Which SLR camera and lens for portraits?

[struene]

The closest SLR solution would be an early leicaflex or Minolta System. An Minolta SRT-101 with "silverring" MC 100 2.5 or MC 85 1.7 and some extension tubes should be the cheaper and sufficient solution.

schöne Grüße,
Johann

 

[Robert Lai]

Going back to the issue of classic lens rendition, what most of us like about it is that the imaging characteristics of the lens are adjustable with the aperture. With my Nikkor 50mm 1.4 LTM rangefinder lens, there is a significant difference in appearance between f/1.4 and f/2.

With the modern high contrast lenses, all that you gain by adjusting the aperture is more depth of field.

 

[raid]

A very good lens that you may consider is the Tamron 90/2.5 macro lens. It would be suitable for portraits and for flower photography. It will fit many different SLR systems, and you need to buy the appropriate mount (cheap).

There are many options listed in the thread, and suggesting yet another system will not be very helpful to anyone. I used in the past a Canon T90 with Canon FD 85/1.2L as my chosen set for portraits. There were dozens of other options open to me then. The T90 had advanced options for flash photography that are useful for portraits photography. The 85/1.2L lens is very special. A masterpiece of optics.

 

[______]

There are many options listed in the thread, and suggesting yet another system will not be very helpful to anyone. I used in the past a Canon T90 with Canon FD 85/1.2L as my chosen set for portraits. There were dozens of other options open to me then. The T90 had advanced options for flash photography that are useful for portraits photography. The 85/1.2L lens is very special. A masterpiece of optics.

You say suggesting another system won't be helpful, and then suggest another system. Hilarious.

 

[raid]

Not really. I simply stated what I was using in the past.
The Tamron fits most SLR systems, so it fits the system that the OP will choose.

 

[Ronald M]

F2 or F3 with a magnifying finder with a older 55/3.5 nikkor.

Swap out the finder for a plain prism and mount an early 105/2.5 or my favorite an 85/1.8 and you are all set.

B2 (;->

I bought a decent F2 with prism just to get the prism for the F2 I already have. Around $200 Ebay Japan. If you will not changes lenses much, Nikormat FT. It has F2 professional guts but without some the pro features like interchangeable heads, screens, motor drives.

I dislike consumer cameras .

Consider a visoflex for the head of 90 4/0. You will need the focus mount also, tubes or bellows.

Then get 100 micro like 100 f4

 

[______]

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.

The Olympus Zuiko 90mm f2 and Leica Summicron 90 f2 look to be comparable in contrast and resolution in these test from Modern Photography:

Leitz 90mm f/2 Summicron-R (1978 era 3-cam)
Leicaflex with mirror and diaphragm prefire
Vignetting = B @ f/2, A- @ f/2.8, A thereafter
Distortion = slight pincushion
Aperture Center Corner
f/2* C+ C
f/2 B B
f/2.8 B+ B
f/4 B+ A-
f/5.6 A A
f/8 A- A-
f/11 A A
f/16 A B
Notes: * = Tested with a B+W 010 filter. Moderately high contrast images at f/2; high contrast images at f/2.8 and f/16; very high contrast at f/4 and f/11; extremely high contrast images at f/5.6 and f/8. Lens condition 9+ (KEH=Ex+). Paired SQF grade and contrast comparison to the 90mm f/2 Zuiko Macro test done on a OM-2000, with SQF differences
significant at the 1/3 grade level.

90mm f/2.0 Zuiko Macro (multi-coated)
OM-2000 with mirror and aperture prefire
Vignetting = C+ @ f/2, B at f/2.8, B @ f/4, A- thereafter
Distortion = none
Aperture Center Corner
f/2 B+ A-
f/2.8 A- B+
f/4 B+ B
f/5.6 A- B+
f/8 A- A-
f/11 A- B+
f/16 A- B-
f/22 A- B-
Notes: Moderately high contrast images at f/22; high contrast images at f/2, f/2.8 and f/16; very high contrast images at f/4, f/5.6 and f/11; extremely high contrast images at f/8. Paired SQF grade and contrast comparisons to the Leitz 90mm f/2 Summicron-R test done on a Leicaflex, with SQF differences significant at the 1/3 grade level. Condition: 9+ (KEH=Ex+).

 

[kb244]

A very good lens that you may consider is the Tamron 90/2.5 macro lens. It would be suitable for portraits and for flower photography. It will fit many different SLR systems, and you need to buy the appropriate mount (cheap).

There are many options listed in the thread, and suggesting yet another system will not be very helpful to anyone. I used in the past a Canon T90 with Canon FD 85/1.2L as my chosen set for portraits. There were dozens of other options open to me then. The T90 had advanced options for flash photography that are useful for portraits photography. The 85/1.2L lens is very special. A masterpiece of optics.

I use the Tamron SP 90/2.8 myself, (Rev B I think) adaptall 1:1 Macro. Very nice.

Though I have it adapted for digital primarily, but I have a Pentax-KA mount for it if I want to slap it onto my Pentax MZ-6.

(These are digital samples, using an Adaptall-to-Micro-4/3 adapter, so 180mm FoV on 2.0x crop factor)

And this was off A Tamron SP Adaptall-II 70-210/3.5-4 on a Canon FTb with Fuji Neopan 400 (Ilfosol-S 1+9) I much prefer the Tamron 90/2.8 1:1

The 90/2.8 looks like this if you're trying to visually compare the different adaptall 1:1 lens

 

[radi(c)al_cam]

The Olympus Zuiko 90mm f2 and Leica Summicron 90 f2 look to be comparable in contrast and resolution in these test from Modern Photography:

Leitz 90mm f/2 Summicron-R (1978 era 3-cam)
Leicaflex with mirror and diaphragm prefire
[…]

Thank you, faberryman, very interesting!

Nevertheless, it doesn't invalidate what I've said — inasmuch as I was talking about the «Leica-look» of the ~1950s to early/mid 1960s, and that is the «Leica-look» the OP is decidedly looking for, not some «1978 era look».