What is a portrait lens for FF or 135?

[john_s]

I would also like to add that I use a shorter focal length when doing head + shoulder or closer portraits of very young children (say 50mm on full frame 35mm film). Their noses are small and therefore don't suffer from the exaggerated "looming" look that would occur if someone were to use such a technique on me with my large bumpy old nose. For that I would use 85 to 135 (and a softening filter, but that's another story).

 

[uhoh7]

Are you going to keep insulting us until we all agree with you? Good luck with that.

agreement not required, but TY for wishing me luck 🙂

Don't be sorry. You are just wrong.

OK, I'll leave out the sorry.

If a portrait lens is any lens, why ever use the term? "Lens" is fine.

 

[back alley]

this has to be one of the 'dumbest' threads in a long time...everyone is allowed an opinion even if no one else agrees with it.

it would be nice if we could disagree in a more friendly manner though.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

Just in case anyone is interested in the original, 80mm on FF and 50mm on DX, for head or head/shoulders portrait. I like to shoot from a close interaction with the subject.

But, seriously, I saw some remarkable portraits, half-torso, taken with a long lens from a distance. Very nice separation of subject from background. I just don't know how you talk to your subject from so far away.

 

[rxmd]

But I was wrong to say 135 is outside the portrait FL---I'd never even heard of 135mm portrait lenses (though I do have a 135/2 soligor), but there are a number of them, especially apres 1985.

Actually the "après 1985" bit is wrong too. It really is a classic focal length, most camera lines included one right from the beginning (Contax and Leica in 1933, Nikon RF in 1948, Nikon SLR in 1959). Ever ask yourself why the M3 has a 135mm frameline?

If anything, the focal length became somewhat less popular after 1980 or so, which might be why you'd never heard of it.

It's also a good focal length for architecture.

 

[Keith]

Actually the "après 1985" bit is wrong too. It really is a classic focal length, most camera lines included one right from the beginning (Contax and Leica in 1933, Nikon RF in 1948, Nikon SLR in 1959). Ever ask yourself why the M3 has a 135mm frameline?

If anything, the focal length became somewhat less popular after 1980 or so, which might be why you'd never heard of it.

It's also a good focal length for architecture.

I always thought it was Leica catering to the 'soccer mums!'

 

[ferider]

Just saying hello to Keith - was about time.

Everybody else carry on 🙂

 

[Keith]

Just saying hello to Keith - was about time.

Everybody else carry on 🙂

Hi Roland ... thanks for noticing my sneaking in like that! 😀

 

[Vics]

I once thought the answer to this was simple

The answer is not that simple. The Portrait lens thing started because long lenses make faces look more attractive. Now the question arises: Is it the portrait photographer's job to make the subject more attractive than he is, or is it to convey to the viewer WHO the subject is? That's the question the photographe4r must answer for himself.
Alfred Eisenstedt made a portrait of Josef Goebbels, Minister nof Propaganda for the Nazi Party with a wide angle lens ((Eisie loved the 35mm lens on his Leica) and it made Goebbels look evil. Arnold Newman took a similar tack when photographing a war profiteer in his factory. Wide lens, lit from below.
I think that if I were photographing Angelina Jolie, I'd use a 90. On a tripod to counter my shaking hands!
When I do portraits of friends and family, I use a 50.

 

[rxmd]

I always thought it was Leica catering to the 'soccer mums!'

135mm is the new soccer lens.

 

[kossi008]

The mathematically correct answer is the first one, of course.

Everything else is personal preference, and mine runs towards 50 to 100 mm focal length on full frame, or 35 to 75 mm on my Nex.

I'm still checking the first one to remind myself to always challenge perceived boundaries. 😀

 

[Sparrow]

 

[Sparrow]

Why doesn't the image-code work in the "Polls" section?

 

[uhoh7]

Actually the "après 1985" bit is wrong too. It really is a classic focal length, most camera lines included one right from the beginning (Contax and Leica in 1933, Nikon RF in 1948, Nikon SLR in 1959). Ever ask yourself why the M3 has a 135mm frameline?

If anything, the focal length became somewhat less popular after 1980 or so, which might be why you'd never heard of it.

It's also a good focal length for architecture.

The thread has turned pleasant and interesting, so i hesitate to chime in, lest I turn it back to pirahna attack 😀

My impression has been: yes there have been 135's forever, but show where they are mentioned as "lenses for portraitutre" or "portrait lenses" in camera literature before say, 1965.

The 85's were the "portrait lenses" untill the nikkor 105 came into wide use--with the exception of the CZJ Biotar and some others---at least according to the lens makers.

Of course this does not mean superb protraits were not shot with the 135 and every other focal length, but "portrait lens" implied a FL range in the 35mm lexicon----i suspect 135 was originally outside that range--after all the 135s were slow--but, please prove me inccorrect in this asumption.

In 1955 Japan, the opitime of a portrait lens:
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6123/5968979242_fa56c7c469_b.jpg

 

[21-135 Apo All Good]

The thread has turned pleasant and interesting, so i hesitate to chime in, lest I turn it back to pirahna attack 😀

My impression has been: yes there have been 135's forever, but show where they are mentioned as "lenses for portraitutre" or "portrait lenses" in camera literature before say, 1965.

The 85's were the "portrait lenses" untill the nikkor 105 came into wide use--with the exception of the CZJ Biotar and some others---at least according to the lens makers.

Of course this does not mean superb protraits were not shot with the 135 and every other focal length, but "portrait lens" implied a FL range in the 35mm lexicon----i suspect 135 was originally outside that range--after all the 135s were slow--but, please prove me inccorrect in this asumption.

In 1955 Japan, the opitime of a portrait lens:
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6123/5968979242_fa56c7c469_b.jpg

This before 1965 argument is totally bogus! The 135mm focal length is a magical tool because it can make an obese person look great in a nice tight head shot or even head & shoulders. 40 years ago I was trained in a working portrait & wedding studio. Portraits were done with a 250mm lens on a RB-67 for head & shoulders and a 250mm for the 'blad for head shots. Both cameras used on tripods, Photogenic Strobes and C-22 ASA 100 CPS Professional exposed @ ASA 80. Yes I'm a dinosaur but using tools that make people look good enough to eagerly PAY to have pictures taken is what being a professional is all about.

So ENOUGH already about what a camera magazine or literature or some other BS source says, cause I'm here to tell ya "way back when" most everybody used medium format (or larger) unless they were using K-25 or K-64 for studio work. My own wedding portrait was done on a 5x7 view camera with a 4x5 reducing back, using only the "sweet spot" of the lens' center.

So that's the reality of the late 60's & early 70's.

 

[uhoh7]

This before 1965 argument is totally bogus! The 135mm focal length is a magical tool because it can make an obese person look great in a nice tight head shot or even head & shoulders. 40 years ago I was trained in a working portrait & wedding studio. Portraits were done with a 250mm lens on a RB-67 for head & shoulders and a 250mm for the 'blad for head shots. Both cameras used on tripods, Photogenic Strobes and C-22 ASA 100 CPS Professional exposed @ ASA 80. Yes I'm a dinosaur but using tools that make people look good enough to eagerly PAY to have pictures taken is what being a professional is all about.

So ENOUGH already about what a camera magazine or literature or some other BS source says, cause I'm here to tell ya "way back when" most everybody used medium format (or larger) unless they were using K-25 or K-64 for studio work. My own wedding portrait was done on a 5x7 view camera with a 4x5 reducing back, using only the "sweet spot" of the lens' center.

So that's the reality of the late 60's & early 70's.

great post

i would note the efl of 250mm on your RB is 121mm--40 years ago that was a state of the art rig--i think first year was 1970, no?

Many seem to think I'm claiming you can't do great portraits on 135 or longer. Or that the term "portrait lens" used in reference to a particular flocal range, implies that's where all the good portraits come from--or that pros of "the day" never used longer glass for portraits.

I don't think or claim such a thing, but love to read posts like this anyway 🙂

 

[rxmd]

The thread has turned pleasant and interesting, so i hesitate to chime in, lest I turn it back to pirahna attack 😀

My impression has been: yes there have been 135's forever, but show where they are mentioned as "lenses for portraitutre" or "portrait lenses" in camera literature before say, 1965.

This is getting a bit tedious and let's ignore the moving goalposts (from '85 to '65), but you did ask to be shown something. So for example, Morgan & Lester's "New Leica Manual" of 1954 lists the 125/f2.5 Hektor listed as "particularly desirable for sports and portraiture", the Contax IIIa manual of 1955 lists the 135 Sonnar as a lens for architectural details, pictorial landscapes and portraits, the Leitz USA lens directory from 1937 mentions the 90 and 135 as having the same range of applications, and the Leica catalogs of 1957 and 1964 list the 135s as lenses for portraiture. You can find PDFs of all of that at Michael Butkus' site if you want to check for yourself.

Actually it seems pretty common - in fact I would be very surprised if the earlier literature said anything else than "longer lenses make flattering headshots", as already pointed out by "21-135 Apo All Good". You can probably find this wisdom back well into the 19th century (except that back then many photographers would probably simply use a smaller plate rather than a longer lens). The 1965 deadline seems pretty arbitrary to begin with, too.

 

[uhoh7]

This is getting a bit tedious .

I stand corrected. Sorry that is so tedious.