Looking for a portrait lens

[kuzano]

Bignositis ruins short tele lenses for me.....

Bignositis ruins short tele lenses for me.....

As I learned photography, one thing that was impressed on me was the tendency for normal and short tele lenses to produce big noses on portraits taken close up. So, now, every time I see a closeup portrait, my eye goes right to the nose. Then, I take in the rest of the picture.

I personally consider portrait lenses for 35mm to be in the range of 90-110mm. I find that those lenses allow me to look past the nose at the rest of the face.

What lens focal length do others consider appropriate for portrait usage?

 

[sepiareverb]

Nobody's mentioned the 75 or 90 Summarit? From everything I've seen and read the 75 is a real winner- betters the Summilux I think.

Kuzano- I love a 28 for portraits- when either a big nose is the point 😉 or when you're not wanting to be close. I really like how the 28 opens up space around the subject.

 

[rogue_designer]

Kuzano - depends on the type of portrait - and how much of the surrounding environment you want.

I find for my work the 50-85 range ideal. I also shoot many with a 35. But I'm not doing heavily isolated headshots. I own a decent 100 and 135, but find that I very rarely use them (especially with an RF).

--

I find the Canon 85 f2, and 100 f2 to be good bargains in this range. When you can find them. The 100 f3.5 and 135 f3.5 are also quite good.

 

[kuzano]

That's what I mean....

That's what I mean....

Here are some pics using the 105/2.5, in case you haven't seen this thread: http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49537

Nice appropriate noses on attractive children. With a 105. Would be interested in seeing these shots, shot at the same distance with a 75mm.

Great shots, including the follow up B&W's

 

[FrankS]

I like the 50.

 

[kuzano]

Kuzano - depends on the type of portrait - and how much of the surrounding environment you want.

I find for my work the 50-85 range ideal. I also shoot many with a 35. But I'm not doing heavily isolated headshots. I own a decent 100 and 135, but find that I very rarely use them (especially with an RF).

--

I find the Canon 85 f2, and 100 f2 to be good bargains in this range. When you can find them. The 100 f3.5 and 135 f3.5 are also quite good.

Granted, I was talking about isolated head shots, like those of the children shown. Every scene has it's best lens. However, I would choose to fill in a gap at 90-110 before I would buy gear in the 70-85 range for 35mm.

Personal observation only.

 

[rogue_designer]

Granted, I was talking about isolated head shots, like those of the children shown. Every scene has it's best lens. However, I would choose to fill in a gap at 90-110 before I would buy gear in the 70-85 range for 35mm.

Gotcha - whereas I have very little desire or need to shoot isolated close cropped portraits, and tend to lean towards shorter teles and normal lenses for this work.

Different needs, different aesthetic.

 

[vrgard]

Another factor when choosing between a short tele (say 75-85mm) and a bit longer tele (say 90-100mm+) is how physically close one typically is when taking portraits. Distance can be more easily controlled in a studio setting but if one's portraits are typically taken in a living room or backyard patio/deck setting it can be advantageous to be in the short tele range (75-85) else all one can get is very tightly framed pics. And that may be exactly what you want in which case the longer tele lenses are great. Otherwise, the short tele range may be your preference. I'm not arguing for one over the other, just pointing out that one's typical shooting setting and hence range is another factor to consider and why I enjoy using both a 75 and a 90mm lens.

-Randy

 

[larmarv916]

Ok....if what you want is the natural perspective of your eye. Technically you really would be talking 135mm as that is actually the closest match. That is an old rule of thumb. But if what you want is close perspective then the even the 90mm is to long as the compression is cramping any feeling of space in the acutal facial features. So for close work isolation is a matter of F stops. But for the most natual feal as if you were sitting across the table from your subject the 75mm lens gives enough air and space. The voigtlander is a really excellent lens and priced resaonalbe.

Good luck

 

[Cron]

latest series preasph Summicron 90 are pretty cheap nowadays and are very nice portrait lenses used wide open or even at f/4.
I also like the Hex 90 which is smaller than the current Elmarit and offers similar picture quality. Another option would be the very good CV 2,5/75

 

[Hacker]

There is also the a wonderful Hexanon 90/2.8, if you can find one.

Here you go:

http://cgi.ebay.com/KONICA-90MM-F-2-8-M-HEXANON-KM-MOUNT-LEICA-VOIGTLANDER_W0QQitemZ180210484443QQihZ008QQcategoryZ30063QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

[ferider]

Really depends on your budget:

.) around US 300: get the Elmarit v1, or one of the Tele Elmarits. You will be amazed how small the Tele Elmarit is. Or the Heliar 75/2.5.
.) around US 450: get the M-Hexanon
.) around US 650-700: get the 90/2 v3 or a black Nikkor 85/2.

Best,

Roland.

 

[gberger]

IMO. The 90 2.8 Elmarit is an ideal portrait lens. Excellent bokeh, and it approaches my all-time favorite, the old Nikon 105 2.5 that my son-in-law proceeded to borrow in 1972 and then lose it. In projection, my old Kodachrome 105 slides and the newer 90 slides on Provia are very close. With projection, it's almost a toss-up.

The 90 balances well on my M7 and it isn;'t too large a lens. I use a Voightlander 90mm external viewfinder, as shooting portraits isn't a "Quick! - - grab the shot while you can" form of shooting.