Best lens for portrait

[Ib M]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What is the best lens for head / shoulder portrait, if I must choose between 75 or 90mm Summarit - alternatively 75mm Summicron (75mm. Summilux)

 

 

The price may well come into play, but not essential.

 

 

 

Ib M

[Advertisement]

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

[earleygallery]

What do you mean by 'best' ? Serious question.

[Ecar]

If you like sharp and clinical, the Summicron or the Summarits are "best".

If you like moody and dreamy (wide open), the Summilux beats them.

But there are also non-Leica options in those focal lengths.

Also, are you interested in weight/size, handling, etc.?

[Ib M]

James - First and foremost I thought about what focal length that would be best if there is one that is preferable.

And otherwise it´s answers ECAR comes with I called.

 

Have tried Zeiss 85mm f / 2 - but thought it suffered something of focus shift, do not know if it is a well known phenomenon of the lens

[farnz]

And then there's the legendary Leitz 90/2.2 Thambar that'll give the dreamiest portraits of all ... if you can find one.

 

Pete.

[Paul J]

For me best portrait lens is not one but a combination of four lenses for different purposes. 90 Summicron, 75 Summilux, 50 Noctilux and 35 Summilux.

 

As you've asked about head and shoulders I would consider mainly the 75mm or the 90mm. But I use other focal lengths depending on what I want to say.

 

35 Summilux for when the background is as important as the subject or I purposefully want to have a wide perspective.

50 Noctilux for environmental portraits focusing more on the subject. The 50 cron and lux are both wonderful too though!

75 Summilux for when I want closer than the 50 but still retain some background. I bought this for the dreamy look mainly for when I want closer than the Noctilux.

90 Summicron is best for close portraits with a more flattering focal length. It's a good head and shoulders perspective and more traditional focal length for that look. Also for when you want to compress the background more.

 

In order of my most used for portrait I would say:

50 Noctilux

tie between 75 Summilux and 35 Summilux. more weighted to the 75.

90 Summicron

 

I've not used it, but the 75 Summicron is suppose to be excellent. There is also the 90 Macro which also gives you macro capabilities which is something worth considering as a bonus. It's a bit slower at f4 though.

 

Each lens have their own characteristics. Best to research them here or on flickr and see what you prefer the look of.

[Ib M]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for the detailed reply Paul J, your advice will certainly be considered carefully when I have to choose lens.

 

Farnz: Thanks for the alternative choice of lens.

 

 

Ib M

[earleygallery]

Well the replies so far kind of sum up what I was going to say, there's no such thing as 'best'. It's more a case of what you prefer.

 

I rather like the results I get from the 9cm f4 Elmar, for example.

[Ib M]

Well the replies so far kind of sum up what I was going to say, there's no such thing as 'best'. It's more a case of what you prefer.

Good point, and very true

 

 

 

Ib M

[Lord Fluff]

I guess a lot of it comes down to -

 

How close do you frame your subjects and how close do you like to stand?

 

I'm not being facetious - I really do think it comes down to this basic question. Once you have settled on a focal length you then come down to a second question -

 

Do you want the image to be very sharp at any point (usually the eyes of course), or have an overall softness?

 

For example - I have both the 75 Summilux and 75 Summicron - and I struggle to say either one is 'better'. The Cron does have a plane of real sharpness, but is buttery smooth outside of that. The Lux is never really sharp in the same way (unless you stop down heavily) but can seem sharper than it is by virtue of the shallower DOF. Sometimes the softness / glow is lovely - sometimes I'd rather it was a bit sharper. I suspect the biggest aspect is whether I took a good portrait or not, rather than the lens choice - in many ways my 35 Lux Asph sees as much action for portraits - again down to framing and subject distance - as my longer lenses.

[lct]

Nothing more subjective than portrait lenses. To me they have to be gentle for not so young skins and sharp enough for the rest. Asph or apo lenses are excluded absolutely if i don't want to have problems with a good half of my relatives so my favorite portrait lenses are the last Summilux 50/1.4 pre-asph, the Summicron-R 50/2 and the last Summicron 90/2 pre-asph in M or R version.

[wda]

There are lots of 9cm f/4 Elmar lenses available which would give you a 'softer' option for female subjects. But remember, it is possible to soften your output in Lightroom with negative clarity, for example.

 

I quite like my old 50mm Summicron for head and shoulders to waist type of studies. But if you desire gritty rendering, any modern lens is capable, 75 or 90mm.

[steveclem]

Would this be for film, full frame digital or M8 size sensor?

On another note, does anyone know of comparism shots taken in set conditions using the various lens options as from the descriptions given by some posters, all of them sound spot on for the purpose. It would be helpful (at least to me) to see a side by side line up of examples.

I own the Summicron R and took some portrait shots last week but the film is still unfinished, I'll be able to have a look at that I guess,it's a start.

[philipus]

And then there's the legendary Leitz 90/2.2 Thambar that'll give the dreamiest portraits of all ... if you can find one.

 

Pete.

 

reading LFI mag 2/12 really made me want this lens...

 

I second the suggestion for the 9cm/4 Elmar. The long focus throw makes it very precise in focus. Plus they're very inexpensive, even for good copies.

 

I do like the 90/2.8 Elmarit-M. On film it is both sharp and soft enough for portraits and isolates the subject very well from the background. A really outstanding performer imo.

 

For even closer-up portraits or shoulder+head shots I much prefer the 50 asph to the pre-asph (I have both). The asph simply takes clearer pictures and renders colours very naturally (there was an excellent 50 comparison in LFI mag 6/11 with a few portrait shots). Plus the asph handles backlighting much much better.

[jsjxyz]

I used to own 75 lux. It is the magic lens for portrait.

 

Jsj