Which SLR camera and lens for portraits?

S

Steve M.

Veteran
Local time
2:12 AM
Joined
Jun 21, 2009
Messages
3,378
It's almost January, and everything is blooming right now in Florida :]

I'd like to buy a 35mm camera and take some B&W flower shots, as well as portraits. My preference for IQ is the old Leica 90mm f4 Elmar, but for this use a rangefinder won't work.

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, but I'm open to any mount that might give a similar look. I am fully prepared to hear "nothing", as that is what I suspect, but you never know what others may have used.
 
Steve M. said:
Which SLR camera and lens for portrais?
Click to expand...

I use the following Nikon telephoto lenses for portraits on a 35mm camera (listed left to right in the photo):

105mm f/2.8 micro (excellent for portraits and flowers)
85mm f/1.8
180mm f/2.8
105mm f/2.5
80-200mm f/2.8
75-150mm f/3.5 Series E
135mm f/2 (not in photo)

All are excellent portrait lenses. The optical differences between them are very subtle.


Portrait Lenses by Narsuitus, on Flickr
 
I'm going to agree with the SRT and 2.5/100 Rokkor suggestion.
Minolta renders color beautifully.
The lens is "portrait soft".
In b&w one can get a vintage look.
The Rokkor extension tube turns it into a great closeup lens.
It's an unfound jewel in the 35mm world.


The Nikkor/Nikon 2.5/105 is an incredible lens indeed. But it shows every detail of lady skin. And that is generally considered not acceptable. And my guess is that less than 30-40% of your portraits are going to be adult males where the Nikon lens would perform well. I have it. I love the lens. But NoBody likes any photo I've made with it where there is a female subject. It's emotionally negative.

The 4/90mm Elmar is a decent suggestion however if the limits of rangefinders are not a issue for you and color film is not going to be used.

That's my two cents.
 
Last edited:
The cheap option.
Since you mentioned M42 mount.
A Fujica ST605n and the cheapest third party 135 f2.8 in M42 mount you can find.
Problem. Most of these lenses focus to 5 feet, not really close enough for some flower photos.
 
Any Nikon manual-focus body with the 105/2.5 is a classic combination for portraits. Steve McCurry used this lens with an FM2 body to take the famous "Afghan Girl" portrait for Nat Geo.

For flower photography, it helps to have a waist-level finder capability so you can get the camera low to the ground and look down on to the focusing screen. Nikon F, F2, F3, F4 or F5 will give you this capability. My preference would be for the F3 body. Any of the Micro-Nikkor lenses will be very good, but the 105/2.8 Micro will let you shoot from a comfortable distance.
 
I, too, am partial to manual-focus Minoltas. The focal length will depend upon what you want to do. For tight head-and-shoulder shots, I find the 135mm focal length to be just right.

The Minolta/Rokkor lenses I use for portraiture are the 85mm f1.7 (my favorite and "normal" lens), the 100mm f2.5, and the 135mm f2.8. Minolta also made a couple of zooms in this range: 50 - 135mm f3.5 and 75 - 150mm f4.0.

- Murray
 
Just going to add my +1 for the 105/2.5 Nikkor, you can grab them all day in the 50-75$ range if you stick to n/AI. A classic portrait lens.

If you can afford more, I would grab the 180/2.8 for portraits. By far one of my favorite Nikkors it has such surreal out of focus areas, I'll try and post photos below.

I would add the 55/3.5 Micro which IMO is a stellar all around standard lens, you can get the 2.8 for a little extra, I could be partial! I paid a whole 10$ attached to a junk FM2 at a local auction. I still love this lens on my FT and adapted to a Fuji X-T1 it's my go to for close up.

Hmm... I do have some D3 shots with the 55 I'll try to post!
 
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.
 
That old Yashica triplet zoom was the first zoom lens that I ever owned. It was a club. This old Yashinon 75-230mm is a baseball bat.

9239937697_58d3c19b46_c.jpg
 
I've always liked the look of lenses in he 75-100mm focal length for portraits. Shorter lenses leave people's noses looking larger than what we normally envision in our memories when we think of the faces of our friends and family. My best portrait lens for my Leica is the LTM Elmar 9cm. The lens I use most for portraits on my Konica is a Vivitar 70-210 zoom. Longer lenses can work nicely too, but take me too far from the subject to interact with them, and this can be awkward.

Scott
 
As to lenses.... Perspective is defined by where you stand in relation to your subject, nothing else. So, for portraits you'll probably want to be roughly four-to-six feet from your subject, conversational distance. On the close side for subjects with wide faces, farther for narrower faces. Ideally, once you've settled on a subject distance, you then control framing by choice of focal length. This will result in wider lens for groups, full-length shots, etc, and longer lenses for head shots. No one focal length will do it all perfectly, but you can find a compromise centered on your expected primary usage.

Roger, anything to add? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom