90 to 280 afor portrait?

[Lazytiger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is a question to those of you owning the 90/280. How does it compare to classical portrait lenses like the 90 APO?

 

I know the 90/280 is sharp as as can be at 90 and also at 180, and I see that the Bokeh is very soft. But it also looks rather clinical to me on most shots, lacking the character of certain primes like the 90 APO or even the affordable Elmarit-M 90. Now, since there are so few portraits on the web done at 90-130 with the 90/280 I am not sure if my impression is due to the lens itself or the skills of the respective photographers - on location and in lightroom.

 

Anyone out there having done portrait work with both, 90/280 and corresponding primes, willing to share some insight? I would be very grateful, as I am still hesitating to buy.

 

 

Edit: So sorry for the typo in the headline. Of course I meant "for portrait" If a mod could help out please....

Edited August 16, 2017 by Lazytiger

[thighslapper]

I'm afraid 'lacking the character of....' is a rather nebulous statement and I think says more about the photographer than the lens ... 

 

Lenses with 'character' usually have aberrations or other optical defects that impart a particular look ....... lenses which are optically 'perfect' impart almost nothing else apart from what you see.

 

The 90/2 or 90/2.8 only have a specific characteristic by virtue of virtually no DOF wide open at normal portrait distances ...... which is fine for artistic effect where you are happy with eyes in focus and everything else OOF and soft.

 

The 90-280 is excellent for portraits ........ if anything 2.8 is too wide ..... f 4 is better ...... and the image quality is easily as good as any prime lens of comparable focal lengths. 

 

I posted a fair few portraits in the SL image thread over the last few years .... but I'm afraid you will have to hunt for them.

 

The advantage of fast AF, OIS making low shutter speeds and low ISO indoors a possibility and the ability to zoom makes it an easy winner over the prime alternatives (*)

 

(*) the Sigma Art 135/1.8 is the only lens I've tried that betters it optically ...

[Advertisement]

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

[Lazytiger]

I'm afraid 'lacking the character of....' is a rather nebulous statement and I think says more about the photographer than the lens ... 

 

 

Well this is as nebulous as any subjective statement about lenses can be But first of all let me thank you for you answer. Very much appreciated!

 

By "character" I don't necessarily mean flaws (although these can add to it like the "Mandler-glow" the Lux 80-R wide open for example), but a certain lens quality not measurable by MTF charts. Some of it is generally addressed to with the term "micro contrast", but to me an even more interesting quality of a premium lens is the way it renders from sharpness to Bokeh. Some rare lenses do this in a very interesting way, almost sucking you into the picture when shot above f4, like the afore mentioned 90 APO or the Elmarit-M (as long as it is not shot against the light when it loses too much contrast).

 

Concerning the advantages you are mentioning I fully agree, this is why I am strongly considering a purchase. But knowing myself I want to avoid ending up using my old manual lenses instead because I bought a perfectly sharp and clean, stabilized bazooka without character

[sillbeers15]

This is a question to those of you owning the 90/280. How does it compare to classical portrait lenses like the 90 APO?

 

I know the 90/280 is sharp as as can be at 90 and also at 180, and I see that the Bokeh is very soft. But it also looks rather clinical to me on most shots, lacking the character of certain primes like the 90 APO or even the affordable Elmarit-M 90. Now, since there are so few portraits on the web done at 90-130 with the 90/280 I am not sure if my impression is due to the lens itself or the skills of the respective photographers - on location and in lightroom.

 

Anyone out there having done portrait work with both, 90/280 and corresponding primes, willing to share some insight? I would be very grateful, as I am still hesitating to buy.

 

 

Edit: So sorry for the typo in the headline. Of course I meant "for portrait" If a mod could help out please....

This subject of discussion is very subjective, so for a start there is no right or wrong. Just personal preference.

I have the APO90-280 and APO90conM. I use neither for portraits. My choice is the Noctilux for portraits.

Just 2 weeks ago Leica store in Singapore tried to stair my interest in the SL50lux. Honestly I find the SL50lux too clinical, just as my opinion for the APO50conM. Do not get me wrong, both lenses are superb. But just not what I'm looking for. As for me, landscape, portrait and macro do not call for AF function. As a matter of fact I see it as a liability at times. One needs to turn off image stabilisation and AF for landscape shots. For portraits, when the eye is out of focus, the shot is ruined. To precisely focus the eye, manual focusing do not loose out in speed. So therefore no need for AF again. Then why use the SL and not M10 you may ask since I own both. The SL EVF is superb for lenses such as the Noctilux. As to use the SL or M10 for landscape is still debatable for me. I think the coming 16-35mm will be a make or break deal for me to decide if SL should be my camera of choice for landscape. The SL & 16-35 make a good weatherproof kit. Otherwise the WATE & M10 would still be my choice now as they're so compact to carry. I can even carry a less bulky manfoto tripod for my M10 vs the GIZO tripod I use for my SL.

[dancook]

Here's two 'portraits' from the 90-280mm, whilst I second shot a wedding - they are at 90mm

 

Processed to bump contrast and fix reds

 

SL 90-280mm sample for forum by dancook1982, on Flickr

 

SL 90-280mm sample for forum by dancook1982, on Flickr

 

this was also shot with the 90-280mm, 

 

Masquerade by dancook1982, on Flickr

Edited August 17, 2017 by dancook

[geetee1972]

I haven't used any of the lenses your asking about, but I shoot a lot of portraiture. Maybe I shouldn't comment but my opinion, for what that's worth, is that by far the bigger issue with the 90-280 for portraiture is the sheer bloody size of the thing. Having that thing pointed at you will be intimidating and will limit your work. If you're shooting a professional model in a formal setting, that's not going to be an issue. Afterall you're working with a professional and he or she can be expected to at least feign comfort in front of the camera if not actually experience it. Of course, the size of that lens does then mean you'll still probably not want to hand hold for very long. Again that will limit your ability to capture something meaningful or compelling. If this is formal studio work then 'meaningful' or 'compelling' (in the human experience sort of way) isn't what you're after so it's a moot point. But still, you'll likely need to shoot with a tripod. No great shakes.

 

It will also depend on what composition you're aiming for as well. 90 is already quite long and if you want to maintain any kind of dialogue with your subject, you'll be framing for head and shoulders only at this focal length; again not impossible to hold a conversation at a longer distance but it is harder. If you were doing that at the long end of a lens, then of course that lens is versatile to go back to say 50mm to 75mm and give you more options. Alternatively if by portraiture you mean candid portraiture, removing yourself entirely from the immediate vicinity, then the longer lens is ideal. I think this works in the sort of wedding photography most clients are looking for. I'm not sure I call that strictly portraiture, but then a) I'm not the client and that's just my opinion.

 

One lens I have used that is genuinely a bit different and which I would love to have again for specific use, is the Zeiss C Sonnar 50mm 1.5. That has a very lovely glow to it, the results look like classic Holywood or as if it was shot on film. It works very well on the SL and isn't hugely expensive.

[dancook]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

At some point I can do a comparison between the 90-280mm and 90 APO, as I have them both.

 

I also do not tire from carrying around a 90-280mm at a wedding for extended periods of time - i'm always carrying that or the 50mm SL.

Edited August 17, 2017 by dancook

[thighslapper]

adding to what GeeTee says ...... the 80/1.4 R is a very good and affordable alternative ... and a breeze to use even wide open on the SL. Just long enough to add some distance, and without being too 'sharp' and harsh. 

 

I have used the 90-280 extensively in the past for portraiture, particularly outside where it gives you a lot of flexibility, particularly for candid shots. Surprisingly it handles very well and is not that much of an issue to use for long periods. Also good for critters and birdies. 

 

Depends really how much portraiture you intend doing ...... if it is just dabbling occasionally and you have no other uses for the 90-280 then it is a big, expensive solution. I have not regretted buying it, but have occasionally regretted carrying it .....

Edited August 17, 2017 by thighslapper

[LocalHero1953]

Until recently I had both the Apo-Summicron-M 90 and the 90-280SL; I have just sold the former.

Since we're dealing with subjective issues here, my opinion is that differences of character and rendering (whatever those words mean) are overwhelmed by their different objective characteristics and the abilities of the photographer, which determine how and where these lenses are used in practice. There's an enormous difference to the feel of these two lenses in the hand for the photographer and how a subject will respond to them.

 

I have used the zoom for portraits, but I certainly wouldn't buy it as my sole lens for that purpose (too big). If I had to have one of these two I would have the prime, but now I prefer the 24-90SL. Yes, you can use wider focal lengths for portraits, but you run into perspective management problems for closer shots (the big leading shoulder, or the big nearer ear). So I prefer to have the flexibility of the 24-90 zoom which has (IMO) the best focal length for close-ups at 90, as well as wider focal lengths for half and full body shots (or distorted, exaggerated perspective shots, if that's your aim). 

Edited August 17, 2017 by LocalHero1953

[Lazytiger]

Wow. Thanks a lot for all these oppinions!

 

At some point I can do a comparison between the 90-280mm and 90 APO, as I have them both.

 

This would be most interesting to me, Dan. Even a brief summary of your impression concerning the difference in their characteristic @ 90mm f2.8 would be very much appreciated!

 

 

adding to what GeeTee says ...... the 80/1.4 R is a very good and affordable alternative ... and a breeze to use even wide open on the SL. Just long enough to add some distance, and without being too 'sharp' and harsh.

 

I own the 80/1.4 R and often ask myself why... because I am not a fan of the romantic "Mandler-glow" myself, I end up stopping it down to 2.8 most of the time, at which point it is a superb lens. But why not shooting the zoom then, which gives me a lot more flexibility and OIS at the same aperture?

 

 

Until recently I had both the Apo-Summicron-M 90 and the 90-280SL; I have just sold the former.

Since we're dealing with subjective issues here, my opinion is that differences of character and rendering (whatever those words mean) are overwhelmed by their different objective characteristics and the abilities of the photographer, which determine how and where these lenses are used in practice. There's an enormous difference to the feel of these two lenses in the hand for the photographer and how a subject will respond to them.

 

I have used the zoom for portraits, but I certainly wouldn't buy it as my sole lens for that purpose (too big). If I had to have one of these two I would have the prime, but now I prefer the 24-90SL. Yes, you can use wider focal lengths for portraits, but you run into perspective management problems for closer shots (the big leading shoulder, or the big nearer ear). So I prefer to have the flexibility of the 24-90 zoom which has (IMO) the best focal length for close-ups at 90, as well as wider focal lengths for half and full body shots (or distorted, exaggerated perspective shots, if that's your aim). 

 

But you did sell the prime? So I guess you didn't find much use for it any more. What is the main difference you see between the portraits you did with that lens and your newer portraits on the zoom lenses? In terms of "lens character"?

 

While I see the practical advantages of the 24-90 it is just a tad too soft for me between 70 and 90mm, which unfortunately happens to be the weakest range of the lens concerning crispness and micro contrast. It is still sharp enough for acceptable results but doesn't compare to its own quality from 24 to 70. So I'd always prefer an 80 or 90mm prime for female headshots (for male I go 50 or sometimes 35mm). Or maybe the 90-280, which is why I opened this thread...

[geetee1972]

 

I own the 80/1.4 R and often ask myself why... because I am not a fan of the romantic "Mandler-glow" myself, I end up stopping it down to 2.8 most of the time, at which point it is a superb lens. But why not shooting the zoom then, which gives me a lot more flexibility and OIS at the same aperture?

 

Because the 80R is tiny compared to the 90-280? Of course if you don't like the glow then don't use the lens (and don't consider the C Sonnar either as  that's basically the same). Sell the lens; you won't have any trouble doing so.

 

If sharpness and clarity is your thing though then your lens is far less relevant in any and all aspects, than your lighting. A well lit portrait with a shit lens will look a whole order of magnitude better (more detail, more clarity, more resolution etc) than a poorly lit one with an expensive lens.

 

I would echo other comments that in general the lens character makes little difference and the application of it is everything. I have some personal exceptions to this (which are well documented on this forum) in particular I do not like the 50mm SL Summilux, for which I have not yet seen any portrait that I really liked (but I would happily change my mind if better examples could be found).

Edited August 17, 2017 by geetee1972

[thighslapper]

I have hunted through several thousand 90-280 images ....... and I have NONE at 90mm ..... or thereabouts, which I suppose is understandable as it would be daft for me to have changed from the 24-90 to 90-280 and then take photos at 90mm .......

 

I've personally not noticed images being obviously soft at any aperture on the 24-90.

 

This is from the 90-280 at 280mm ..... lots similar plus birds/animals/architecture ...... but all at 135mm+ 

 

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!

Edited August 17, 2017 by thighslapper

[Lazytiger]

Because the 80R is tiny compared to the 90-280? Of course if you don't like the glow then don't use the lens (and don't consider the C Sonnar either as  that's basically the same). Sell the lens; you won't have any trouble doing so.

 

If sharpness and clarity is your thing though then your lens is far less relevant in any and all aspects, than your lighting. A well lit portrait with a shit lens will look a whole order of magnitude better (more detail, more clarity, more resolution etc) than a poorly lit one with an expensive lens.

 

I would echo other comments that in general the lens character makes little difference and the application of it is everything. I have some personal exceptions to this (which are well documented on this forum) in particular I do not like the 50mm SL Summilux, for which I have not yet seen any portrait that I really liked (but I would happily change my mind if better examples could be found).

 

I don't mind the size that much, maybe because I am a 2m-guy And I'll keep my 80 R unless I can fully substitute it with the 90/280, since it changes its character so much if shot above f1.4. If I compare it to a zoom I compare it at 2.8 anyway, which is a good aperture for head & shoulder portraits. At 2.8 the glow is gone and the 80 R ist just crisp, keeping its smooth Bokeh.

 

Earning my living as a commercial director I often shoot in perfectly lit sets. So I know a lot about what light can do. Still lenses make a huge difference and I am used to discuss these and their character with my director of photography. Leica cine lenses are perfect for a lot of tasks for example, others ask for the clinical crispness of Cook or Zeiss, while all of those can do every job of course and the client would be fine with an Angenieux zoom.

 

As you can see, I am kind of spoiled and searching for the perfect tool for my photography demands. But of course it is no question that in the end of the day the photographer and his subject will make the difference.

Edited August 17, 2017 by Lazytiger

[thighslapper]

I don't mind the size that much, maybe because I am a 2m-guy And I'll keep my 80 R unless I can fully substitute it with the 90/280, since it changes its character so much if shot above f1.4. 

 

As you can see, I am kind of spoiled and searching for the perfect tool for my photography demands. But of course it is no question that in the end of the day the photographer and his subject will make the difference.

 

...... in that case I am sure you won't be disappointed with the performance of the 90-280....  

[Lazytiger]

I have hunted through several thousand 90-280 images ....... and I have NONE at 90mm ..... or thereabouts, which I suppose is understandable as it would be daft for me to have changed from the 24-90 to 90-280 and then take photos at 90mm .......

 

I've personally not noticed images being obviously soft at any aperture on the 24-90.

 

This is from the 90-280 at 280mm .....

 

L1305481.jpg

 

That shot looks great, thanks! I know the tendency to use zooms at their extreme ends all too well. I once owned a wide angle zoom on my Nikon and ended up always shooting @14mm

 

Shooting 90 on the 90/280 wouldn't be so daft IMHO because of the larger aperture and the fact that the longer zoom performs considerably better at that focal length. I initially read this somewhere on the web and did a short test at the local Leica store a while ago. I was overwhelmed by the sharpness of the 90/280 at 90mm. None of my lenses can do this and certainly not the 24/90. Not so sure about character though, since my quick test shots lacked the appropriate lighting and backgrounds. This is why I am asking about the experience of others.

[dancook]

I would echo other comments that in general the lens character makes little difference and the application of it is everything. I have some personal exceptions to this (which are well documented on this forum) in particular I do not like the 50mm SL Summilux, for which I have not yet seen any portrait that I really liked (but I would happily change my mind if better examples could be found).

 

Regardless of the limited application of the 50SL in it's short lifetime, do you believe the characteristics of the 50SL lens would ruin the exact same portrait you would have liked shot by any other 50mm lens?

 

Because I believe you already have an issue with the cost and the bulk, and probably the people who would accept them.

[dancook]

This would be most interesting to me, Dan. Even a brief summary of your impression concerning the difference in their characteristic @ 90mm f2.8 would be very much appreciated!

 

This afternoon I've asked my wife to let me take some portraits with everything I have.. except the M10 because that's not here yet unfortunately.

[LocalHero1953]

But you did sell the prime? So I guess you didn't find much use for it any more. What is the main difference you see between the portraits you did with that lens and your newer portraits on the zoom lenses? In terms of "lens character"?

 

While I see the practical advantages of the 24-90 it is just a tad too soft for me between 70 and 90mm, which unfortunately happens to be the weakest range of the lens concerning crispness and micro contrast. It is still sharp enough for acceptable results but doesn't compare to its own quality from 24 to 70. So I'd always prefer an 80 or 90mm prime for female headshots (for male I go 50 or sometimes 35mm). Or maybe the 90-280, which is why I opened this thread...

Yes, I sold the prime. I mainly use the SL for portrait work, and I prefer the flexibility of the 24-90, together with its AF. I am considering replacing it with the Summicron-SL 90 when it appears, for those cases when I want f/2 rather than f/4 at 90mm - and even then the model only has to move slightly and your focus is out. For deeper DoF images, MF is less important.

 

The difference in character of the lenses is small, IMO, compared to the photographer's input. I am not the kind of portrait photographer who hires a model and tries to take the most perfect image of them. I know most of my subjects to a greater or lesser extent, and I'm trying to show their character, not the lens's. 

Edited August 17, 2017 by LocalHero1953

[geetee1972]

 

As you can see, I am kind of spoiled and searching for the perfect tool for my photography demands.

I am seeing with envy

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[geetee1972]

 

do you believe the characteristics of the 50SL lens would ruin the exact same portrait you would have liked shot by any other 50mm lens?

 

Well ruin might be too extreme, and I'm still open minded about it but, the size and cost of it aside (they are still huge obstacles that mean I struggle to get the point of it), I've not yet seen a portrait taken with it that i liked. Now, that might be just a factor of the limited availability of images by which to reach a conclusion, which is why I remain open minded, or it might be that in reality, the way the 50SL renders is indeed as negative as I've experienced it.

 

Probably I would have to borrow or rent one and spend a day with doing what I do to be able to determine what the reality is.