Re: [Leica] Re: R Portraits

[Jeffcoat Photography <jeffcoatphoto@sumter.net>]

Wow Mike, very good!
Gib for the money grab a 2  or 3 cam 90 f2. $300 to $600. This is an
excellent lens with excellent color qualities (I use this with people all of
the time),, a great lens for black and white too. Last yr I tested this
against an 80 f1.4 and for the difference in the money could not justify
they newer glass. As to the 100 f2.8 APO- Nothing can touch this lens IMHO,
but if you use it for people you will need to degrade it with some type of
diffusion (even wide open). Really 100 is not too long for people (For yrs
one of the top people lens in N-k-n line has been the 105 mm 2.5). This lens
really shines when you need the detail. If you feel you will use it for
anything else you may want to look into one. I've seen them around used from
1200 for ugly to 1500+ for Ex on up. (these were 3 cam). BTW the 90 f2 can
not have the ROM contacts and chip installed as there just is not enough
room in the lens for it.
Cheers Wilber GFE

Mike Johnston wrote:

> Gib Robinson: >>>I'd like some help choosing a portrait lens for an R8.
> I don't own any lenses above 50mm that are faster than f/4 and I'd like
> one. As far as I
> know, my choices are 80 Summilux, 90 Summicron, 100 f/2.8 APO Macro.
> I've
> been leaning toward the 80mm 1.4 because it seems like a very workable
> focal length with ideal speed. The APO macro seems a tad long and a
> tweak slow in spite of it's legendary qualities as a macro lens. What's
> been the
> experience of this group?<<<
>
> Gib,
> My experience doing available light portraits of single individuals (an
> interest of mine for years) has been that macro lenses are not what you
> want--their ruthless sharpness is a liability for portraits. Our
> eye-brain perception tends to discount surface details and transitory
> marks on faces--wrinkles, pores, blemishes--and yet we are highly
> programmed to distinguish stable features for purposes of
> recognition--the aspects of faces that remain more stable over time,
> their shape and structure. (The other thing we're very sensitive to--the
> more so as we get older, as research suggests that teenagers have not
> developed the ability very highly--is to detect clues of expression.)
> But in a way, a lens that resolves too well is actually _less_ accurate
> to the way our eyes and brains see faces than a lens with a little less
> resolution that subtly de-emphasizes things like pores, hairs, pimples,
> etc.
>
> For this reason, I think a faster lens that's somewhat softer at its
> widest apertures can be useful. I've never used the 80/1.4-R, but I know
> the Zeiss Contax 85/1.4 well, and it's a great portrait lens--it goes
> from quite soft at f/1.4 to very sharp at f/4, allowing you to pick your
> effects in between.
>
> I've also used the 90/2-R lens, and I think it's wonderful for
> portraiture. I really love its look wide open--it has enough contrast to
> make eyes and hair look luminously sharp, yet it has just the right
> amount of lack of resolution so as not to show every pore. It's then
> quite sharp by f/4 or f/5.6 for when you want that effect. And it has
> very nice background and foreground blur characteristics. A very nice
> portrait lens.
>
> A couple more random observations: first, soft-focus lenses or filters
> seldom satisfy. They're all too damned obvious. It's better to get the
> right lens and use it unfiltered. If you do feel you need soft-focus
> effect, a trick I've used is to get a clear filter and draw on it with a
> permanent marker or white-out--you can experiment with softening effects
> and wipe or scrape the filter clean and start over if what you get isn't
> to your liking. Net stockings can also work well, depending on their
> color and fineness or coarseness of mesh. Generally, you have to be very
> tasteful with any kind of soft-focus gimmick, being very careful not to
> overdo it or call attention to it.
>
> Second, I need at least f/2 for speed; in practice, I find f/2.8 gets
> limiting too often. This is a judgement call for each individual
> depending on the films you use and the style of portraiture you like.
> But it's held true for me pretty consistently over the years with
> various lenses and brands of camera.
>
> The third observation is that the difference in close-focusing ability,
> between about three and a half feet and two feet, for me, is
> critical--with lenses that close-focus at 3.5 feet, I run into trouble
> intermittently but persistently, and, with lenses that focus to two
> feet, I never do. So small differences in that one a half feet in
> between can be important; the difference between a lens that focuses to
> 3'2" and one that goes to 2'8", say, would be important to me.
> Naturally, macro lenses do have the advantage here, despite their other
> disadvantages for portraiture. This can be an advantage of a slightly
> longer lens, since you may get greater magnification out of the same
> close-focusing distance. (Be aware that some lenses change their actual
> focal length at different focussing distances, however.)
>
> I guess I'd have to say that that the best portrait lenses I've ever
> used are the Zeiss Contax 85mms first, Leica R 90/2 second, and Olympus
> 100/2 (which focuses very close for a non-macro lens) third, and the old
> Nikkor 75-150mm Series-E zoom fourth, this last for outdoor and studio
> strobe work at least. Bear in mind I haven't used every lens out there,
> but I've probably used more different lenses in the 85mm-105mm range
> than the average photographer. If I were you, I'd say you should try out
> both the 80/1.4 or the 90/2--try before you buy, though--and forget
> about the 100/2.8 Apo-Macro.
>
> Note that these are personal opinions based only on my own experience
> over the years.
>
> --Mike Johnston, Editor
> _PHOTO Techniques_ magazine
> www.phototechmag.com