uhoh7
Veteran
90-135? are you high?
just kidding.give me a break, the classic portrait lenses are 75 to 105--is that controversial now?
Of course you can shoot a portrait with anything from 12 to 400mm or more.
The most coveted portrait lens on earth today?
The helios 40--one stop at fred miranda will tell you that. The most most poplular? the roki 1.4, both 85 of course.
sheesh.
PS 135 is longest lens that will even couple on an RF----what is the latest zeiss or leica 135 portrait lens?
in fact let's just quote leica:
"The new 75 mm Summarit-M replaces the portrait focal lengths of 90 -100 mm for digital use"
ferider
Veteran
And for good reason, it's a magic lens. For the OP, you can have it in M39 (the Helios 40) or M42 (the 40-2).
A bit front heavy on a u4/3 or APS-C camera though
For the OP, if the Nikkor is hard to find, I repeat, try the Summicron v3, should be available somewhere used in Germany. And much smaller than earlier versions, since Leitz moved from double Gauss to Ernostar from v2 to v3.
Roland.
kzphoto
Well-known
The v3 summicron is phenomenal. Prices are creeping up into the 1200+ range. The 90/2.8 Hexanon is great, expect to spend 500-600 for a clean copy.
As a heads up, If you're running into the MFD of your lenses at 1 meter or .9m, the only 90 that focuses to .7m is the newer 90 Macro Elmar-M.
If you're using the lens on a GXR, consider the OUFRO. Basically an M extension tube. Will let your 50mm lenses focus as close as 1 ft, if I recall. Could be fun with the 90 mm as well.
As a heads up, If you're running into the MFD of your lenses at 1 meter or .9m, the only 90 that focuses to .7m is the newer 90 Macro Elmar-M.
If you're using the lens on a GXR, consider the OUFRO. Basically an M extension tube. Will let your 50mm lenses focus as close as 1 ft, if I recall. Could be fun with the 90 mm as well.
raid
Dad Photographer
90/2.8 Sonnar (in Contax G mount)
DamenS
Well-known
90-135? are you high?
give me a break, the classic portrait lenses are 75 to 105--is that controversial now?
Of course you can shoot a portrait with anything from 12 to 400mm or more.
The most coveted portrait lens on earth today?
The helios 40--one stop at fred miranda will tell you that. The most most poplular? the roki 1.4, both 85 of course.
sheesh.
PS 135 is longest lens that will even couple on an RF----what is the latest zeiss or leica 135 portrait lens?
in fact let's just quote leica:
"The new 75 mm Summarit-M replaces the portrait focal lengths of 90 -100 mm for digital use"
Controversial ? Yes - that's what I was saying. If you are going to include a 75mm lens as a portrait and exclude a 135mm as a "classic portrait lens" that would certainly be a controversial viewpoint. The 3 most common portrait focal lengths (the "classics") are the high speed 85mm (often a 90mm on Rangefinders, sometimes - though far less often - an 80mm or a 90mm on an SLR), 105 and 135 lenses (Nikon's Defocus Control Lenses are available as a 105mm or a 135mm).
I don't know why we are bringing up 135mm lenses being hard to focus (or "couple" ) on a rangefinder when - to the best of my knowledge - none of the Sony Nex series or the Ricoh GXR are rangefinders, so it is an entirely irrelevant point . Your belief that a 90mm is not a portrait lens when it is on a crop camera is what we are discussing.
Maybe you are saying few people use 135mm lenses on a rangefinder due to this difficulty and that this somehow proves it is an inappropriate focal length for portraiture ? In which case, the SLR world say "Hello" to you.
I'm not sure if you even read the quote by Leica that you posted, but what they are saying is that on a Leica M8 (1.3x crop factor), the 75mm lens becomes equivalent to (replaces) the 90mm focal length which is often used as a portrait lens. This has not been in dispute by either of us ... 90mm is an appropriate focal length for portraiture (along with the other "classic portrait focal lengths" of 75mm,85mm,105mm and 135mm). This is simple history, though it may be of greater familiarity to somebody who knows something of SLR's rather than just Rangefinders.
At least you now acknowledge that ANY lens can be used as portraiture, which is radically different from your prior (erroneous assertion) that a 135mm equivalent is "well beyond a portrait FOV" ...
... which is simply what I corrected you on. So, it appears we are now in agreement.
PS - Leica has their Apo 135mm lens, so that would be the latest "Leica 135mm portrait lens" - not that that is of any relevance to this discussion, but you asked the question, so ...
slungu
Established
Thanks for the hints guys. I also had the Contax G 90/2.8 on the NEX, but found it flimsy to focus with the adapter ( didn't try the Metabones one ). Also, I would rather keep only one legacy mount to the NEX, and that would be the M-mount, just in case the next generation of NEX cameras does not support WA lenses that good and I have to switch to Ricoh.
I think I should have specified this, but I when I was asking about the 85/2 Sonnar, I was thinking about the old Sonnar for Contax rangefinders, to be adapted with and Amedeo adapter, not the ZM 85/2 that is out of the question.
Regards, Stefan
I think I should have specified this, but I when I was asking about the 85/2 Sonnar, I was thinking about the old Sonnar for Contax rangefinders, to be adapted with and Amedeo adapter, not the ZM 85/2 that is out of the question.
Regards, Stefan
bwcolor
Veteran
I've only used three rangefinder 90's. M-HEX.. great lens and has slide out lens hood. Contax-G.. Great lens, but not such a great choice when focusing with the NEX adapters. Leica 90mm f/2.0 APO ASPH .. the sharpest and largest of the bunch.
The NEX E-Mount 50mm f/1.8 gets rave reviews.. and considering the mediocre E-Mounts out there..this is good. Supply should loosen up soon.
The NEX E-Mount 50mm f/1.8 gets rave reviews.. and considering the mediocre E-Mounts out there..this is good. Supply should loosen up soon.
rxmd
May contain traces of nut
kanzlr
Hexaneur
if you stick to SLR lenses, like Leica-R or Minolta MD, there are adapters to use it on the Ricoh, too.
Well, and here comes my recommendation: Minolta 85/1.7 for a smooth rendering, 85/2 for exceptional performance at f2.
I also have the Hexanons and have a hard time deciding between the 90/2.8 Hex and the 85/2 Minolta, both superb lenses, but the latter one being a bit smaller and lighter and of course a stop faster.
uhoh7
Veteran
I really was not trying to be nasty, but simply point out that 50s are fantastic portrait lenses on APS-C---and they are cheaper and faster too.
I shoot portraits with my 28 all the time, but I don't call it a portrait lens, nor would anyone else who works for a lens manufactuer.
However the distinction between the historical meaning of the term and the fact that you can shoot portraits with a 1500mm seems too much for modern thinkers.
I apologise. Feel free to smash your subjects faces flat with long lenses and consider it utterly normal.
slungu
Established
If I would take SLR lenses into consideration I would probably pick up either a Sonnar 85/2.8 as a lightweight version, or a Leica 90 Cron - I liked that lens very much, even if it was 1 stop slower than the 85 Planar that replaced it.
DamenS
Well-known
I really was not trying to be nasty, but simply point out that 50s are fantastic portrait lenses on APS-C---and they are cheaper and faster too.
I shoot portraits with my 28 all the time, but I don't call it a portrait lens, nor would anyone else who works for a lens manufactuer.
However the distinction between the historical meaning of the term and the fact that you can shoot portraits with a 1500mm seems too much for modern thinkers.
I apologise. Feel free to smash your subjects faces flat with long lenses and consider it utterly normal.
Except that I am on the "historical side" (75mm to 135mm are the "classic" portrait lengths) and you are saying that a 135mm is unsuitable:
You can argue the minutia all you want about a 105mm being acceptable and "classic" for portraits, and 135mm being too long, but I would LOVE to play that game with you ... where does it switch ? 108mm is acceptable but 120mm isn't (115mm is borderline "classic" and 118mm is "Rennaisance" ?).
No one has mentioned 1500mm lenses (do you REALLY need to make ridiculous and spurious overstatements to cover the fact that your argument is worthless), but I have certainly mentioned 200mm and 300mm being used by portrait and fashion photographers. If you believe that "smashes subject's faces" then don't do it - but acknowledge other people (being paid very well to do this for a living) disagree with your "black and white"/"right and wrong" assessment. Maybe they know what they are doing even if it is different from what you would do ?
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
I really was not trying to be nasty, but simply point out that 50s are fantastic portrait lenses on APS-C---and they are cheaper and faster too.
[...]
I apologise. Feel free to smash your subjects faces flat with long lenses and consider it utterly normal.
Maybe it's intentional, maybe not. The fact is you do come across as nasty in your posts, even when you claim to be apologizing. It's distracting and doesn't serve the discussion.
slungu
Established
I have not heard anything about the old Contax Sonnar lens. Would be interesting bcause they seem to be somehow not considered in the forums. The japanese variants of the Sonnars are, since those were available in LTM, but the Zeiss somehow is neglected. Maybe I should simply give it a try. Problem is, right now I ca not afford experiments, since buying and selling costs time and money
regards, Stefan
regards, Stefan
jarski
Veteran
yes Japanese lenses often came with LTM-option, while legendary Zeiss, that was what everybody else copying, only Contax.
Amadeo adapter is highly regarded here in RFF, most Contax lenses work on correct adapter, except some wide ones.
Amadeo adapter is highly regarded here in RFF, most Contax lenses work on correct adapter, except some wide ones.
DamenS
Well-known
Thankyou. However it is pretty clear who and what he is. A "Troll" will start an argument for the sake of it, not acknowledge any flaws in that argument (no matter how clearly presented) and try to get people riled for maximum impact ... Hell, in another thread, he even tried resorting to reversing things completely and attributing MY arguments to himself and using them against me, whilst attributing his own argument to myself. At first I was upset (it was such a bizarre and unprecedented experience) but then I realised that it was a deliberate Troll (or someone acting as such to cover an irrational argument which their fragile Ego is unable to relinquish). He wants and needs attention - I've decided he won't get it. I do appreciate the support, but please don't bang your head againt a brick wall - he just is what he is and he probably can't even help it ... donations are surely accepted somewhere for this kind of "condition" ... I'm only just starting to learn (too late) that arguing with a dumb person is just, well, "dumb" !
uhoh7
Veteran
I implied 135mm was beyond the FL which is considered a "portrait lens"
I was wrong. Alot of people think 135 should be in there, and there are several specialized 135 portraits lenses.
Though I own 8 135s, including a soligor 135/2, I did not know this.
I was wrong
I was wrong
I was wrong
I was wrong
k?
Was meant as humor, sorry.
I do think the idea that a portrait lens is any lens you shoot a face with is ridiculous.
I find it interesting that those most infuriated by my comments seem to have offered no suggestions whatever to the OP. Call me what you want, but I thought about his questions and answered it with a number of suggestions.
roboflick
Well-known
I bought a jupiter 9 from fedka.com for around 100 dollars, beautiful lens with nice multicoatings and fully serviced, no focus play and beautiful glass. Beautiful sharp portraits with superb bokeh and isolation of the subject.
I no longer have any desire for the zeiss lens. not for 5 times the price You wont get that silky feel of focus and magnificent german build quality however. But it is 90 percent there, in build and 100 percent there optically
Nik
batterytypehah!
Lord of the Dings
I've already told you in the other thread what I think about your latest remarks.
And no, you did most certainly not answer the OP's question, at any point. He was asking about 85/90 lenses and explained that he was aware of the crop factor and liked it, but that didn't keep you from veering off on your own little crusade for the one true portrait lens. You have some nerve to be playing the victim now.
David Murphy
Veteran
The Tele Elmarit is a nice lens, compact and light, but somewhat prone to glass problems (haze). The 80mm F2 Sonnar for Contax rangefinder is a masterpiece of optical and mechanical engineering (there are pre-and post-war versions, the prewar versions are uncoated, but still pretty damn good). A worthy alternative to the Sonnar is the 85mm F2 Nikon lens. Nikon and Contax RF mount versions of the Nikkor 85/2 exist, and are not too hard to find.
None of these lenses are inexpensive, but they are worth the money!
None of these lenses are inexpensive, but they are worth the money!