Jump to content

For portraits? Lux asph 50 or elmarit 90 M


bruniroquai

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi there!

 

I'm thinking... why have so many lenses in the bag? I usually carry the 35 and 50 my favourite focal lenses.

 

I know, the 50 it's not a portraits lens, or I have to say it's a standar lens, but with 1.4 aperture and 50 cm closer... it's the same, isn't it?

 

If You have some examples I Will appreciate to much.

 

All my best,

 

Bruno

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 48
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi Bruno!

 

50mm is a fantastic portrait focal length. So is 35mm.

 

If you are talking about tight head shots and want to get close, you will obviously get some distortion of facial features and if you are going to shoot a lot of very close portraits then I would suggest the 90 or 75. You will get a lot more widespread use out of the 50 though and you can crop the 50 shots down for tighter portraits. I have a 90 and a 75 but neither get the same amount of use my 50 does.

 

I think the 75mm is more versatile than the 90mm. You can get in closer but it's still slightly wider so gets more use elsewhere. Where as a 90mm is noticeably longer and I find more limiting in terms of space need to shoot, angle of view etc. I would definitely recommend trying both and see what works bet for you. To give you an idea though a 75mm frame cropped down to 10x8 proportions is very close to a 90mm lens which is considered a more traditional portrait focal length if that sort of thing matters to you.

 

Most say great things about that 90 Elmarit.

 

Many of the greats used Standard lenses for portraits. Man Ray in particular did, he didn't shoot closer than 3m apparently so as to not distort the facial features and cropped in tight.

 

If I were to have just one lens it would be the 50. In terms of photo examples have a search on flickr. Just type the lens into the search and you can browse and compare focal lengths and signatures for hours.

 

EDIT - Sorry I think just understood your post - You have all three and want to get rid of one? Yes keep both. The 90 Elmarit is so small anyway and certainly has its unique features.

Edited by Paul J
Link to post
Share on other sites

Still sorting my own choices, and was interested to find bad reports on so many 90's (soft or "poor" at 6 feet or less). Including last 90/2.8, Summicron 90 AA, last pre-asph Summicron 90, thin Tele-Elmar. (Not so sure about all of these.)

 

The 50 Summilux has been fine for portraits.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suspect that a 90mm F2 lens needs to be calibrated for a particular camera, especially the ones that you mentioned.

 

There are some inexpensive vintage lenses that are quite good. I usually go with a Nikkon 8.5cm F2 on the M9 for tighter portraits.

 

Wide-Open on the M9

 

http://www.seriouscompacts.com/gallery/data/640/jamestown_2_nikkor85.jpg

 

A "Stress Test" for strong backlighting.

 

http://www.seriouscompacts.com/gallery/data/640/jamestown_1_nikkor85.jpg

 

The lens was perfect on the M9, manufactured over 55 years ago. This lens was $300, with case and hood. Leica Thread Mount- I use it with the 75mm framelines.

 

There are a lot of portrait lenses in the 85~105 range, most are quite good.

 

Also keep in mind- for a portrait, resolving every last pore is not a good idea.

Edited by brianv
Link to post
Share on other sites

50 is all I use for portrait. I'm wondering about a 90 Elmarit for a few months, but wide open + crop always worked for me so far. I sold the pre APO 90/2 and never really missed it as it financed the 50/1.4 ASPH :)

 

Shot at f/2, copped to 9MP:

 

7278537178_0dfbef677b_m.jpg

Edited by insomnia
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank You all! Specially for your advice Paul.

 

Looks nice the nikkor!

 

Insomnia fantastic... I'm more convinced each time that will be great just the 35 and the 50...

 

I am big fan of Steve McCurry and most of the portraits were made with 85 lens, but I just want half body portraits, not only the head, I don't like it, the point is to know how many distortion has shooting 1m away with the 50?

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Link to post
Share on other sites

50 lux is wonderful for portraits-love the bokeh

 

here's a shot wide open-not a super close up though.

 

Edited by JPizzzle
Link to post
Share on other sites

5cm F1.5 Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar, 1m and wide-open on the Leica M9, Background is close to subject:

 

7553079286_1596a2c94c_n.jpg

Nikki, 1936 Uncoated 5cm F1.5 Sonnar converted to Leica Mount by anachronist1, on Flickr

 

5cm F1.5 Carl Zeiss Jena, 1m, wide-open, busy background.

 

7456581582_41f466341b_n.jpg

1936 Coated Sonnar 5cm F1.5, wide-open on the Leica M9 by anachronist1, on Flickr

 

Just to add as I notice both are with different 1936 Sonnars, there is an illness called liking too many lenses. But I did sell enough to get the M9 monochrome...not these two!

Edited by brianv
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's an example of what means to stay 1 m about with a 50 (old Summilux)

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

And, at longer distance, with a 90 (old Tele Elmarit)

 

Both with M8 : personally, I have often found that for portraits, the "oldies" are very appreciable lenses : when I bought the (excellent) Elmarit M 90, I thought that my old beloved Tele Elmarit would end to be "retired"... but both for its fantastic compactness and its specific rendering, it still deserves some usage

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it depends, to a large degree, on what sort of portraiture you want to achieve.

 

For myself, I like context. That means including surroundings, and for some irrational reason I dislike pictures of people with their feet out of frame. So if I'm taking pictures of people (not sure that's portrait shots), I will take a 28 Summicron because I like that extra dimension a wide angle lens gives, with limited distortion, and a 75 Summilux, if I want a tighter shot, over the 50 Summilux ASPH as it is a little softer wide open - it has a dreamier quality.

 

I don't have a 90, but I'm not that keen on being that tight, or standing back to take pictures.

 

Given your choices, I'd stick with the 35 & 50.

 

Cheers

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still sorting my own choices, and was interested to find bad reports on so many 90's (soft or "poor" at 6 feet or less). Including last 90/2.8, Summicron 90 AA, last pre-asph Summicron 90, thin Tele-Elmar. (Not so sure about all of these.)

 

The 50 Summilux has been fine for portraits.

 

IMHO, if your 90AA is not sharp even at 6 feet then think about getting it recalibrated as mine is sharp as a tack up close and far away.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Nikkor 8.5cm F2, wide-open and closest focus on the M9.

 

Maybe around 1m minimum focus.

 

7585632366_52b4a7a43d_n.jpg

nikki_nikkor85_f2 by anachronist1, on Flickr

 

Nokton 35/1.2 on the M9.

 

7585698272_cc01c05dfc_n.jpg

nikki_sim2_35nokton by anachronist1, on Flickr

 

Without the setting, I would not be able to remind my daughter that look is because I beat her score on the Flight Simulator.

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO, if your 90AA is not sharp even at 6 feet then think about getting it recalibrated as mine is sharp as a tack up close and far away.

 

Thanks for the comment. Was not going by my Summicron. I don't think any of the 90s mentioned are really designed for best closeups.

Edited by 120
Link to post
Share on other sites

Bruno, I think the 50 will be ideal for you then. I use 50mm a lot for portraits, not even cropping in. 1m is the closet focusing distance on my 50 and it starts to show facial distortion but it's minimal. This crop gives half way up torso and a couple inches above the head. So if you're happy with a little further back with a waist high portraits you'll be fine.

 

I bought a 75mm for tighter head shots. Works well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a 50 mm portrait followed by a 35 mm, both full frame.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Or in B&W, again, the first with the Noctilux 0.95, and the second with a 35 Summicron.

 

Can't remember the distances, but it's pretty clear.

 

Cheers

John

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

A portrait is a picture of a person, warts, soul and all, and not just a head shot. Few head shots are portraits. The mere geometry of a face does not make a portrait.

 

But 'doctor Tulp's Academy' is a portrait. 'Staalmesters' is a portrait – a group one. Holbein's 'Henry VIII' is a portrait. So is Tititan's 'Charles V'.

 

The idea that certain focal lengths make for a 'portrait lens' is just plain silly. The picture below was made with a 35mm lens. I own both 35mm, 50mm and 90mm lenses and I don't find any focal length superfluous.

 

The old man from the Age of the 9cm Elmar

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...