Which SLR camera and lens for portraits?

[peterm1]

An option I would seriously consider is a Pentax Spotmatic camera because of the wide range of M42 lenses available for it at usually competitive prices. Its lenses tend to have "classic " rendering which is what you want. The older preset and semi auto versions of the lenses are especially good for classic rendering given their single coating technology.

My favorites are Takumar Super Multi Coated 85mm f1.9 or 85mm f1.8 (an earlier lens) Both perform exceedingly well but are among the rarer and more expensive lenses in the Takumar stable. The 105mm f2.8 is superb for portraits. Simply wonderful. It also sells quite cheaply. And both the 135mm f3.5 and the 135mm f2.5 perform extremely well. Both can be had for a song.

If you want to go beyond the Pentax line of lens (although I seldom find a reason to) the Jupiter 85mm f2 in M42 is also terrific. Being a Sonnar design it is perfect for portraits and general work as it has that lovely Sonnar rendering. Also an inexpensive lens.

Any of the Nikkors in this range will serve you well too. Do not discount the Nikkor 85mm f2 which is said to be a poorer lens than the 85mm f1.8. They are wrong. And as others have said the 105mm f2.5 is a super lens too.

Finally another marque to consider is Canon FL mount. These lenses are beautifully made and render superbly. I can personally vouch for the 85mm f1.8, the 135mm f3.5 and the 135mm f2.8. The range of lenses available is somewhat less though than with the M42 ones.

The good thing overall is that the main camera companies made many versions of lenses in this range and pretty well all of them are good to excellent as short tele lenses were core business for them back in the day. In fact I think you would have to work damn hard to find one that is poor. Of all of the above possibly the most classic rendering might be had from the Jupiter and i think this might render closest to the Elmar in terms of IQ.

Here is a candid photo made with the Takumar 105mm several years ago. I ended up with several of these as they were cheap and nice and because I wanted to compare them - early preset, semi auto diaphragm, Super Multi Coated and SMC versions. They all do very nicely with less flare from the later ones which have superior coating.

 

[CMur12]

Going back and re-reading Steve M's original post, he expresses a specific appreciation of a Leica lens. That being the case, he should probably stick to Leica, following suggestions above to add a Visoflex to his current RF or going to Leica R-series lenses and SLRs. No other brand will produce the "Leica-look."

Among the Japanese brands, Minolta was heavily influenced by Leica through cooperative working arrangements with the latter, resulting in similar optical design goals. These are probably the Japanese lenses most similar in their rendition to that of Leica, but they're still not exactly the same.

Unless one has such personal preferences, I don't think one could go wrong buying a camera and lens from any of the major manufacturers (in no particular order): Leica, Minolta, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, etc.

- Murray

 

[narsuitus]

Is there a vintage SLR 90-135 lens out there that may image in a similar manner? Since I'm starting from scratch, I can always buy a body to fit the lens. M42 mount would be nice...

I recently picked up a low-cost 105mm f/2.8 Pentax lens for my digital camera. I was very impressed with its performance.


Pentax 105mm Portrait by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[______]

An option I would seriously consider is a Pentax Spotmatic camera because of the wide range of M42 lenses available for it at usually competitive prices. Its lenses tend to have "classic " rendering which is what you want. The older preset and semi auto versions of the lenses are especially good for classic rendering given their single coating technology.

What is "classic rendering" and what makes it so?

 

[Robert Lai]

Classic rendering

Classic rendering

Here we are discussing the imaging properties of lenses as they commonly were found in the 1950 - 1970 period. Typically, they are single coated optics with some variation of the Tessar, Sonnar, or Planar lens formula. All spherical lens elements.

Wide open, they typically have a veiling flare and lower contrast, from spherical aberration. The centers are sharp, but the corners disappear into the mist. Usually by the time you stop down two stops, they are very sharp. Wide open, you may also see significant vignetting, which was often designed into a lens to make the corner deficiencies less obvious. Curvature of field may also be noted.

As you stop down, the center resolution improves, and the corner resolution improves even more.

The latest lenses use multicoated optics, and aspherical optics to "correct" these deficiencies, so that you have high contrast wide open, with sharpness extending throughout the field, even wide open.

 

[tunalegs]

Also - you're going to want more than five or six aperture blades.

 

[peterm1]

What is "classic rendering" and what makes it so?

Pretty much as Robert Lai describes. I like that classic look and in many cases prefer it to modern ultra sharp everywhere lenses. They are OK but can be a bit characterless. The older "classic" lenses provide some characteristics that can be described as faults (technically residual aberrations) they can be used much like a painter uses specific brushes / washes and techniques to get a specific effect in his pictures.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Any Pentax, with the non-Takumar, non-Bayonet 135mm f/2.5

 

[CMur12]

Any Pentax, with the non-Takumar, non-Bayonet 135mm f/2.5

I have a 135mm f2.5 Super Multi-Coated Takumar in M42 mount. Before that, Pentax offered Takumar lenses that weren't multi-coated. I thought Pentax lenses were all Takumars until they went from m42 to K/bayonet mount. How is the lens you describe different?

- Murray

 

[Doug]

Some screw-mount SMC Takumar lenses were re-issued as lower-priced models in bayonet mount under that name, I think single-coated rather than SMC. I believe the 2.5/135 was an example. Other main-line bayonet lenses carried the SMC Pentax name.

 

[CMur12]

Some screw-mount SMC Takumar lenses were re-issued as lower-priced models in bayonet mount under that name, I think single-coated rather than SMC. I believe the 2.5/135 was an example. Other main-line bayonet lenses carried the SMC Pentax name.

Thanks for the explanation, Doug.

- Murray

 

[oftheherd]

Do not neglect the 58/1.4 Nikkor: an amazing portrait (and flower) lens. The camera doesn't really matter so much.

For a cheaper option (silly cheap), try an 85/1.9 Pentax screw lens. Again, the body doesn't matter too much.

For REALLY cheap, consider a 58/2 Biotar or for that matter, and even cheaper, a 58/2 Helios. Avoid Exakta Biotars unless you're a masochist who likes Exaktas or Exas.

For a weird alternative, try the 135/1.8 sold as both Porst and Soligor.

Then there are REALLY CHEAP, nasty, old zooms like the 90-190/5.8 [sic] Yashinon that I used to have. Depends on how much you like (inadvertent) soft focus and distortion.

Finally, again in a search for quality so bad that it's good, stick an old, cheap teleconverter behind the fastest standard lens you can easily afford.

Beware of anyone who pretends that there's only one camera/lens combination that will meet your requirements, and that it's THEIRS. That's pure nonsense.

Cheers,

R.

Absolutely so on the bolded part. Thank you sir! Although I think we all tend to think what gear we have learned to give what we want, is the best thing for everyone.

Next, to the OP; I don't own Leica cameras or lenses, so I can't comment on the performance of any of them, nor comparisons to other gear, which I wouldn't have used either. Many RFF members have though.

But why do you think you can't use a rangefinder camera for portraits, and especially for flowers. If you have a tripod, close up lens, and a ruler, you have all you need. Well, except for experimentation, charts of distances for your close up lens, and practice.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffgallery/gallery/50/U50I1149874591.SEQ.0.jpg

The above is a hand held shot I made with a Canonet 17 and a close up filter #2. I used a metal tape measure to measure the distance from the chart that came with the filter. I exposed three shots, and posted what I though was the best of the three. I tried to ensure I had taken care of parallax concerns by sighting horizontally and vertically as best I could.

Close ups are possible with RF cameras. Close up filters will help and will work. Can any RF with a close up filter render the way you want? I don't have any idea. But your lens with a filter may. You should look for some books, or use google to search for using lenses for close ups. You will also want to know your lens' closest focus from the film plane, and what its coverage is.

Having said that, I personally prefer using an SLR for flower close up photography. I prefer using my Fujica ST 901 with my Fujinon 50mm f/35 macro lens. I can use it on tripod (recommended) or hand held if I don't have or want to use a tripod. I can and have reversed a 50mm f/1.4 (hand held over the lens mount) on both the Fujica and on a Contax mount camera. I have also used extension tubes for close ups.

I don't know if they even exist for Leica lenses. But if they do, again, you will be able to use the lens you want.

For people portraits I have learned to like 135mm lenses on 35mm cameras, mostly because that was what I could get. I also found a 100mm lens on a Super Press worked surprisingly well. But I am not you nor you me, nor are you likely to have the gear I have. Just experiment until you find what works best for you.

 

[jamin-b]

Nikon FM3A/FM2N/FE2/F3 with

Nikon 85/1.4 AIS or Nikon 105/2.5 AI(s)

Hear, hear!

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

For the old fashioned look, you could go after a Zeiss Sonnar in f/2 85mm as made from the 30's onwards.

The original was then re-issued by the USSR makers as the Jupiter-9 for the FED and Zorkis but may have found its way into the Zenit and Praktika M42 mounts and that means a wide range of cameras, quality and prices. Cosina were probably the last maker to offer the M42 mount.

The problem is that this old fashioned look is OK for portraits of young ladies and the not so young but you might want something a little sharper for flowers...

Regards, David

 

[radi(c)al_cam]

Going back and re-reading Steve M's original post, he expresses a specific appreciation of a Leica lens. That being the case, he should probably stick to Leica, following suggestions above to add a Visoflex to his current RF or going to Leica R-series lenses and SLRs. No other brand will produce the "Leica-look."

Among the Japanese brands, Minolta was heavily influenced by Leica through cooperative working arrangements with the latter, resulting in similar optical design goals. These are probably the Japanese lenses most similar in their rendition to that of Leica, but they're still not exactly the same.

Unless one has such personal preferences, I don't think one could go wrong buying a camera and lens from any of the major manufacturers (in no particular order): Leica, Minolta, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, etc.

I agree with everything what Murray wrote, except «Olympus», see below.

If you are looking for just one camera and lens, an Olympus OM body and Zuiko 90mm f2 macro will handle both portraits and flowers nicely. Lower cost alternative lenses are the Tamron SP 90mm f2.8 macro and the Vivitar Series 1 90mm f2.5 macro.

I'm quite certain that someone who has decidedly a preference for the Leica-look will be unhappy with Olympus lenses. As far as I've learned, the Zuiko lenses deliver (too) much contrast, and have on the other hand less resolution than the Leica lens user will demand.

 

[thawkins]

Minolta SRT101 with an F2 Minolta MD mount lens. Usually exposed on Delta 100.

 

[tunalegs]

I'm quite certain that someone who has decidedly a preference for the Leica-look will be unhappy with Olympus lenses. As far as I've learned, the Zuiko lenses deliver (too) much contrast, and have on the other hand less resolution than the Leica lens user will demand.

They are talking about an Elmar 90. There are plenty of sharper lenses out there.

 

[ChrisPlatt]

Asahi Pentax M42 (and later ES) screwmount lenses bore the Takumar name.
After Pentax switched to the bayonet mount some budget K and KA lenses bore the Takumar name.
These later models were typically not Super-Multi-Coated, or SMC.
The premium manual focus K-mount lenses were always SMC Pentax.

Hope this clears up the confusion...

Chris

 

[kb244]

Mamiya RB67 w/ 90/3.8C ...

hehe.

Or maybe an Olympus Pen-FT with a 38/1.8?

Or maybe a Hasselblad 500CM with an 80/2.8?

Or a Canon EOS-1 w/ a 50/1.8?

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Some screw-mount SMC Takumar lenses were re-issued as lower-priced models in bayonet mount under that name, I think single-coated rather than SMC. I believe the 2.5/135 was an example. Other main-line bayonet lenses carried the SMC Pentax name.

Yeah, I was referring to K-mount cameras/lenses, sorry! There are cheaper variations of the K-mount 135/2.5 marked "Takumar" or "Takumar Bayonet," which I think actually have a different optical formula from this one, which is very good: