35mm lens for people pictures?

[Onley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I also use my 35mm Summicron very often both on my M6 and M8 (where it is nearer to 50mm of course). As such it is the most useful lens I own for a whole variety of themes including portraits. My advice would be to get one; I can't imagine owning a Leica and not having one.

 

Of course if you take lots of close up portraits you could think of a 75mm or 90mm as well (or even the 50mm on an M8) but these will be less versatile overall (apart from the 50mm) so you are going to want the 35mm eventually anyway!

[Advertisement]

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

[skinnfell]

I work as a professional photojournalist, and the vast majority of my pictures are of people in some sort of setting. Rarely, "passport-style" pictures.

I find the 35mm to be amazingly versatile for my kind of use.

It does go with the story that I really dislike the distorted perspective that can come from exaggerated use of wideangle (particularly popular in my profession) and telephoto.

I prefer my pictures to always have some sort of contextual information, be it backgrounds, environment or showing more than just a headshot.

 

That said, I concur with the poster that if you DO try to do a head-and-shoulders photo with a 35, its going to look distorted. Fortunately less so with a rangefinder than with an SLR, but still.

 

Keep in mind, the normal of full frame cameras is something like 43.7mm, hence the 35mm is a very very slight wideangle. Likewise the 50mm is a similarly slight telephoto. And thats what you want to use (or higher) for headshots.

 

Quite often I go to assignments with just one camera and a 35mm. Why? Because I relish the constraint given by one set focal length. Rarely do I need something wider, its just a matter of cropping in-camera. If I need something slightly longer I can crop in post processing (although I try my best not to).

 

Take a look at my photo blog,

AGURK

Of the ten pictures on the front page today, i think all are shot with a 35, except two. Can you spot them? (the exif files all say 24mm but that is not true)

The text is only in norwegian so sorry for that. Also, mostly Canon stuff so far, because that is my main work camera.

 

My point being - unless you are a passport photographer, in my opinion, 35mm is THE people lens, with a very very slight edge over 50mm. This because of its increased ability to show context while still keeping as close to the "natural" perspective as possible.

 

Give me a Summilux-M 43.7mm and I might consider otherwise. :)

[stunsworth]

When I shot film with my M6 I used a 35mm lens at least 80% of the time. It's an excellent lens for what I'd call 'environmental' portraits.

[aymoon]

Give me a Summilux-M 43.7mm and I might consider otherwise. :)

 

I wish this were possible!

[Bo_Lorentzen]

Seems there were a 40 cron for the CL.? (if I remember right)

 

I love my 35, it goes everywhere on the M, the 50mm is another favorite, but it is a bit longer and I generally find myself backing up to include the environment.

 

 

 

35mm 1.4

 

.

[3rdtrick]

Great shots Bo,

What vintage is your 35? I picked up the pre-ASPH lux and it has become my most used.

Pete

[Bo_Lorentzen]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you Pete, its a CV nokton 35mm 1.4 - cheap and lovely as long as I don't try to shoot at at 2.8

 

.

[giordano]

...if you DO try to do a head-and-shoulders photo with a 35, its going to look distorted. Fortunately less so with a rangefinder than with an SLR, but still.

 

How can a photograph taken with a rangefinder camera look less distorted than one taken with a SLR using the same lens from the same position?

[Bo_Lorentzen]

John,

 

They don't - but I can imagine different quality of lenses might give this perception.

 

.

[lars_bergquist]

Excellent shots, Bo. Another photographer who loves the 35 as a 'people lens' is Chris Weeks. If he isn't a 'people photographer', nobody is (http://blog.leica-camera.com/interview/chris-weeks/)

 

Perspective is the internal geometry of the image -- the geometrical relations between the parts of the subject. All lenses, except some stunt lenses such as fisheyes, create/show the same perspective: The classical Renaissance rectilinear perspective where the rails meet at a point on the horizon. Different focal lengths just crop out larger or smaller bits of that overall perspective. The hoary superstition about "unnatural tele perspective" and "unnatural wide angle perspective" (an accusation sometimes levelled even at the 50mm lens!) and "the eyes don't see that way" goes back all the way to the introduction of interchangeable lenses in the early 1930's. It has been refuted again and again since then, with pictures, but hobgoblins and elves and trolls don't burst in sunlight, as was once believed. They persist and persist.

 

Now, given that, it is obvious that the changeover from a SLR to a RF camera does not change the perspective of the lens. It would not change it even if different focal lengths actally did produce different perspectives. The focusing method -- rangefinder, matte screen, electronic AF sensor, scale focusing (!) -- does not affect the optical geometry. Given equal focal lengths, they may however affect the user's way of approaching the subject; and where you stand when you press the release button, does certainly affect perspective. But remember this: It is not the lens that changes the perspective. It is your legs.

 

Some people may think I am long-winded and pedantic, rubbing in the obvious. But some people here haven't been in this as long as I have, and while years have not made me more clever, they have given me time to learn one or two things. If you think I should change style, tell me.

 

The old man talking to himself in the rocking chair

[Xmas]

Excellent shots, Bo. Another photographer who loves the 35 as a 'people lens' is Chris Weeks. If he isn't a 'people photographer', nobody is (Chris Weeks On The Latest 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH )

 

Perspective is the internal geometry of the image -- the geometrical relations between the parts of the subject. All lenses, except some stunt lenses such as fisheyes, create/show the same perspective: The classical Renaissance rectilinear perspective where the rails meet at a point on the horizon. Different focal lengths just crop out larger or smaller bits of that overall perspective. The hoary superstition about "unnatural tele perspective" and "unnatural wide angle perspective" (an accusation sometimes levelled even at the 50mm lens!) and "the eyes don't see that way" goes back all the way to the introduction of interchangeable lenses in the early 1930's. It has been refuted again and again since then, with pictures, but hobgoblins and elves and trolls don't burst in sunlight, as was once believed. They persist and persist.

 

Now, given that, it is obvious that the changeover from a SLR to a RF camera does not change the perspective of the lens. It would not change it even if different focal lengths actally did produce different perspectives. The focusing method -- rangefinder, matte screen, electronic AF sensor, scale focusing (!) -- does not affect the optical geometry. Given equal focal lengths, they may however affect the user's way of approaching the subject; and where you stand when you press the release button, does certainly affect perspective. But remember this: It is not the lens that changes the perspective. It is your legs.

 

Some people may think I am long-winded and pedantic, rubbing in the obvious. But some people here haven't been in this as long as I have, and while years have not made me more clever, they have given me time to learn one or two things. If you think I should change style, tell me.

 

The old man talking to himself in the rocking chair

Hi Lars

 

All true and nicely put, but I think they were referencing that inverted telephoto lens are (were) not as good as double gauss lenses for distortion, (ditto Zooms BTW).

 

E.g. I do notice my 5cm CV f/2.5 (LTM) has a trace more than a 5cm type IV cron, but it could be sample variation, think it may have reduced its size a little too much, it is a lot smaller, only a little larger than a 'modern' collapsible, when collapsed.

 

Noel

[lars_bergquist]

Hi Lars

 

All true and nicely put, but I think they were referencing that inverted telephoto lens are (were) not as good as double gauss lenses for distortion, (ditto Zooms BTW).

 

E.g. I do notice my 5cm CV f/2.5 (LTM) has a trace more than a 5cm type IV cron, but it could be sample variation, think it may have reduced its size a little too much, it is a lot smaller, only a little larger than a 'modern' collapsible, when collapsed.

 

Noel

 

It is true that retrofocus designs invites trading some linear distortion for the suppression of some other problems, mostly (I think) vignetting. But small scale linear distortion is usually not discussed under the heading of "perspective" when discussing a classical rectilinear lens. The v.2 35mm Summilux ASPH exhibits some 1.5% barrel distortion, which I notice only when a straight line in a building, parallel to the sensor plane, falls near a long end of the image -- and I am pretty sensitive to distortion! I never notice it when simply photographing people. For architecture, I would use my v.4 35mm Summicron, which is also mostly symmetrical double Gauss.

 

The old man

[Guest mc_k]

But 'portrait' does not mean 'passport picture'. A portrait is not a severed head. A portrait is a picture that tells you something about the subject -- body language, clothes, environment...

 

well from what the OP said, "portrait" probably means head-and-shoulders or half-length, and I don't think one is doing him any favor to recommend a 35 for that. The examples posted are all men, and you will run into trouble otherwise.

 

More generally I don't think "portrait" has anything to do with scale, and a head, or a head-and-shoulders can be just as revealing as the kind of shots you are talking about.

[Pindy]

 

I recognise that guitarist... Is it the great Tim Pierce?

[Bo_Lorentzen]

Hello Pindy,

 

Yes that is "the" Tim Pierce. Awesome guy both on the guitar and in person. Very distracting working around him as he tend to start playing the guitar and I want to put down the camera and enjoy his music.

 

.

[lars_bergquist]

well from what the OP said, "portrait" probably means head-and-shoulders or half-length, and I don't think one is doing him any favor to recommend a 35 for that. The examples posted are all men, and you will run into trouble otherwise.

 

More generally I don't think "portrait" has anything to do with scale, and a head, or a head-and-shoulders can be just as revealing as the kind of shots you are talking about.

 

So Holbein's full length painting of Henry VIII and Titian's ditto of Charles V are not portraits, because we (horror!) see the subjects' feet? The full length representation was the most prestigious. And, would not a head-and shoulders crop of that painting of King Harry, without that aggressive stance, teach us considerably less about the man?

 

Idiotic rules-of-thumb and inane thou-shalt-nots have been the bane of photography since its inception. Go take pictures and allow your artistic and psychological sense to guide you, if you have any. "The dogs bark, but the caravan marches on."

 

The old man from the Age of Nonsense (God help him)

[Guest mc_k]

So Holbein's full length painting of Henry VIII and Titian's ditto of Charles V are not portraits, because we (horror!) see the subjects' feet?...

who said anything like this? ... I said a portrait "has nothing to do with scale," meaning include what you want.

 

...Idiotic rules-of-thumb and inane thou-shalt-nots have been the bane of photography since its inception...

 

...The basic rule is not to go closer than about 1.5m/4-5ft. ...

 

seems like a good rule ... in fact, seems like the same rule.

[Guest mc_k]

...The full length representation was the most prestigious...

 

sure, because painting full length was more about showing off clothes and jewelry, and less about the artist's intent...

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[lars_bergquist]

We humans show our personality not only by exhibiting our noses, but by how we stand, sit, move, by what we do, by the kinds of spaces we inhabit -- and by what we wear.

 

And in an extremely hierarchical society, like that in Europe from the Middle Ages up to and including Victorian times, and in the military today, place is in fact ninety percent of the personality. King Harry's braguette was v-e-r-y much part of his personality, too!

 

The old man (with vague memories of academic courses in the History of Art)

[kivis]

I use a Voigt Nokton 35/1.4, couldn't be more pleased. For the intimate "passport" shot I throw on an old Elmarit 90/2.8.