The best portrait Leica len on SL 601

[phongph]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi All!

Please advice your idea the best portrait Leica len on SL 601, based on:

- Focal lenght: 50 mm, 75 mm, 90 mm and others,

- Aperture: f1.4, f2.0, f2.5 and others.

- Convenient and size.

Which len will make the body nicer, look the longer leg for lady (?)

 

My gear is SL 24-90/ f2.8-4.0 ASPH and M App 50/ f2.0 with SL 601.

 

Happy New year 2017!

Thank, phongph!

[thighslapper]

Which lens will make the body nicer, look the longer leg for lady (?)

 

 

Happy New year 2017!

Thank, phongph!

 I think rose tinted spectacles or consumption of a bottle of wine or two would be required to achieve that ....... 

 

To be honest the 2 lenses you have are perfect ....... I have shot a couple of portrait days with the APO 50/2 on the M and the results were outstanding ..... and should be as good or better on the SL

 

The last 3 outings taking pics of nice ladies with long legs were with the with the 24-90 and the results were equally good ...... there are examples on the image thread from earlier last year..... and one of the girls got a modelling contract on the back of the prints I gave her afterwards. 

 

The apertures on the 24-90 are sufficient to isolate the subject .... and to be honest using any wider aperture results in out of focus noses and other issues..... plus you have OIS which is indispensable.

 

Also used the 90-280 ...... which is also fantastic .... but handholding for long periods gets to you eventually .....

Edited January 2, 2017 by thighslapper

[Advertisement]

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

[geetee1972]

50mm is my preferred choice for portraits. I'd like a 90mm for something tight on the head but 50mm still works fine and since you appear to have about the best 50mm ever made I'd say you're all set.

[Jared]

Most people aren't looking for biting sharpness when taking portraits.  From a technical standpoint it's really more about getting the lighting right, controlling depth of field, and nailing the focus.  As a result, any of the lenses you mentioned will work just fine.  I'd say it comes down to your working style; basically, whether you need autofocus.  If you do, then the 24-90 is a great choice.  It's quick and accurate for nailing the focus on the close eye (assuming that's what you want), and you will be able to put your energy into other areas.  

 

Myself, I prefer to use manual focus lenses in situations where I don't need speed because I almost always end up putting more thought into my photos.  Slowing down can often be a good thing.  In some portrait photography a manual lens is really going to hamper you; in other situations it won't.  For example, I had to get head shots of the cast of my daughter's play last year.  That involved fifty different actors in a ninety minute time period.  For that situation, the convenience of autofocus became a necessity.  Normally, I'd have chosen the 75mm Summicron M and shot it at f/2.8 or so, but there is no way I'd have gotten through the whole cast with that approach.  

 

End result, as long as you don't need the autofocus, any of the lenses you mentioned can work well.  The classic focal lengths for head and shoulders portraits on 35mm format bodies are between 85mm and 105mm.  That gives a mild flattening effect which is generally considered flattering to faces without losing all three dimensionality.  Also, most lenses in that focal length range give you a shallow depth of field so that you can keep ears and nose in rough focus and still blur background/remove distractions.  However, plenty of portrait photographers have chosen different focal lengths.  35mm is often considered optimal for environmental portraits, as an example.  To some extent, it's also about getting a reasonable working distance between you and your subject.  You should both feel comfortable--if there is a camera right in the face of your subject you are likely to get a very different set of expressions than if you are a few feet away.  Likewise, it can be hard to communicate effectively with your subject/model if you are shooting from across the room with a long lens.  You should probably just experiment and see what works well for you.  Effective portraits are rarely about the lens.

 

- Jared

 

[phongph]

Hi Thingslapper and Geetee1972!

Thanks for your advice!

I think 50 mm focal is good for many shooting purpose but I concern some for its ratio of portrait. SL 24-90/f2.8-4.0 is quite good for portrait from 75-90 mm focal lenght, but it Aperture is small (from 3.5-4.0) & bokeh is not so nice.

How about your thinking of SL Apo 75/f2 or SL Apo 90/f2 will be very good for portrait on SL 601?

Have a nice day!

Thanks!

[pkwok]

I use a 80mm F1.4 R lens, which is also good for portrait.

[phongph]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Most people aren't looking for biting sharpness when taking portraits.  From a technical standpoint it's really more about getting the lighting right, controlling depth of field, and nailing the focus.  As a result, any of the lenses you mentioned will work just fine.  I'd say it comes down to your working style; basically, whether you need autofocus.  If you do, then the 24-90 is a great choice.  It's quick and accurate for nailing the focus on the close eye (assuming that's what you want), and you will be able to put your energy into other areas.  

 

Myself, I prefer to use manual focus lenses in situations where I don't need speed because I almost always end up putting more thought into my photos.  Slowing down can often be a good thing.  In some portrait photography a manual lens is really going to hamper you; in other situations it won't.  For example, I had to get head shots of the cast of my daughter's play last year.  That involved fifty different actors in a ninety minute time period.  For that situation, the convenience of autofocus became a necessity.  Normally, I'd have chosen the 75mm Summicron M and shot it at f/2.8 or so, but there is no way I'd have gotten through the whole cast with that approach.  

 

End result, as long as you don't need the autofocus, any of the lenses you mentioned can work well.  The classic focal lengths for head and shoulders portraits on 35mm format bodies are between 85mm and 105mm.  That gives a mild flattening effect which is generally considered flattering to faces without losing all three dimensionality.  Also, most lenses in that focal length range give you a shallow depth of field so that you can keep ears and nose in rough focus and still blur background/remove distractions.  However, plenty of portrait photographers have chosen different focal lengths.  35mm is often considered optimal for environmental portraits, as an example.  To some extent, it's also about getting a reasonable working distance between you and your subject.  You should both feel comfortable--if there is a camera right in the face of your subject you are likely to get a very different set of expressions than if you are a few feet away.  Likewise, it can be hard to communicate effectively with your subject/model if you are shooting from across the room with a long lens.  You should probably just experiment and see what works well for you.  Effective portraits are rarely about the lens.

 

- Jared

Hi Jared!

Many thanks for your advice!

Have a good day!

 

[geetee1972]

 

I think 50 mm focal is good for many shooting purpose but I concern some for its ratio of portrait.

 

Well it really depends on the nature of the portrait, i.e. how much of the person you want to include. For environmental portraiture for example I would use a 35mm lens in many instances. For full length down to one third I would use a 50mm and would only feel the need to go longer if I was wanting to shoot a head and shoulders portrait but even then you can shoot a head shot with a 50mm, for example:

 

Olivia - Transitions by Greg Turner, on Flickr

 

and

 

Olly - Transitions by Greg Turner, on Flickr

 

There is some perspective distortion in these two; the nose on both looks slightly larger than it should be and there's less compression to flatter the subject, but they both still work well as close up portraits. if you're shooting professionally and doing say corporate head shots, then consider adding a 90mm pre-ASP Summicron, Summarit or even the 90mm Elmarit.

[meerec]

Well it really depends on the nature of the portrait, i.e. how much of the person you want to include. For environmental portraiture for example I would use a 35mm lens in many instances. For full length down to one third I would use a 50mm and would only feel the need to go longer if I was wanting to shoot a head and shoulders portrait but even then you can shoot a head shot with a 50mm, for example:

 

 

There is some perspective distortion in these two; the nose on both looks slightly larger than it should be and there's less compression to flatter the subject, but they both still work well as close up portraits. if you're shooting professionally and doing say corporate head shots, then consider adding a 90mm pre-ASP Summicron, Summarit or even the 90mm Elmarit.

As you said in your last paragraph you need a 75-90-100mm lens to get a more flattering look

Edited January 3, 2017 by meerec

[SilentShutter]

 

Well it really depends on the nature of the portrait, i.e. how much of the person you want to include. For environmental portraiture for example I would use a 35mm lens in many instances. For full length down to one third I would use a 50mm and would only feel the need to go longer if I was wanting to shoot a head and shoulders portrait but even then you can shoot a head shot with a 50mm, for example:

 

Olivia - Transitions by Greg Turner, on Flickr

 

and

 

Olly - Transitions by Greg Turner, on Flickr

 

There is some perspective distortion in these two; the nose on both looks slightly larger than it should be and there's less compression to flatter the subject, but they both still work well as close up portraits. if you're shooting professionally and doing say corporate head shots, then consider adding a 90mm pre-ASP Summicron, Summarit or even the 90mm Elmarit.

 

Very impressive samples !

[SilentShutter]

I use a 80mm F1.4 R lens, which is also good for portrait.

 

I had used the 50 and 80 in the studio a lot

For location I love to use the 135 over all - close enough to stay in touch with the model

and more than enough to let the background blur away even when you have to use 5,6 apperature

[profus]

 

Well it really depends on the nature of the portrait, i.e. how much of the person you want to include. For environmental portraiture for example I would use a 35mm lens in many instances. For full length down to one third I would use a 50mm and would only feel the need to go longer if I was wanting to shoot a head and shoulders portrait but even then you can shoot a head shot with a 50mm, for example:

 

Olivia - Transitions by Greg Turner, on Flickr

 

and

 

Olly - Transitions by Greg Turner, on Flickr

 

There is some perspective distortion in these two; the nose on both looks slightly larger than it should be and there's less compression to flatter the subject, but they both still work well as close up portraits. if you're shooting professionally and doing say corporate head shots, then consider adding a 90mm pre-ASP Summicron, Summarit or even the 90mm Elmarit.

 

Like those images! God job. Would you be kind to tell, what 50 mm lens did you use here? Wide open? On which body?

Thank you!

[geetee1972]

 

Very impressive samples !

 

Thank you -

 

 

Like those images! God job. Would you be kind to tell, what 50 mm lens did you use here? Wide open? On which body?

 

Thank you also. These were taken with a 50mm Summilux on the Leica SL shot, I think, at f/1.4. I don't have the Leica adapter so there's no lens data in the EXIF information but I'm fairly sure it was wide open. They are from a project looking at the transition from youth to adolescence and into adulthood. If you're interested the project is here: http://www.tearsinrain.co.uk/transition/

 

About half the images are shot with the SL/50 Lux combination, the other third with a Hasselblad 501c/m with 80mm lens (more or less equivalent to a 50mm on FF)

Edited January 3, 2017 by geetee1972

[earleygallery]

My gear is SL 24-90/ f2.8-4.0 ASPH and M App 50/ f2.0 with SL 601.

 

 

 

Your zoom lens should be ideal for your purpose I would have thought. .

[steppenw0lf]

More important than the lens is the technique. Usually portraits from several different angles are a good start. Maybe additionally from several different distances, different light, etc..

Then in the end it is possible to select the photos that have the best expression or "look best" - depends on what is the target of your portrait session  (greatest possible resemblance, "best impression" even if not typical (business photo), or showing an atypical look normally not expected for this model)

I am always astonished and also disappointed, if i see only portraits "from the front". Typically heads/faces are asymmetrical (maybe more in older people than children) and it is necessary to take the time to find out which angle really gives a "special" result.

 

Take a model like the singer Amy Winehouse. I have not once seen a "from the front" portrait of her.

Or think of Alfred Hitchcock.

 

Regarding lenses, I think nothing is better than a small tele, (if AF and OIS, then 90-280)

Edited January 4, 2017 by steppenw0lf

[earleygallery]

More important than the lens is the technique. Usually portraits from several different angles are a good start. Maybe additionally from several different distances, different light, etc..

 

Well that's true for most types of photography really, and there are many ways to take a portrait using anything from a fisheye lens upwards. 

 

But I assume that the OP is asking about 'conventional' head and shoulder type portrait shots which is where a lens in the region of 90mm is generally considered best as it doesn't exaggerate features and allows a comfortable distance between photographer and subject.

 

As the OP has a capable 90mm lens already I don't think he needs to worry about lenses. As you say he should practice technique, with what he has.

[earleygallery]

 

Take a model like the singer Amy Winehouse. I have not once seen a "from the front" portrait of her.

 

Curious about this I did a google - quite a few 'frontal' portraits actually  https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=amy+winehouse&client=firefox-b-ab&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7qNSsyajRAhVHSRoKHUIZBAQQ_AUICCgB&biw=1396&bih=781#imgrc=15o-kNYQ8KPOuM%3A

Edited January 4, 2017 by earleygallery

[steppenw0lf]

Curious about this I did a google - quite a few 'frontal' portraits actually  https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=amy+winehouse&client=firefox-b-ab&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7qNSsyajRAhVHSRoKHUIZBAQQ_AUICCgB&biw=1396&bih=781#imgrc=15o-kNYQ8KPOuM%3A

It is probably also about the memory/brain being active. So after a while I "dismiss" the "bad looking" portraits and only remember the portraits that showed anything typical or special. (the memorable memories   )

I am sure that I have seen Alfred Hitchcock from the front. But I found it terrible and typically remember him with a side view or even his profile.

For Amy Winehouse the memories are not so clear, but still I remember her as being strongly "asymmetrical".

Just remember some of the holliywood greats (from B/W) - for me almost all in 3/4 . While I remember many "presidents" or politicians straight from the front.

 

Having looked at the images from your link, I recognize her much quicker in the "non-frontal" images (nose, lips, head shape). While the frontal images seem (almost) incomplete for me (so I will delete them very soon again  from my memories)

 

By the way, did you notice, that not all images were of Amy Winehouse - some were of a swedish actress (from a thriller trilogy). Mainly frontal images were wrong, while there were much less misses in the non-frontal selection.

Edited January 5, 2017 by steppenw0lf

[MT0227]

I'm using the M 90mm APO and quite happy with the results.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I choose the lenses I want based on my preferences for perspective and compression. I tend to like a slightly flattened perspective for people so I shoot from a distance (camera vertically) where a 50 is a full length shot, an 85 is a mid and a 135 is a head and shoulders portrait. The constant is my shooting distance, if I have the room to move. Focal length only becomes relevant after I know where to stand.

 

I often see shots from others with wider or longer lenses that I think are fantastic. But for my own shooting I tend to favour mid shooting distances for people and then select the focal length based on the framing I want.

 

Gordon