Jump to content

Fast portrait lens for T, TL, TL2

szabokristof
 Share

Recommended Posts

szabokristof

szabokristof

Posted
Posted (edited)

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi All,

 

Which fast lens do you use for portrait on the T, TL, TL2? If you have sample images please show us.

What do you think about the:

- Voigtlander 50mm f1.1

- Leica Noctilux f1

- Leica Noctilux f0.95

- 7artisans 50mm f1.1

- Nikkor 50mm f1.2

- Canon 50mm f0.95

 

Any other good, fast portrait lens which can mount with an adapter on the T, TL, TL2?

 

Not fast, but native Leica APO-Macro-Elmarit-TL 60mm f/2.8 ASPH lens for portrait?

Not fast, not prime, but what do you think the native Leica APO-Vario-Elmar-T 55-135mm f/3.5-4.5 ASPH lens for portrait?

 

Any other good, fast portrait lens which can mount with an adapter on the T, TL, TL2?

Edited by szabokristof
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
tom0511

tom0511

Posted
Posted

I own some 50s with M mount but on the TL my favorite lenses for portraits of my kids are either the 35/1.4TL, the 55-135 (which I find very usefull), and I have lately added the 60/2.8.

The 35mm TL is not a typical portrait focal length but for my type  of shooting I like it and it has a very nice drawing.

If I use the TL I wat AF, so I wouldnt mess with my 50APO on the TL, even though it might work very well too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
szabokristof

szabokristof

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I own some 50s with M mount but on the TL my favorite lenses for portraits of my kids are either the 35/1.4TL, the 55-135 (which I find very usefull), and I have lately added the 60/2.8.

The 35mm TL is not a typical portrait focal length but for my type  of shooting I like it and it has a very nice drawing.

If I use the TL I wat AF, so I wouldnt mess with my 50APO on the TL, even though it might work very well too.

 

Which do you prefer, the 60 f2.8 or the 55-135?

Link to post
Share on other sites
ropo54

ropo54

Posted
Posted

You have got many choices that are excellent.

 

If you want autofocus the 35 1.4 TL is superb. The 60 2.8 TL is as well, but I would prefer the faster speed of the 35 1.4. The 60 2.8 tends to hunt a bit in less than optimum lighting. But, do you want a 50mm perspective or a 90mm perspective?  

 

The 75 f2 is extremely well regarded. I preferred the 90 f2 AA, but that is just me.

 

If you are at all budget conscious, 2 great options are the Zeiss 50mm f2 planar and/or the Voigtlander 75 1.8 or 2.5 (not used either of these). The Zeiss and Voigtlander, combined will cost approximately 50% of the Leica 75 or 90.

 

A favorite of mine (which I will never trade out) is the R80 1.4, which will give you magnificent bokeh wide open and will be very sharp when stopped down. The equivalent M lens is the 75 1.4, which will cost 2x the price of the R80 and render a similar output. Both of these will give you images that are quite similar to that of the noctilux series of lenses, at a fraction of the cost. If you like/want that look definitely opt for one of these.

 

Then, there is the 50 summilux and summicrons. Both highly regarded.

 

Like I said . . . all good choices for you!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lazytiger

Lazytiger

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Seconding the Lux-R 80. Just be aware that you have a special glow when used wide open, that is gone at f4. Which can be used for a beautiful effect similar to the also quite soft Nocti. Lux 50 ASPH is absolutely sharp wide open. I use this for men and 80R for females, at f2-2.8, as a general approach. Could also stop the 80 down for males, but then I also prefer the less glorifying effect of shorter angles on men.

Link to post
Share on other sites
LocalHero1953

LocalHero1953

Posted
Posted

You can use any focal lengths for portraits, but IMO 50mm (75mm equiv) is too short to be referred to as a portrait lens: it takes too much effort (which is distracting when interacting with a portrait subject) to avoid unwanted distortion. Of course, if distortion is part of the effect you are after, then 50mm is fine.

 

I haven't had the TL2 long enough to use it for portraits (and I will continue to use the SL for most portraits), but AF options are limited to the 60mm TL and the SL lenses. I find the SL zooms manageable on the TL2, but I am always aware that they are a mismatch. The smaller upcoming 75mm SL may be the answer, but it will still be large compared to the TL2. Personally I would prefer to have a lens that is better matched in size to the TL2, so would pick the Apo-Summicron-M 75mm rather than an R equivalent.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lazytiger

Lazytiger

Posted
Posted

You can use any focal lengths for portraits, but IMO 50mm (75mm equiv) is too short to be referred to as a portrait lens: it takes too much effort (which is distracting when interacting with a portrait subject) to avoid unwanted distortion. Of course, if distortion is part of the effect you are after, then 50mm is fine.

 

 

Perfect for a distortion-free head and shoulders portrait! I've known someone use a 300mm lens for portraits (full frame), but that was a bit OTT.

 

Depends on how you define distortion. Long lenses "distort" by making things flat. Which generally looks flattering, but rarely characteristic. So it depends on what you're after in a portrait.

 

50mm (75 equiv) can be  a perfect compromise between characteristic and flattering. No ugly distortion (unless you go really close that is), but not too much 2D compression either.

 

I agree that 120mm equiv is far from "too long" and can give very nice results, especially with females.

Link to post
Share on other sites
LocalHero1953

LocalHero1953

Posted
Posted

With 35mm yes, if you get too close. 50mm a little. With 75mm? Not for my eyes.

Oh, you don't know me - I can get big shoulder syndrome with a 75mm without effort. Sure, a bit of extra skill and care can avoid it, but (again IMO) I would rather not have to worry about it - hence my preference for 90mm as a 'portrait' lens. Which is not the same as declaring that lenses shorter than 90mm cannot be used for portraits. I was simply responding to the OP's request for recommendations for a 'portrait' lens.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
szabokristof

szabokristof

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thank you for all the suggestions and the opinion.

I wish I can use native AF lens for short telephoto and portrait usage on my TL2. Now the only choices are:

  • APO-Macro-Elmarit-TL 60mm f/2.8 ASPH (Maybe a little slow, but I get a macro lens)
  • Summilux-SL 50mm f/1.4 ASPH (Great, but the size is HUGE for the TL2)
  • APO-Vario-Elmar-T 55-135mm f/3.5-4.5 ASPH (This would be the best, but very slow)
  • APO-SUMMICRON-SL 75 f/2 ASPH (Maybe this will be the solution, but the size and the weight and the price is unknown yet)

I use my TL2 mainly for traveling. I like to travel light, so my main lens (and now the only for the TL2) is the Summicron 23. I need a wide lens (It will be the 11-23. Not fast, but very sharp and there is no native wide alternative) and I need a tele lens. I do not want to travel more than 3 lens. Because of this I have to choose one tele lens. The 55-135 would be the best for travel because the versatility (now I biased to this direction a little bit), but it is slow. The 60mm macro is a good compromise, but maybe I will miss the longer side and not much faster than the 55-135. What do you think?

 

Sometimes, when I not travel with the TL2 I will use it for portraits, but this usage is very rare.

 

Not so easy decision.  :unsure:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Starwolfy

Starwolfy

Posted
Posted

55-135mm is not that slow !

If you mainly do outdoor shoots during daylight it will be perfect.

Only you can decided if you favor daylight versatility versus lens speed.

My aim is to use my T system for traveling too so I went this way :

 

11-23 for ultra wide to normal (23mm is equiv to 35mm in FF)

 

35 f1.4 for a very fast normal lens (about 50mm in FF) which I will use only for low light or when I need a 50mm field of view.

 

And 55-135 for portrait and long reach.

 

 

I was unsure about the 23mm f2 vs the 35mm f1.4 but decided on the 35mm f1.4.

 

I guess for traveling purpose the 35mm f1.4 may be exchanged for a 23mm f1.4 if this lens is made one day for more versatility. I think the 23 f2 should have been enough for what I do but finally I got traped again by the speed factor :)

 

11-23 is just amazing !

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest VVJ

Guest VVJ

Posted
Posted

I just traveled with the 3 zooms and the 23mm, a pretty versatile combination.  If purely for travel I wouldn't bother with the 35mm or the 60mm.

 

I would buy the 11-23mm first, then the 18-56mm and at that time determine whether you really need the 55-135.  I personally use the 55-135 very little even though it is a very good lens.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...