarix 35
Replies
6
Views
1K
titrisol
titrisol
das
Favorite and/or Recommended 28mm Lens in M42?
Replies
13
Views
3K
caila77
caila77
boojum
Macro - Close Up Work
Replies
17
Views
2K
boojum
boojum
A
Your underrated lenses
5 6 7
Replies
133
Views
6K
Dayrell bishop
D
Back
Top Bottom