M11 & 28 Cron as portrait lens

[THEME]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 28mm Summicron can do as a portrait lens. Of course needs some post-processing, such as cropping.

I continue to use the M11 with a single-lens setup: this cron. Versatile and bokeh-blurry enough for me.

More samples here.

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[Ouroboros]

Not wishing to rain on your parade, but I think these portraits demonstrate exactly why using a 28mm sometimes, especially close to the sitter like this, is, in this instance, a big mistake.

In the top image, the girl's face from her upper cheeks to her chin, especially her nose and mouth, are exaggerated as you'd expect by being the closest part of her face to the camera.

In the middle image, she has a tiny right forearm and hand growing out of her right shoulder and a huge left upper arm and wrist, caused by the 28mm perspective.   

In the bottom image the girl's shoulder is almost as big as her face, exaggerated by the 28mm and made even worse by the highlight on the shoulder.

I think there is a good case for using a 28mm in environmental portraits, but not close to the sitter like this and all three images would have worked much better if you'd taken a few steps back from her. 

A more appropriate focal length lens such as a 50mm or 75mm and more work on lighting and posing would create images that are flattering for the sitter.

Otherwise, I think the 28mm summicron asph (I have the safari edition) is a great lens.

 

Edited July 14, 2023 by Ouroboros

[THEME]

31 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

Not wishing to rain on your parade, but I think these portraits demonstrate exactly why using a 28mm sometimes, especially close to the sitter like this, is, in this instance, a big mistake.

In the top image, the girl's face from her upper cheeks to her chin, especially her nose and mouth, are exaggerated as you'd expect by being the closest part of her face to the camera.

In the middle image, she has a tiny right forearm and hand growing out of her right shoulder and a huge left upper arm and wrist, caused by the 28mm perspective.   

In the bottom image the girl's shoulder is almost as big as her face, exaggerated by the 28mm and made even worse by the highlight on the shoulder.

I think there is a good case for using a 28mm in environmental portraits, but not close to the sitter like this and all three images would have worked much better if you'd taken a few steps back from her. 

A more appropriate focal length lens such as a 50mm or 75mm and more work on lighting and posing would create images that are flattering for the sitter.

Otherwise, I think the 28mm summicron asph (I have the safari edition) is a great lens.

 

Interesting points @Ouroboros yet I couldn't disagree more with you.

What you are talking about is mathematically correct, borderline sterile photography.

I am aiming for spontaneity and story-telling, with the 28mm adding a three-dimensional width, which is of course would be completely absent with a 75mm. See the second image. Not flat, but three-dimensional, adding perspective.

Agreeing that her shoulder might look a bit over-proportioned in the third image. That's not the lens, that's her fitness-gym-built strength.

[lct]

Big noses are not forbidden  Just kidding

[Ouroboros]

23 minutes ago, THEME said:

 

.....What you are talking about is mathematically correct, borderline sterile photography.

No. 

What I'm talking about is being a photographer.  By that I mean understanding light and in the discipline of portraiture, being confident and competent in posing the sitter, which does not have any basis in mathematics and is definitely not shown in these images. 

Whether images are 'borderline sterile' or just plain crap through a poor or inappropriate choice of equipment, bad posing, lack of lighting skills etc is invariably down to the skill, or otherwise, of the camera user.

I'm afraid we're never going to agree on the merit or otherwise of these images. 

 

 

Edited July 14, 2023 by Ouroboros

[FrozenInTime]

The OP did highlight cropping 

Quote

Of course needs some post-processing, such as cropping.

With the M11's pixel count, the message is no different from that being touted by Wetzlar for the Q3. 

Such high resolution cameras and lenses do seem to be doing nothing more than driving entry cost for something that is then used in a less than ideal do-it-all solution.

Edited July 14, 2023 by FrozenInTime

[wizard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Ouroboros:

Not wishing to rain on your parade, but I think these portraits demonstrate exactly why using a 28mm sometimes, especially close to the sitter like this, is, in this instance, a big mistake.

If as the OP says the shots shown above result from cropping a larger image, then it seems that this argument would not apply, as the same perspective would result using, say, a 50mm lens from the same point of view. In other words, IF the cropping of a 28mm shot was made to such an extent that the resulting image as shown above is equivalent to what a 50mm lens would have recorded from the same position, then there will be no difference in perspective. Of course, only the OP knows whether the original image was cropped only slightly or rather significantly.

Edited July 14, 2023 by wizard

[THEME]

27 minutes ago, wizard said:

If as the OP says the shots shown above result from cropping a larger image, then it seems that this argument would not apply, as the same perspective would result using, say, a 50mm lens from the same point of view. In other words, IF the cropping of a 28mm shot was made to such an extent that the resulting image as shown above is equivalent to what a 50mm lens would have recorded from the same position, then there will be no difference in perspective. Of course, only the OP knows whether the original image was cropped only slightly or rather significantly.

Some are cropped significantly. At question is the style here, guess I need more Leica lenses and bodies to speak up with authority. 🤣

[Ouroboros]

22 minutes ago, wizard said:

If as the OP says the shots shown above result from cropping a larger image, then it seems that this argument would not apply, as the same perspective would result using, say, a 50mm lens from the same point of view. In other words, IF the cropping of a 28mm shot was made to such an extent that the resulting image as shown above is equivalent to what a 50mm lens would have recorded from the same position, then there will be no difference in perspective. Of course, only the OP knows whether the original image was cropped only slightly or rather significantly.

No.  
What the OP has demonstrated here is how a wide angle lens exaggerates perspective.  The middle image is a clear example of the photographer being too close with a wide angle lens .  
Compare the girl’s right arm with her left, it has nothing to do with cropping. He might have got away with it had he exercised a bit more control over the posing in this image, which, frankly, is the worst out of the three.
Where a 28mm is useful in portraiture is when context is an important consideration.  That’s why a 28mm makes an excellent choice for example in documentary and travel photography.

[THEME]

2 minutes ago, Ouroboros said:

No.  
What the OP has demonstrated here is how a wide angle lens exaggerates perspective.  The middle image is a clear example of the photographer being too close with a wide angle lens .  
Compare the girl’s right arm with her left, it has nothing to do with cropping. He might have got away with it had he exercised a bit more control over the posing in this image, which, frankly, is the worst out of the three.
Where a 28mm is useful in portraiture is when context is an important consideration.  That’s why a 28mm makes an excellent choice for example in documentary and travel photography.

So you're saying the M11 1.3x and 1.8 Digital Zoom feature is just a useless marketing thingy. Not that I am using the feature. But there would be most minimal difference when "thinking 50mm" with a 28mm cropped. 1.8x. You won't be able to tell the difference.

[lct]

The OP was too close for a natural perspective i guess but cropping with the camera would have prevented him from moving so closely.

[Ouroboros]

5 minutes ago, THEME said:

So you're saying the M11 1.3x and 1.8 Digital Zoom feature is just a useless marketing thingy. Not that I am using the feature. But there would be most minimal difference when "thinking 50mm" with a 28mm cropped. 1.8x. You won't be able to tell the difference.

 I’m talking about your images here.

 I’d use use an appropriate focal length lens  and work a bit harder on composition, posing, lighting and context. 

Edited July 14, 2023 by Ouroboros

[THEME]

53 minutes ago, lct said:

The OP was too close for a natural perspective i guess but cropping with the camera would have prevented him from moving so closely.

Now that could be a valid point. What minimum distance would you suggest, from experience, 28mm? Being polite. I'll anyway gonna do whatever I was going to do 😇

Edited July 14, 2023 by THEME

[lct]

1 minute ago, THEME said:

Now that could be a valid point. What minimum distance would you suggest, from experience?

Sorry i never use wides for portraits, on FF cameras i mean. Preferably 50mm, 75mm or 90mm. On APS-C i prefer 35mm (equiv. 50mm) or 50mm (equiv. 75mm).It is a matter of taste though. On this very forum, you will see great photographers shooting portraits at 21mm. Not my cup of tea but YMMV. 

[LocalHero1953]

I think this thread raises some interesting questions, and offers lessons, about portrait photography.

The OP has shown us some attractive photos of an attractive woman, with a charming smile. I'm guessing that the OP knows this person well (well enough to know they go to the gym) and, again guessing, that they like the person and like taking photographs of her - who wouldn't? But that is not a good starting point for taking a great portrait that shows the person as they genuinely are, both physically and in personality, and tells us something about what they're thinking and the circumstances of the photo. It is not a good starting point because in such situations we are personally engaged both as the photographer and in the relationship, and we are less likely to see the technical flaws that someone disengaged will notice.

I can't claim superiority here. In hindsight, I can easily see the flaws in portraits I have taken of family and friends, and of attractive women (the groups do occasionally overlap). Looking back at the images a while later I am sometimes embarrassed at what I didn't see in the original portrait.

If you don't believe that subjective feelings can distort judgement, you only have to look at the Favourite Images section on the forum and ask why so many of them are of attractive women!

Edited July 14, 2023 by LocalHero1953

[frame-it]

12 minutes ago, THEME said:

What minimum distance would you suggest, from experience?

for me its 2 meters with a 50mm or 90mm

 

[LocalHero1953]

13 minutes ago, THEME said:

Now that could be a valid point. What minimum distance would you suggest, from experience?

Personally I try to be at least 2m away for a less distorted look, though if there is a leading shoulder a greater distance is better.

A distorted image can, of course, be used as an indication of proximity and intimacy, which may be a look you are looking for. But you have to accept that distortion goes along with it.

My (personal) rule for lens choice is 90mm for headshots, 75mm for head and upper body, 50mm for head & torso, and wider for full length portraits.

Edited July 14, 2023 by LocalHero1953

[Stephen.s1]

My take on all this is: Nice enviro portraits.  Especially the last two.  There are NO rules as to which lens one must use.  Hell, go with an 8mm and shoot 'em up!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pippy]

Some of my favourite portraits shot by other photographers have been taken using short (28mm FF equiv) or even shorter lenses.

Have a look through the work of Arnold Newman to take one example. Out of interest I have just brought down my copy of 'One Mind's Eye' and had counted-up some dozen or more such images before I had looked at the first 50 portraits - and these were only those where it was possible to say with near-certainty that they were shot using such lenses; there were probably quite a few more which might qualify but about which I was less certain.

All it takes to use a 28 'well' for portraiture is a knowledge of how the lens performs and most importantly what one, as a photographer, wants to say with the photograph.

As far as Paul Ashley's comment made towards the bottom of his earlier post (#15);

"...have to look at the Favourite Images section on the forum and ask why so many of them are of attractive women!..."...

I have to say I wonder that very question every bloody time I look at the section...

Philip.

Edited July 14, 2023 by pippy

[84bravo]

24 minutes ago, Stephen.s1 said:

My take on all this is: Nice enviro portraits.  Especially the last two.  There are NO rules as to which lens one must use.  Hell, go with an 8mm and shoot 'em up!

Bingo