Portraits with 100mm?

[keeds]

Anyone got any portrait examples with the 100mm lens? I'm thinking about this camera and the 100mm to do mainly full length and head/shoulders. I know it's a little short but any thoughts?

 

[Ralf]

I don't have any scanned examples, however 100mm is considered good for head and shoulder portraits as the distortion of facial features has basically vanished. It may even be considered a little long. I think the classic portrait lens is 85mm (Pentax have made a host of versions of this lens including "soft" focus). At this focal length, the lenses are generally fast (F1.4 - 2) and cost a bomb.

BTW 100mm may be a little long for full lengh portrats indoors, you'll need a fair amount of distance between yourself and your sbject. 50mm or wider is OK in this instance as the facial distortions will not be present due to the greater distance you are from the subject.

Hope this helps

 

[eric]

Anyone got any portrait examples with the 100mm lens? I'm thinking about this camera and the 100mm to do mainly full length and head/shoulders. I know it's a little short but any thoughts?

I don't know much about the Bronica Med Format but I've seen lots of shots with 100mm Hasselblad. Its considered one of their sharpest lens. You'll be far back to have it full figure though.
I'm the opposite, I like wide angles. I like full bodies with the 50mm (about a 24 or 28 in med format).

 

[doubs43]

The 100mm lens is a great head & shoulders portrait lens IMO. While I don't have one for my RF cameras (I have 85 & 90) I have used my 100mm E. Zuiko on my OM's quite a lot in the past and the pictures are everything you'd expect. If you can find - or already own - a RF lens in 100mm length, use it. You should be pleased with the results.

Walker

 

[doubs43]

I don't know much about the Bronica Med Format but I've seen lots of shots with 100mm Hasselblad. Its considered one of their sharpest lens. You'll be far back to have it full figure though.

In 6x6 format, the 100mm lens would be the equivalent of a 67mm lens on a 35mm camera. To achieve the same look as a 100mm lens on a 35mm camera, you'd need a 150mm lens for 6x6, 6x7 etc.

Walker

 

[Ralf]

Anyone got any portrait examples with the 100mm lens? I'm thinking about this camera and the 100mm to do mainly full length and head/shoulders. I know it's a little short but any thoughts?

Keeds, are you referred to MF or 35mm? This makes a differnce to the answers due to the relative differences in field of view (and therefore distortion with close subjects).

My original reply to your post was of course referring to 35mm.

 

[Doug]

Since Keeds posted this query in the Bronica RF forum, I'd assume that's the system he's concerned with. 🙂

I've been shooting a lot of environmental portraits with the 645RF, but with the 45 and 65mm lenses. Since I'm concentrating on moving in close to my subjects, and showing their immediate surroundings, I don't often use the 100mm lens, nice as it is. Here is the only portrait sample I could locate in my files that was shot with the 100mm lens...

 

[keeds]

Hi guys. I was meaning 100mm with the RF645. i.e. MF.

Doug, thanks for posting the image. Sure looks like a nice lens. I was thinking of the wides for full-length and environmental portraits, but was wondering if the 100mm was too short for close head&shoulders without distortion. It would be my only MF setup for portraits. I don't want to not be able to do tight shots with the setup.

Might be irrelevant anyway as finding a 100mm seems to be impossible.

 

[Doug]

True that fewer 100mm lenses were sold, as far as I know, and this was the most recently-introduced lens as well. It replaced the earlier 135mm f/4.5 which is even more difficult to find! I have my eye out for one... most were recalled.

The distortion you mention comes from getting in too close. I just live with it with my wide-angle shots, as it also adds a sense of intimacy and involvement. Standing back 10-12 feet gives a more detached and remote sense to the shot.

I like the 100mm, but it has an odd close-focus "limit"... It is marked to 1.8 meter (6ft), but will focus to 1.2 meter (4ft)... this marked only with a long engraved line indicating the optional/danger close-focus zone. I think this is due to shaky RF accuracy in this range at wide aperture, and the manual suggests stopping down to enhance the sharpness of the focus object. Of course this distance range 4-6 feet is prime portrait distance for nice perspective! With care it should be workable, though.

Here are a couple more shots with the 100mm on the Bronica...

 

[Ralf]

Apologies. I'll look a little harder next time. It's a newbie thing. I spent 1/2 hour trying to work out how to start a new post here the other day, and then did it by a completely wrong forum. Apologies for wasting time, space and bandwidth. Cheers.

 

[Nick R.]

Ralf,
Don't sweat it and keep posting!

Doug,
That portrait with the 100mm looks great. I've just about given up trying to find one.

 

[Doug]

No problem, Ralf;glad to have your participation! 🙂

 

[titrisol]

Never shot portraits with a 100mm in MF, should be like a 60mm in 35mm right? maybe you'll be to close to the model for that use.
But with a Pentax 645 and a Rolleiflex SL66 portrits were shot with 150mm lenses

 

[Doug]

Never shot portraits with a 100mm in MF, should be like a 60mm in 35mm right? maybe you'll be to close to the model for that use.
But with a Pentax 645 and a Rolleiflex SL66 portrits were shot with 150mm lenses

Head & shoulders portraits? There are portraits, and then there are other portraits; here are a few of my "people at work" with wide lenses on the Bronica...

 

[titrisol]

oops, yes "studio" portraits (head and shoulders)
I worked with a pro-photogrpaher during my 1st college years (80s and 90s)

Head & shoulders portraits? There are portraits, and then there are other portraits; here are a few of my "people at work" with wide lenses on the Bronica...