nightfly
Well-known
I generally shoot street with a 28 or 35. The M is basically a prefect tool for this. However I've been thinking about adding a longer lens for family/portrait type of stuff (more of photojournalism type of portrait than posed) and was wondering what type of lenses/cameras you guys like for this that don't break the bank.
For the M, the 75mm CV lens looks like a good choice here although I might like faster than a 2.5. Most of the other M or Screwmount 90s look really big. For about $300 this seems not too bad.
I was also thinking about picking up an SLR just for this type of stuff as it might be easier to focus and a built in meter might come in handy as well indoors or in more challenging light. So adding maybe an Olympus OM1 or OM2 and their 85/2 or 100/2.8. I could probably do this for roughly the same $300 give or take.
Any other things I should be considering in the 75-100mm range? How is working with a rangefinder here vs a SLR?
For the M, the 75mm CV lens looks like a good choice here although I might like faster than a 2.5. Most of the other M or Screwmount 90s look really big. For about $300 this seems not too bad.
I was also thinking about picking up an SLR just for this type of stuff as it might be easier to focus and a built in meter might come in handy as well indoors or in more challenging light. So adding maybe an Olympus OM1 or OM2 and their 85/2 or 100/2.8. I could probably do this for roughly the same $300 give or take.
Any other things I should be considering in the 75-100mm range? How is working with a rangefinder here vs a SLR?
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
for a manual slr lens, used, you will probably pay much less than 300$.
nightfly
Well-known
I was including a body too in that $300.
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
I find a long baselength RF more precise with focus at these focal lengths (say out to 90) than an MF SLR. I get more precise focus with my 75/1.4 on the M3 than I can reliably achieve with my OM-4T at similar focal lengths (and those lenses aren't as fast as my 75).
...Mike
...Mike
ferider
Veteran
It depends which M body you use. The M3 is great with short
teles (my favorites are the classic Elmarit and Nikkor 85/2).
I find the M6 75mm framelines almost unusable.
If you have less magnification than an M3, an OM + 85/2 is a great choice. But it will
give you a different look. OM + 85/2 gives you a physically smaller
combo than most short teles on a Leica.
Best,
Roland.
teles (my favorites are the classic Elmarit and Nikkor 85/2).
I find the M6 75mm framelines almost unusable.
If you have less magnification than an M3, an OM + 85/2 is a great choice. But it will
give you a different look. OM + 85/2 gives you a physically smaller
combo than most short teles on a Leica.
Best,
Roland.
nightfly
Well-known
I've got an M4-P. Not sure what the magnification is. Would the 85/2 Nikkor work with this?
How is the look of the OM lenses different? I'm thinking mostly for black and white film. I had heard that the Olympus lenses have sort of a Leica look to them so I'd be curious. I've never been a big fan of Nikon or Canon but I've also got a Pentax MX around and they have a nice 85/1.4 I think if you can find one.
How is the look of the OM lenses different? I'm thinking mostly for black and white film. I had heard that the Olympus lenses have sort of a Leica look to them so I'd be curious. I've never been a big fan of Nikon or Canon but I've also got a Pentax MX around and they have a nice 85/1.4 I think if you can find one.
peter_n
Veteran
The usability also depends on the focus throw of the lens. I use a Leica 75/2 which has a very short focus throw and is really easy to focus in dynamic situations. The CV 75/2.5 looks ideal too, provided you can focus it quickly. Most of the 90's have a long focus throw because they can be tough to focus - helps accuracy but not speed. A 35mm and a 75mm together are a very well matched pair...
ferider
Veteran
nightfly said:
Probably a .72 then. That should work but will not be very convenient.
You could add a magnifier, then it will become easier.
The Nikkor creates typical Sonnar images (strong 3D center punch), while
the 85/2 Zuiko is more modern in look. At f2.8 and up, in reality, one
might not see a lot of difference. Not sure about B+W, I shoot color.
Your SLR 85/1.4 will be hard to beat with any RF lens (except maybe the 75 Summilux).
ADD: If you go the SLR way, I suggest to also consider 135mm. I personally like
the Zuiko 135/2.8 better than the 85/2, more shallow DOF, sharp throughout
all f stops. The 85/2 is a bit soft wide open. The 135/2.8 is also cheaper, typically.
Roland.
Last edited:
puderse
Established
Short Tele
Short Tele
IMHO a 105mm Nikor in any mount can't be beat!
Short Tele
IMHO a 105mm Nikor in any mount can't be beat!
ferider
Veteran
puderse said:
Me and my 105
:
nksyoon
Well-known
The 90 frame area on my M6 is pretty small, I prefer this focal length on an SLR provided it has a good viewfinder and focusing screen.
This is an early (single-coated?) Zuiko 85/2 on an OM-1 with Neopan 400:
Same lens/camera on Neopan 1600:
Leica Elmarit-M 90/2.8 (current) with Neopan 1600:
This is an early (single-coated?) Zuiko 85/2 on an OM-1 with Neopan 400:
Same lens/camera on Neopan 1600:
Leica Elmarit-M 90/2.8 (current) with Neopan 1600:
ferider
Veteran
These are great, Nick. Here are some of my favorites with Nikkor 85/2 (on M3):
All on Reala.
Roland.
All on Reala.
Roland.
oscroft
Veteran
I've got a CV 75/2.5 and a Zuiko 100/2.8, and until recently I'd have said I would prefer the SLR approach for that kind of focal length. But I've been using the CV 75 (with a Bessa-R) a lot recently, and though it took a little while to get used to seeing not a full-frame full-size tele view but a wideangle RF view with a smallish rectangle in the midddle, I've come to love the RF view. What's really nice is being able to see around the frame, watching people and cars etc coming into and going out of frame, and being much better able to anticipate the timing of the shot. And the CV 75 is a stunning lens, IMO. Then again, the Zuiko 100/2.8 is no slouch either, though from what I've heard the Zuiko 85/2 can be a bit soft (I'll find out when I get one, which I'll do when I see one going cheaply enough).
So a conclusion to my rambling? I think I'd prefer the SLR route for static subjects, mainly because you get to see a 100% full frame view. But for people shots, where dynamic judgment is needed, I think being able to see outside the frame with a rangefinder puts it ahead.
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
Get yourself an Elmar 90/f4 if you want an inexpensive long lens for the M4-P. Another choice: the Elmarit 135/f2.8. Both have a reputation as good portrait lenses. The Elmar can be found as a C lens (for the Minolta CL and Leica CLE). It's a relatively small lens, a bit slow at f4, but from what I've read and heard from users, a very satisfying one.
The Elmarit can be found for around your budget or less, and it has goggles that set the 90mm framelines instead of the 135 ones. And it's fast, which gives you a nicer OOF area in case you needed it.
Have fun shopping!
The Elmarit can be found for around your budget or less, and it has goggles that set the 90mm framelines instead of the 135 ones. And it's fast, which gives you a nicer OOF area in case you needed it.
Have fun shopping!
Rico
Well-known
I have the 100mm range well covered with my 135 SLR system. An RF tele seemed like a waste of time, especially with shrunken frame lines and the .72x VF of my Leica. I changed my mind after getting an Elmar 90 - quite usable, and great results! I also got an external VF that provides 1x viewing, ultimate frame lines, parallax correction, and the brightest view available.
I don't use a 90mm on my .6x finder CLE as the frame is so small, but it's much more reasonable on the .72x M2. Still, I find it more enjoyable to run an 85mm on an SLR, and leave the shorter lenses to the RF. But the 75 Heliar is in-between, as it has its own 1:1 viewfinder that makes it great to use.