chucky666 Posted June 20, 2011 Share #1 Posted June 20, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'd like to get a 35 mm lens for my M6TTL and I'm leaning towards these two or the zeiss 2.0. I love portraiture and I think the isolation I get when I use my 50 mm summicron wide open has made some shots. My question, how much more isolation can I expect from shooting at 1.4 vs 2.0? To me this is the only reason for me to go for the summilux. It has some drawbacks - size and price, however, I love isolation in portraits. Thanks!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 20, 2011 Posted June 20, 2011 Hi chucky666, Take a look here Additional isolation with summilux 35 1.4 vs summicron 35 2.0. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
01af Posted June 20, 2011 Share #2 Posted June 20, 2011 Using a 35 mm lens in portraiture is not about isolating the main subject. Just to the contrary, it's about connecting the subject to its environment. If you want to isolate then use a 75 mm or 90 mm lens (on a 35-mm-format camera). That said, if the background is far beyond depth-of-field then the diameter of the blur circles of indiviual points will be proportional to the diameter of the aperture. So, all other parameters being equal, when opening up the aperture by two f-stops, the blur circles will become twice as wide in diameter. When opening up by one f-stop, they will become 1.4× as wide. However this relation holds for far-away background only. For a background that is only slightly outside depth-of-field, the difference of the effects of different apertures will be smaller. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted June 20, 2011 Share #3 Posted June 20, 2011 Using a 35 mm lens in portraiture is not about isolating the main subject. Just to the contrary, it's about connecting the subject to its environment. If you want to isolate then use a 75 mm or 90 mm lens (on a 35-mm-format camera). The rules of photography must never be broken. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucky666 Posted June 20, 2011 Author Share #4 Posted June 20, 2011 Using a 35 mm lens in portraiture is not about isolating the main subject. Just to the contrary, it's about connecting the subject to its environment. If you want to isolate then use a 75 mm or 90 mm lens (on a 35-mm-format camera). That said, if the background is far beyond depth-of-field then the diameter of the blur circles of indiviual points will be proportional to the diameter of the aperture. So, all other parameters being equal, when opening up the aperture by two f-stops, the blur circles will become twice as wide in diameter. When opening up by one f-stop, they will become 1.4× as wide. However this relation holds for far-away background only. For a background that is only slightly outside depth-of-field, the difference of the effects of different apertures will be smaller. Thanks for the explanation about the circles. I spend most of my time in wide and ultrawide with other cameras. I see a 35mm being useful to bring more of the subject in with the wider angle of view, in a close up situation, but if the background is unfortunate in terms of brightness or clutter, especially in a spontaneous situation, a nice bokeh smear could really fix the picture. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted June 20, 2011 Share #5 Posted June 20, 2011 ... if the background is unfortunate in terms of brightness or clutter, especially in a spontaneous situation, a nice bokeh smear could really fix the picture. The background-annihilation power of wide apertures typically gets over-estimated. Don't be too disappointed if f/1.4 doesn't really fix a poorly composed picture. Blurred clutter still is clutter. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted June 20, 2011 Share #6 Posted June 20, 2011 I must agree, for the use you propose a fast(ish) 75 or 90 seems to be more suited. You will exclude more background clutter and get more blurred OOF areas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucky666 Posted June 20, 2011 Author Share #7 Posted June 20, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) I must agree, for the use you propose a fast(ish) 75 or 90 seems to be more suited. You will exclude more background clutter and get more blurred OOF areas. My purpose is I want it wide, wider than my 50 summicron, with some opportunity to isolate, as I have in the 50 at f 2.0. 75 or 90 is the wrong direction here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted June 20, 2011 Share #8 Posted June 20, 2011 As a rough and ready reply, I would suggest that at f/1.4 a 35mm may give 'similar', but far from identical, background and out of focus 'feel' to a 50mm lens at f/2. Its wider but not that much wider, and faster so the two will balance to a some extent but would need experimentation to see at what distances shots would need to be taken. Buying an f/1.4 lens would be an expensive way to find out if the results really were to your liking, however in my experience, having an extra stop increases versatility anyway. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chucky666 Posted June 20, 2011 Author Share #9 Posted June 20, 2011 As a rough and ready reply, I would suggest that at f/1.4 a 35mm may give 'similar', but far from identical, background and out of focus 'feel' to a 50mm lens at f/2. Its wider but not that much wider, and faster so the two will balance to a some extent but would need experimentation to see at what distances shots would need to be taken. Buying an f/1.4 lens would be an expensive way to find out if the results really were to your liking, however in my experience, having an extra stop increases versatility anyway. There are plenty of times when I've wished I had an extra stop. F 1.4 is expensive, but I saw a good deal on one, and I've been looking for a 35 for a project, so that's what prompted this, thinking about the isolation I might get with a 1.4. Thanks for all the replies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
innerimager Posted June 20, 2011 Share #10 Posted June 20, 2011 Of course, having a 1.4 lens doesn't require you to set it there! The aperture ring still works. That is, you can get the wider angle view and all the detail throughout the field you want stopping down a summilux, but when you want more isolation, or just need the extra light, you can't dial 1.4 on a cron! ;>) Anyway, the 35 lux asph (1st version) was the first Leica lens I bought, (thankfully long before the prices went wild) and would probably be the last I'd let go. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geotrupede Posted June 21, 2011 Share #11 Posted June 21, 2011 CV 35 f1.7 is an amazing and affordable way to find out. otherwise the summicron f2 is poetry. and if you do not mind large the CV 35 f1.2 is the ultimate option on M8 I prefer the CV 28 f 1.9 (or the Leica 28 summilux) which are like a 35 given the crop. but none of the above is a noctilux... G Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NB23 Posted June 21, 2011 Share #12 Posted June 21, 2011 28 summilux?? Where? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
geotrupede Posted August 27, 2011 Share #13 Posted August 27, 2011 ...summicron, indeed :-) thanks for the correction. oops! G Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel_Meaby Posted August 27, 2011 Share #14 Posted August 27, 2011 28 summilux?? Where? It's a Leica a la carte option But very pricey Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted August 27, 2011 Share #15 Posted August 27, 2011 I'd like to get a 35 mm lens for my M6TTL and I'm leaning towards these two or the zeiss 2.0. I love portraiture and I think the isolation I get when I use my 50 mm summicron wide open has made some shots. My question, how much more isolation can I expect from shooting at 1.4 vs 2.0? To me this is the only reason for me to go for the summilux. It has some drawbacks - size and price, however, I love isolation in portraits. Thanks!! You won't get enough separation between f2 and f/1.4 to make a difference. If your background sucks at f/2 it will still suck at f/1.4. In fact, I'll bet it won't improve with f/.95 due to all the other crap that comes with that lens. Try considering something like the 75mm Summilux. If you want you can have less DOF than a f/.95 with graceful bokeh or be reasonable and stop down to a rational stop and good backgrounds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronan Posted August 27, 2011 Share #16 Posted August 27, 2011 The rules of photography must never be broken. We aren't talking about the rules of photography, but what he wants to do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
erl Posted August 28, 2011 Share #17 Posted August 28, 2011 Some responding posters have offered 'their' recipe formulation for creating the portrait that the OP desires. While I agree with their 'rule' for achieving it, that does not address the actual intention. ie. a portrait with a W/A lens. Totally legitimate. The difficulty comes in when the added requirement is to blur the background. Two possibilities remain. 1. Separate the subject and background with greater distance, or 2. Use a wider aperture. (limited effect because of focal length) When a 35mm focal length is selected, option '1' is both easier and cheaper, if at all practical. Option '2', as already pointed out by another poster, will be limited in effectiveness, by nature of the lens inherent DOF, at any aperture. That brings us back to the alternative suggestions, but they do not conform to the OP's wish. He has a problem to solve, with only two options (above) remaining. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted August 28, 2011 Share #18 Posted August 28, 2011 The rules of photography must never be broken. We aren't talking about the rules of photography, but what he wants to do. Wattsy was also saying this. We need a sarcasm smilie. Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Holy Moly Posted August 28, 2011 Share #19 Posted August 28, 2011 My purpose is I want it wide, wider than my 50 summicron, with some opportunity to isolate, as I have in the 50 at f 2.0. 75 or 90 is the wrong direction here. 35mm Cron Vers. IV: Balancing... | Flickr - Photo Sharing! and .. | Flickr - Photo Sharing! It depends how close you want to go. Even with 28mm you get using the 'sweet spot' of the lens enough isolation AND surrounding for your composition: Cigarettje | Flickr - Photo Sharing! my 90mm Tele-Elmarit I used for 2 shots in three years - sold it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_n Posted September 1, 2011 Share #20 Posted September 1, 2011 I used a 35 Summilux ASPH ver.1 and a 35 Summicron ASPH together for about a year and ultimately sold the Summilux as I couldn't see any difference of the type you're looking for wide-open, didn't really need the f1.4 (faster film) and just preferred the handling of the Summicron. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.