Jump to content

Macro Elmar 90 for portrait


Guest Farkas

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Has anyone any experience in using the Marco Elmar 90mm f4 for portrait work? I'M working on a series of portraits but need to get closer than 1m that the 90/2.8 allows. Speed is not an issue and I guess DoF is shallow enough once you are in the close focusing range. Any ideas welcome.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worked for me. If it's not too slow, it's a great lens.

 

I believe the 75 Summicron gets more or less the same reproduction at it's close focus distance. That could be another option. Of course it's not a 90 if that makes a difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

....

I believe the 75 Summicron gets more or less the same reproduction at it's close focus distance......

 

It does. At close limit the image field is 24.5 cm wide, giving a reproduction ratio of 1:6.8. Personally, I think it is GREAT for portraiture; just a little bit ´closer´ feeling than the 90 at the same framing. But then, I was one of those who preferred 120 to 150 for portraits with my Hasselblad back then, for exactly the same reason.

 

Also, the 75/2 obviously gives more DOF control than the 90/4 - and it is plain BEAUTIFUL!

 

1039932233_iNDiC-L.jpg

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you want to get closer than 1 meter?

 

To make the nose look bigger?

 

Keep in mind that focal length has nothing to do __directly__ with perspective.

Perspective depends solely on the distance between the camera and the subject.

And, obviously, the position of the camera (lower, higher or more to the side) in relation to the subject.

 

Generally, a tele lens is used at a greater distance from the subject than normal lenses.

That is what changes the perspective, not the focal length as such. That is an __indirect__ effect.

 

Focal length differences, assuming identical shooting distances, only show up in how much is included on the negative.

And, consequently, on the size of the subject on the negative.

 

Just shoot with a 50mm lens at 0,7 meters to get the "close up" effect.

Sure you will get more of the surroundings included than if you shot with 90mm.

That can be solved in the darkroom or with PS.

 

Did I make myself clear enough? Focal length as such has nothing to do with perspective.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you want to get closer than 1 meter?

 

To make the nose look bigger?

 

Did I make myself clear enough?

 

Good grief, there are many reasons why someone might want to shoot a 90mm lens at closer than 1 metre. Not every portrait has to follow the Amateur Photographer Guide to Good Portrait Photography 1970.

 

Getting back on topic, I've owned the 90 Macro and being F4 (and so well corrected in the close range) I found it a little too sterile for portraits.

Edited by wattsy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

christer that is correct but maybe is a bit of the lecture ;). I'm sure that farkas knows any image can be cropped a little.

You have assumed that the reason farkas wants to shoot from less than one metre is for greater magnification. It could possibly be just restricted working distance Consider also depth of field as a factor plus focus accuracy and also performance at closer range. This one is optimised to do its best work in close remember.

It is a reasonable question to ask if anyone has experience with the lens for portraits. It is very suitable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you want to get closer than 1 meter?

 

To make the nose look bigger?

 

Keep in mind that focal length has nothing to do __directly__ with perspective.

 

Christer, I beg to differ. As far as I know, and the way I teach it to my students: perspective visually depends on the angle of view, a factor that determines the relative ratio of objects within the frame. Larger angle (wide) means your nose APPEARS relatively further from your ears or theoretically the nape of your neck, smaller angle (tele) SHOWS them closer. Hence the optical effect that screws with perspective as we know it. And angle of view has a rather direct correlation with focal lengths.

 

It all depends on what and how appears within the virtual cone or rather pyramid projected from the lens into infinity. And a tele will always render spacial relations with less pronounced perspective than a wide from the same distance.

And yes, maybe I want to make their nose bigger anyway.

I did a quick test in the local Leica shop yesterday, wanted to know how close you can get with the 90/4 in the macro range to a face, I'll post the results later today.

Cropping is different from when you actually FRAME the subject the way you want. Resolution, even lens defects count (like falloff or decreased resolution towards the corners, etc.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

All together now (if we keep it up long enough maybe Farkas will understand):

 

Perspective is determined by camera position and nothing else (one can quibble about non-rectilinear lenses, perhaps).

 

If you photograph the same scene from the same position with (say) a 15mm lens and a 75mm lens, and crop and enlarge the first picture to show the same field of view as the second, the perspective will be the same in each. (The depth of field may be very different, but that's another story.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to prove it, here's the same subject photographed from exactly the same position with three different focal lengths.

 

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 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know and the way I teach it to my students:

When I was a kid, only knowledgable persons were supposed to have students and to teach them things. :eek:

 

 

Perspective visually depends on the angle of view, a factor that determines the relative ratio of objects within the frame.

DEFINITELY NOT.

 

As others already have explained—perspective depends solely on the position of the camera (to be absolutely precise: on the position of the entry pupil of the camera's lens). Focal length determines the size of the image only; it determines neither angle-of-view nor perspective. Angle-of-view depends on the relation between image size and imager (i. e. film or sensor) size.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you want to get closer than 1 meter?

 

To make the nose look bigger?

 

Keep in mind that focal length has nothing to do __directly__ with perspective.

 

Christer, I beg to differ. As far as I know, and the way I teach it to my students: perspective visually depends on the angle of view, a factor that determines the relative ratio of objects within the frame. Larger angle (wide) means your nose APPEARS relatively further from your ears or theoretically the nape of your neck, smaller angle (tele) SHOWS them closer. Hence the optical effect that screws with perspective as we know it. And angle of view has a rather direct correlation with focal lengths.

 

It all depends on what and how appears within the virtual cone or rather pyramid projected from the lens into infinity. And a tele will always render spacial relations with less pronounced perspective than a wide from the same distance.

And yes, maybe I want to make their nose bigger anyway.

I did a quick test in the local Leica shop yesterday, wanted to know how close you can get with the 90/4 in the macro range to a face, I'll post the results later today.

Cropping is different from when you actually FRAME the subject the way you want. Resolution, even lens defects count (like falloff or decreased resolution towards the corners, etc.)

Good Lord, you teach and get such basic stuff wrong?:confused: To think we are constantly complaining about the quality of our educational system over here...:rolleyes: Edited by jaapv
Link to post
Share on other sites

Focal length determines the size of the image only; it determines neither angle-of-view nor perspective.

 

All together now

 

 

WTF? Hold your horses!

 

Before I give you the weight of my tongue: I think we are talking about the same thing, but look at it from a slightly different perspective (no hint here). Over a glass of wine, I guess we could straighten our differences, but given your absolutely intolerable, superior and snobbish, albeit painfully ignorant tone of voice, let me give you the finger instead and return the barrage with a quick lesson in optical illusion.

 

Don't get me wrong, guys, but for a moment I felt myself in Giordano Bruno's galoshes (sorry, tons of snow over here).

 

Now let's make it square: I asked your kind opinion about a particular Leica lens. Some of you shared valuable thoughts, fanx a dozen for that.

 

Then, not so much between the lines, I got some paternal slagging off for wanting to shoot a humanoid's head up close and personal, thus making his/her nose appear to protrude more than it is desirable in a snapshot album. Fair enough, I take all the blame, but hey, I'll live with those pictures. Maybe I like it that way. Ever thought of that? Mind you, for big noses I'd stick on a 21mm.

 

Then comes the wild bunch and nails me down for having the guts to teach, the ignoramus as I am. Well, I'm just a stupid Hungarian, can't even tie my shoelaces, let alone spell, count or understand the magic art and craft of picture taking.

 

I'd love to put it more eloquently but there's no space for dilly-dallying, it's shorter this way:

You're talking barrels of bollockchops. Utter effing rubbish.

 

For your information:

Angle of view - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I know it's all scientific mambo jumbo so here's a few snippets:

 

Because different lenses generally require a different camera–subject distance to preserve the size of a subject, changing the angle of view can indirectly distort perspective, changing the apparent relative size of the subject and foreground.

Longer lenses magnify the subject more, apparently compressing distance and (when focused on the foreground) blurring the background because of their shallower depth of field. Wider lenses tend to magnify distance between objects while allowing greater depth of field.

 

Another result of using a wide angle lens is a greater apparent perspective distortion when the camera is not aligned perpendicularly to the subject: parallel lines converge at the same rate as with a normal lens, but converge more due to the wider total field. For example, buildings appear to be falling backwards much more severely when the camera is pointed upward from ground level than they would if photographed with a normal lens at the same distance from the subject, because more of the subject building is visible in the wide-angle shot.

 

Because different lenses generally require a different camera–subject distance to preserve the size of a subject, changing the angle of view can indirectly distort perspective, changing the apparent relative size of the subject and foreground.

 

 

And here's something you say that makes absolutely no sense at all (sorry, Giordano):

 

If you photograph the same scene from the same position with (say) a 15mm lens and a 75mm lens, and crop and enlarge the first picture to show the same field of view as the second, the perspective will be the same in each.

 

Here's why: Field of view is synonymous with angle of view. It is an optical property applied at the time of shooting and not something you can fiddle with in the darkroom. FoV (and consequently perspective) depends SOLELY on the lens' focal length and picture format (the frame's diagonal, to be precise), and is measured in angles. Degree ALPHA, meaning twice the angle that you measure in the optical centre of the lens formed by the outermost ray theoretically projected from the edge of the bloody frame. ALPHA is your angle of view or field of view. YOU CANNOT CHANGE THAT in your dark room by cropping an image. It is determined for good by the lens you took the picture with, for god's sake.

 

And this, sorry man, but WTF are you on about?

Angle-of-view depends on the relation between image size and imager (i. e. film or sensor) size.

It makes no sense at all. What are image size and imager size anyway? Image size

 

You all act like the DoP in Stanley Kubrick's first studio picture who changed the lens from wide to normal for a dolly shot, saying he would see the same thing, only it's easier to light. You know what the great man said? "No, it would NOT be the same image. The PERSPECTIVE will be entirely different. Put that lens back or get off my set."

 

Try this:

Position your cute little son or a pumpkin in front of a rail fence or a brick wall. Shoot with all your lovely screw mount Leica lenses from the same position and see what happens. Count each and every brick and fence post you see, and count them good. I know what you mean when you say "perspective is determined by the camera position only" but you're wrong, wrong, wrong. Perspective is determined by the focal length, full stop. You, meaning "ALL TOGETHER NOW", notice this change in perspective blatantly and obviously only when you try to position the same object in the frame taken with different lenses so that is retains its relative size. You either move the camera closer or further or ask your model to move, doesn't bleeding matter. The perspective is the same with any given lens, however you contort yourself, the camera, the subject, anything, don't you get it?

 

Now, at the count of three, all of you: Take it easy! No sweat, bros, I'm sweet, don't shoot!

 

And thanks for your most valuable input.

:cool:

 

Oh, BTW, I ordered the 90/4 and am about to shoot the hell out of it. In yer face, big fat noses with carbuncles and all.

 

P.S. Sorry about your education system. Here, we have great students and they just loooove the heresy I stuff their heads with. I teach them first thing, before they even get down to picture taking.

Gosh, I'm wasting my time here, I have a whole day workshop tomorrow.

Please consider this thread done and dusted. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To whom it may concern. Those of you who care about photography and not pixel peeping, thanks for your valuable remarks. FYI, I attach the quickie shots that show how much extra coverage (crop?) you gain with the close focusing capability of the macro Elmar @ 50cm. Shot in horrid fluorescent light of a busy shop assistant, so it's not here for photographic merit, before anyone jumps to slay me for sloppy picture quality, right? At least the focus is where intended and you can judge DoP. Developed in LR3.

I still wonder how it performs compared to the 2.8 Elmarit-M. Dunno what you mean by 'sterile', Wattsy, but I sort of guess. Maybe the bokeh makes it kind of clean and neat?

Guess I'll take the plunge and see what it can do, need to try it with proper lighting.

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

Popcorn, please. :D

?? Now I don't geddit. Popcorn for what? You mean the caboodle about frigging perspective? You think you're in the movies? Geez, now I know why I avoid forums. This is bedlam. Sad congregation. You guys ever tried communicating real thoughts in full sentences? I haven't got time for this crap, I have pictures to take.

So long.

Link to post
Share on other sites

?? Now I don't geddit. Popcorn for what? You mean the caboodle about frigging perspective? You think you're in the movies? Geez, now I know why I avoid forums. This is bedlam. Sad congregation. You guys ever tried communicating real thoughts in full sentences? I haven't got time for this crap, I have pictures to take.

So long.

 

Oh boy, was this a bad day?

So you don't get it, but you attack in the meantime? That's not the best approach IMHO.

 

If you have pictures to take, don't waste time in harsh posts, bad words, or upsetting.

At least, don't drive with that attitude.;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...