90mm / 135mm for portrait

[tony740607]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi L-forum,

 

My next lens will be a portrait lens. I would like something that is "vintage". It should be a Leica lens, either 90mm or 135mm. Good if the lens is quit sharp in the center but corner sharpness is not so important. Good if the lens would have some special Leica "fingerprint", that special look. As it will not be used that often f2.8 or f4 is enough as I do not want to pay so much for it. I think I would rather go for a 135mm than 90mm as I can also use it more for distant objects when I am out and hiking.

 

Thanks.

[earleygallery]

I'd suggest the old 9cm f4 Elmar, they come in screw or M mount, nice ones can be bought for around £100.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[elgenper]

Unless you plan to rely on Live View (or even better, an old Visoflex III mirror housing), I´d forget about 135.  It´s far more difficult to focus correctly (important in portraiture), and that tiny frame in the middle of the finder isn´t much help for composing an image in.  Mine gets used only with my Visoflex III, never in its RF mount; I´ve given up on that.

 

The 9 cm f/4, as suggested, will do what you want; so will a good (not hazy) copy of the "thin" Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8.  Both are small and easy to handle.

 

Personally, I prefer 75 mm for portraiture, but that´s a matter of taste.

[Jean-Michel]

Unless you plan to rely on Live View (or even better, an old Visoflex III mirror housing), I´d forget about 135.  It´s far more difficult to focus correctly (important in portraiture), and that tiny frame in the middle of the finder isn´t much help for composing an image in.  Mine gets used only with my Visoflex III, never in its RF mount; I´ve given up on that.

 

The 9 cm f/4, as suggested, will do what you want; so will a good (not hazy) copy of the "thin" Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8.  Both are small and easy to handle.

 

Personally, I prefer 75 mm for portraiture, but that´s a matter of taste.

With a digital M, I would stay away from the 135. I have a 135 Elmarit that works quite nicely on my M3 (which hasn't seen a roll of film in it for over 5 years!). On my M9 (or M4 and M6)  it is much harder to focus and as such not very useful. If you must have a 135, I would go for the Tele Elmar (f/4). I had one and regret having sold it as it is a much lighter lens compared to the Elmarit. 

Jean-Michel

[pop]

With a digital M, I would stay away from the 135. I have a 135 Elmarit that works quite nicely on my M3 (which hasn't seen a roll of film in it for over 5 years!). On my M9 (or M4 and M6)  it is much harder to focus and as such not very useful. If you must have a 135, I would go for the Tele Elmar (f/4). I had one and regret having sold it as it is a much lighter lens compared to the Elmarit. 

Jean-Michel

I used to be quite unable to focus the 135mm Elmarit on my M9; with the M's improved range finder it's an altogether different story. The difference in contrast is quite remarkable.

[adan]

On 135s (and focusing) - actually, I just got a very recent (6-bit coded, SN 42xxxxx) 135 APO-Telyt f/3.4. And on my M9, @ f//3.4, it nails focus all the time at "portrait" distances, or anything under 6 meters/20 feet. I have to assume this is due to Leica (as they have claimed) tightening their target specs and tolerances to meet digital requirements over the past decade.

 

Between 6 meters and infinity, there is a "dead zone" where the RF base just becomes too short (too narrow and skinny a triangle) for reliable focus unless one uses f/8 (also as Leica recommends for 135s). It is, of course, correct and sharp set to infinity on the focus scale, for distances over ~200 meters.

 

However, it is most definitely not "vintage", in either look or price. =8^o

 

Perhaps the epitome of Solms contrast and "wiry sharpness." Also the lightest-weight 135 since the old f/4.5s.

 

On "portrait" focal lengths - as said, a matter of taste. But also a matter of preferred framing (eyebrows to chin, full-head, head-and-shoulders). And face shape (shorter focal lengths for wide, flat faces; longer focal lengths for narrow, pointed faces). A 75, 90 or 135 will produce the same "perspective" from 1.5 meters - but with different framing. I tend to prefer as tight as possible - where a 75 starts to distort features.

 

On "vintage" portait lenses - The 75 Summilux and its "little brother," the 1980 90 Summicron non-APO, have distinct fingerprints wide-open - eyes sharp, "bokeh" everywhere else. Residual aberrations give a soft overlay to the sharpness (but they are sharp enough for documentary/journalism in low light).

 

I tried a 90 f/4 collapsible recently (beware of collapsing it on digital bodies!) and it was very crisp, without too much contrast. Very much like the older 90 Elmarit, or the v.2 "thin" 90 Tele-Elmarit. A neutral look.

 

135s - I've never tried the older f/4.5 lenses. The Tele-Elmar f/4 is the best optically, with the f/2.8 just a bit behind. The f/2.8, however, is quite bulky and heavy, with built-in front "goggles" to magnify the image for more precise focusing. I used the 135 TE for a decade - finally side-stepped to the (non-vintage) APO for lighter weight and marginally larger aperture.

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!

[bocaburger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi L-forum,

 

My next lens will be a portrait lens. I would like something that is "vintage". It should be a Leica lens, either 90mm or 135mm. Good if the lens is quit sharp in the center but corner sharpness is not so important. Good if the lens would have some special Leica "fingerprint", that special look.

In that case I would avoid any of the 135mms, and most of the 90s.  Stopping down improves contrast, but they all tend to be pretty sharp out to the corners even at max aperture.   The one I would suggest for you is a pre-ASPH 90 Summicron (any version, but the last one with e55 filter is a more manageable size/weight).  At f/2 it will give you exactly what you're after. 

[bocaburger]

I used to be quite unable to focus the 135mm Elmarit on my M9; with the M's improved range finder it's an altogether different story. The difference in contrast is quite remarkable.

The contrast of both my M240's rangefinders is identical with the M9.  I find the M240 not even a tiny bit crisper or easier to focus.  In fact the too-bright LED frame lines make focusing more difficult for me, as they apparently cause my pupils to constrict.  That said, my limited experience with the 135mm Elmarit was that misaligned and/or hazy goggles were almost always the culprit with focusing difficulties.

[Peter Kilmister]

My preferred lens for portrait is a Summarit 90mm f/2.5. One day I'll work out how to imbed pictures on here. Until then these are some examples: http://smg.photobucket.com/user/pkilmister/library/Gins?sort=3&page=1

[pop]

One day I'll work out how to imbed pictures on here.

This might be useful to you, I hope: How do I upload photos to the forum?

[Peter Kilmister]

Thanks, pop. Very constructive and helpful. Thanks heavens for Moderators!

[farnz]

For a vintage look you might consider a Zeiss Opton 85/2 Sonnar, which gives excellent separation from the background wide open and that characteristic dreamy Sonnar look in the out of focus areas.  They can be found reasonably priced but are rare in Leica screw mount although much less rare in Contax mount that can be used with a rangefinder-coupled adapter such as those made by Amadeo Muscelli.

 

In my opinion the master portrait lens is the Leica 80/1.4 Summilux-R but you'd need an M240 and LiveView or EVF to use it.  It is very close, and the same optical design as the M-mount 75/1.4 Summilux that Andy (Adan) mentioned earlier.  But neither of these is a cheap option.

 

Pete.

[spydrxx]

Thank good ness you didn't ask for information on a "portrait lens", as almost any lens can serve that function, depending on your artistic bent. Over the years I've owned several Leica 90 and 135mm lenses, and used them for a variety of purposes, including portraits. The 135/2.8 ones, IMHO, are too big and heavy, and honestly, unless you either have a large space in which to work, or like frame filling faces...135 doesn't cut it for me in the portrait world, excepting maybe with children (I have a few treasured shots of my young daughter in the 1970s with a 135/4 Tele Elmar - a wonderfully sharp lens). However, I much prefer the 90mm focal length for most portraits, and there are quite a few really good older ones to choose from. The 1960s 90 Summicron, which I played around with for a few years, was again, just too big and heavy, I liked the older collapsible  90/4 Elmar and the 80 tele-Elmarit just dropped into the pocket - but was more subject to flare than I liked. Recently I've been using a 1960s Elmarit 2.8 and what I think is quickly gaining favor, an old screwmount 90 Elmar/4...the size and weight are terrific and the rendering is quite pleasing; but to achieve its best in contrast and reduce flare, a hood is a must. The modern iterations of the 80, 90 and 135 are too clinical for me, but terrific optics.

Edited May 7, 2015 by spydrxx

[algrove]

I vote for the thin (225g) Tele-Elmarit 90/2.8 or the Elmarit-M 90/2.8 although it might be too sharp for you.  But then again most can do all kinds of wonderful things in PP to get the corners less sharp these days or make the corners less noticeable with a bit of vignetting. Personally, I'd rather have a sharp lens that I could unsharpen in the corners than one which you wish were sharper in the corners on some occasions.

Edited May 7, 2015 by algrove

[padam]

Sorry to interrupt with something that off-brand, but as far as 135s go, the Canon 135/3.5 LTM is a great lens and easily the best RF lens I have bang-for-buck.

There are other very nice Canon lenses as well (the 100/2 in particular, but there might be a frameline problem).

But a decent copy of 135 is almost too cheap to miss.

[Lenshacker]

Get a Nikkor 13.5cm F3.5 in Leica Thread Mount- they go for under $100. With the rangefinder on a digital M, use a 1.25x magnifier for 90 and 135 focal lengths.

 

Then get a later coated 9cm F4 Elmar if you do not care about speed; or a Nikkor 8.5cm F2 in Leica mount for ~$350.

 

So for about $450 and the price of two adapters, you get both focal lengths. A 1.25x magnifier runs ~$100 on Ebay for the China made version. I have one of those, and the Leica magnifier that cost 3x as much.

 

Nikkor 8.5cm f2, wide-open, on the M Monochrom, ISO 10,000. She kept moving...

 

Skate and Fun by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr

Edited May 8, 2015 by Lenshacker

[bocaburger]

^ That reminded me, I completely forgot about the 105/2.5 Nikkor, one of the most renowned of "portrait" lenses.   I've got one in LTM with a 9cm Leitz M adapter.  The 90mm frame lines are actually more accurate with a 105 at longer distances than with a 90.  At close focus just leave a little room inside the lines.  I'm not sure how much they go for nowadays, I've had mine 20 years at least. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

For a 75mm try the CV 75mm 1.8 helliar. Your description of what you want could be that lens.

 

For a 90mm I really like the Summarit for portraits. I have it and the current Summicron and I think the Summarit is fantastic for people. Ilike it better than the tele-elmarit I once owned.

 

For 135mm i only have experience with the current APO. Mine is the opposite of Bocaburger. Easy to focus from infinity to 5 meters. Front focuses close in, so I use the EVF on my M. I find it very sharp but not overly clinical. I like it as a portrait lens, but I like the 135mm focal length over all.

 

Gordon

[mirekti]

On 135s (and focusing) - actually, I just got a very recent (6-bit coded, SN 42xxxxx) 135 APO-Telyt f/3.4. And on my M9, @ f//3.4, it nails focus all the time at "portrait" distances, or anything under 6 meters/20 feet. I have to assume this is due to Leica (as they have claimed) tightening their target specs and tolerances to meet digital requirements over the past decade.

 

Between 6 meters and infinity, there is a "dead zone" where the RF base just becomes too short (too narrow and skinny a triangle) for reliable focus unless one uses f/8 (also as Leica recommends for 135s). It is, of course, correct and sharp set to infinity on the focus scale, for distances over ~200 meters.

This is exactly the same experience I have with this lens. I wrote multiple times about not being able to focus precisely above 15-20m and after you made the explanation about the RF base it all makes sense.

I am actually not sure about the "dead zone" range, but can confirm that up to 6, maybe 8 meters my shots are 99% precise in the intended focus (I only miss a shot if I shake when shoot in hurry). Than all the way to 20-25m is not that bad, I'd say around 70% or more, but only after I learned if I move focus ring from direction 0.7m towards infinity I get better results then other way around. That means if I go over in the RF I roll the focus ring back a bit and start focusing again.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Peter Kilmister]

I took this 'contre-jour' and developed in B&W. Not quite sure I handled the contrast too well but I wanted to get the features in the background to be highlighted ... the Needles and Hurst Castle on the Solent near Lymington. You can be the judges, I just took the picture. It used my 90mm Summarit 2.5.

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!