payasam Posted July 17, 2012 Share #21 Posted July 17, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) The photographic portrait has been understood, historically, as a head-and-shoulders or closer shot. That is why lenses of roughly twice the focal length of "normal" lenses have been used for portrait work. Working distance with a Leica and an 85/90/100/105 lens is comfortable and there is little or no distortion of facial features. All my work on film is now pictures of people. The 50 is my most used lens, and of course the photos I take with it can be called portraits. When, however, I want a person's head and little else, I use a 90. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 Hi payasam, Take a look here For portraits? Lux asph 50 or elmarit 90 M. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wda Posted July 17, 2012 Share #22 Posted July 17, 2012 The photographic portrait has been understood, historically, as a head-and-shoulders or closer shot..... Your statement is highly debatable. Consider Gainsborough's classical 18C portrait paintings which show glorious context. Do you consider those to be non-portraits? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted July 17, 2012 Share #23 Posted July 17, 2012 Your statement is highly debatable. Consider Gainsborough's classical 18C portrait paintings which show glorious context. I entirely agree (though payasam did specify "photographic portrait"). I might be tempted to take issue with what Lars writes above and I'm not convinced personally that a candid snap across a dinner table constitutes a "portrait" (no matter what focal length lens happens to be used). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
payasam Posted July 17, 2012 Share #24 Posted July 17, 2012 "The photographic portrait has been understood...". Even many portraits by Karsh, unlike Gainsborough a photographer, do not close in on his sitters' heads. Please read my earlier post again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted July 17, 2012 Share #25 Posted July 17, 2012 Actually, even an 18 can do a portrait in certain cases, egg-head distortion notwithstanding 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! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/183780-for-portraits-lux-asph-50-or-elmarit-90-m/?do=findComment&comment=2064597'>More sharing options...
Paul J Posted July 17, 2012 Share #26 Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) Few head shots are portraits. The mere geometry of a face does not make a portrait. The face is a canvas. It wears (or doesn't) the trials, tribulations and hardships. Geometry alone can indeed make a great portrait. It can and does tell stories and convey the persons life. Tight portraits are indeed harder, much harder. Harder for the photographer, harder for the sitter. But when they work I doubt you will find a portrait with more impact. Take a look at Avedons "head shots" and tell me these aren't portraits. His main interest was about the telling geometry of the face. His standard portrait lens was a 150mm with extension on a Blad for anyone interested. It's the oft talked about "traditional portrait" focal length and is 85mm equivalent in 35mm terms. Here Here Here Here Here Here Here Here Edited July 17, 2012 by Paul J Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
swamiji Posted July 17, 2012 Share #27 Posted July 17, 2012 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) It all depends on what you expect from the portrait. I use any focal length that gives me results I want. Regularly use 28mm because my models like the weight reduction, if use properly. 50mm also works for Head and shoulders, 75/90mm are the classical lengths, and do quite well, given the space and location you shoot in. It's up to you and what you want. The best way is find somebody to model for you and try every lens you have. Try different positions, angles, lighting, you will find what works for you and what doesn't. Then look at the market to decide what you want. Then you can make an informed decision. Another thing you might conceder is sharpness, You don't necessarily want the sharpest lens for a portrait, especially women. An older softer lens might be a better choice. I have a selection of older lenses, just for the purpose of degrees of softness. The softest being an old 50mm Summarit f/1.5 to the sharpest being 50mm Summilux ASPH or the 90mm APO-Summicron ASPH, and a few in between, the best probably being the 75mm Summilux. Also something to conceder is speed, you don't need it, Unless you shoot only with ambient light, in a dark night club, don't get hung up about speed. DOF is a different matter, it's depends on your vision... It's your vision, you need to decide. Others can show you their vision, but it's up to your skill.... Edited July 17, 2012 by swamiji Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianv Posted July 17, 2012 Share #28 Posted July 17, 2012 From Webster's, "Portrait: picture; especially : a pictorial representation of a person usually showing the face " So basically, get the face in the shot and the rest of the framing is up to you. Head shots, head and shoulder shots, half-length shots, full-length shots, environmental shots. Any lens can be used to take a portrait. The photographer, and often times the subject especially if the subject is your wife, determines the type of portrait and lens used to acheive the best results. I like a 50 and an 85. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Posted July 17, 2012 Share #29 Posted July 17, 2012 The idea that certain focal lengths make for a 'portrait lens' is just plain silly. Amen. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruniroquai Posted July 17, 2012 Author Share #30 Posted July 17, 2012 Thank You all, good conversations here. I'm learning so much from You.. But I prefer the microcontrast of a asph or apo than anything... after trying the 85 1.4 G Nikkor.. wow!!!! What lens!! For now, I'll try the 90 elmarit and the 50 lux asph... and make a choice. Someone have try the 85 f2 Zeiss? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted July 17, 2012 Share #31 Posted July 17, 2012 The problem with 50 as a portrait lens is that you are stuck in the subjects face..... you lose spontaneity and the photos are invariably 'posed' as a result ...... The great advantage of 75 and particularly 90 is that you are far enough away to take candid pictures and not impose on the subject.... as a result they usually look more natural. With a 90 you can sit discreetly in a corner and snap away with most folk not realising what you are up to..... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
insomnia Posted July 17, 2012 Share #32 Posted July 17, 2012 The problem with 50 as a portrait lens is that you are stuck in the subjects face..... you lose spontaneity and the photos are invariably 'posed' as a result ...... If we're stuck at "portrait is headshot only": cropping is the answer! 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! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/183780-for-portraits-lux-asph-50-or-elmarit-90-m/?do=findComment&comment=2065073'>More sharing options...
nelly Posted July 18, 2012 Share #33 Posted July 18, 2012 I most often shoot portraits with either my 35mm or 50mm but had my 90mm tele-elmarit with me on this day. It's a great little lens. 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! 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/183780-for-portraits-lux-asph-50-or-elmarit-90-m/?do=findComment&comment=2065172'>More sharing options...
bruniroquai Posted July 18, 2012 Author Share #34 Posted July 18, 2012 Avedon is a monster, of course if You want the best portraits, You must use the MF, but with 24x36 I think 85 is the best, now I'm trying the 50 and damm it... I like it! Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
payasam Posted July 18, 2012 Share #35 Posted July 18, 2012 The idea that certain focal lengths make for a 'portrait lens' is just plain silly. If this statement is correct, the maker of it forms a minority of one against hundreds of thousands of photographers, lens makers, camera shops... going back a century or more. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rramesh Posted July 19, 2012 Share #36 Posted July 19, 2012 I think some or us are mistaking a portrait shot from a 'candid' head and shoulder shot. Many of the pictures I see in this thread seem to be more of the latter. If one defines a portrait shot to be like that of a dignitary's official picture standing or seated then I don't think one would use a 21 or 35 as the norm to take such a picture. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Posted July 19, 2012 Share #37 Posted July 19, 2012 The idea that certain focal lengths make for a 'portrait lens' is just plain silly. If this statement is correct, the maker of it forms a minority of one against hundreds of thousands of photographers, lens makers, camera shops... going back a century or more. Where's the evidence supporting this suggestion? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianv Posted July 19, 2012 Share #38 Posted July 19, 2012 (edited) Where's the evidence supporting this suggestion? "Portrait lens" is a term going back to the Petzval lens designed for portraiture in 1840. The Petzval lens was limited to a field angle of about 25degrees and narrower. This would correspond to about a 90mm lens on a full-frame 35mm camera. "Lenses in Photography", 1951, Kingslake. The "Leica Manual", 1951, Morgan and Lester, describes the 73/1.9 Hektor, 90/4, and 90/2.2 Thambar as especially useful for portraits. "35-mm Photo Technique", 1948, Newcombe. The lenses listed as best choices for portraits are: the 8.5cm F2 Sonnar for the Contax; 7.3cm F1.9, 9cm f4 Elmar, and 9cm F2.2 Thambar for the Leica; and 9cm F3.5 Ektar for the Kodak Ektra. It is also silly to deny that lenses in the 75mm~105mm focal length range have been traditionally accepted as portrait lenses in the classic sense. Edited July 19, 2012 by brianv 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlet Posted July 19, 2012 Share #39 Posted July 19, 2012 Thanks for the explanation, which I'm not disputing. Still it could fairly convincingly be argued that a portait lens is whichever lens one uses for a portait. Whatever definition one elects to give that term. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianv Posted July 19, 2012 Share #40 Posted July 19, 2012 In a prior post, I tried to list "types of portraits". Just about any lens can be used to make a portrait, I think what needs to be considered is the type of portrait. Portraits can be "Head Shot", "Head and Shoulder", "Half-Length", "Full Length", "Environmental"- all descriptors of a type of portrait. My wife always wants a full-length portrait. The classic painted portrait tends to be "Head and Shoulder" and "Half-Length". Petzval wanted a photographic lens suitable for producing "classic portraits" with a camera. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.