[Leica] "Proper" portrait lens.

[mark at rabinergroup.com (Mark Rabiner)]

If a portrait is a waist up shot than a 50, 60, 75, 85, or 90 or 100 or 105
is what is commonly called a "portrait lens". A short tele (not the 50). And
I'd use any of them.
But if its a head and shoulders shot its a 135 to 180 and if its a tight
head I'd go with a 180 or 200 or 300 even.

A 80-200 zoom and you've pretty much got it covered.

But if you're just shooting an eye or an ear I'd use a 500mm lens with a
close-up attachment. And crop.


--------------------
Mark William Rabiner
Photography
http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/
mark at rabinergroup.com
Cars:   http://tinyurl.com/2f7ptxb




> From: Lawrence Zeitlin <lrzeitlin at gmail.com>
> Reply-To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> Date: Sun, 7 Nov 2010 12:52:26 -0500
> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org>
> Subject: Re: [Leica] "Proper" portrait lens.
> 
> The "proper" 35 mm frame portrait lens is based on two assumptions. First,
> that when shooting at a distance of a dozen feet or so, you want the head 
> of
> the subject to fill most of the frame; and second, that a lens in the 75 to
> 105 mm range has a perspective similar to that of the normal eye. Both
> assumptions are not quite as valid today as they were 50 years ago. Films
> (and digital sensors) are better and will stand greater enlargement. Hence 
> a
> small part of the image of a 50 mm lens can provide adequate resolution for
> a normal sized print. Second, we have become used to the perspective
> distortions of close up or long range photography. They are attention
> getting.
> 
> 
> When the Leica CL came out in the 1970's, Leica claimed that the 40 mm
> Summicron-C and the 90 mm Elmar-C would suffice for 90% of the pictures 
> that
> the average photographer would take. This is one of Leica's few PR
> statements that I've found to be reasonably true.  I traveled the world 
> with
> a very lightweight Leica CL kit and rarely felt the need for additional
> lenses. I even sold a number of the pictures. Of course this was in the era
> before the super wide angle fad. Now I might add a 28 mm lens and finder.
> Otherwise I would concur with Ted that the best portrait lens is the one 
> you
> have on the camera when the opportunity presents itself. Actually, I never
> bought the 90 mm Elmar since I already had a superb and razor sharp 100 mm
> LTM Canon 3.5. Fitted with an adaptor flange it was lighter and matched the
> RF frame lines better than the Leica lens.
> 
> 
> Too bad that Leica (or Sony which now owns Minolta's camera business) never
> saw fit to adapt the CL for digital. A full frame digital CL would blow 
> away
> the Olympus and Panasonic pretenders.
> 
> Larry Z
> 
> - - - - -
> 
> The argument over the "proper" focal length for portraits on the 24x36
> 
> format  has been going on in 35mm since the Zeiss Contax camera came 
> out....
> 
> 
> 90mm ?  ( Leica RF)
> 
> 85mm ? ( Contax RF)
> 
> 105mm ? ( Nikon RF and later the Nikon F)
> 
> 75mm ? (Leica RF)
> 
> 80mm ? (Leica SLR)
> 
> 100mm ? ( Leica SLR)
> 
> 
> And I probably have forgotten a bunch more portrait lens focal lengths....
> 
> almost all of which are between 75 and 105mm
> 
> 
> Use what you have, what makes you happy, or what you can afford.....
> 
> 
> They all work.
> 
> 
> Frank Filippone
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information