Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Portrait lenses
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 9:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
With 50mm need to get to close to the model is this ok with own kids, but with an adult not such a good deal.

On a camera with an APS-C or 4/3 sensor, 50mm is ideal.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 9:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
No, not a deal try sometimes.I have Olympus I like to use 75-85mm.
On 2X crop will not equivalent with a 100mm lens on film body.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You like to keep a safe distance? Very Happy


PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The "problem" (if it can be called this way) is that with a 50mm on a 1.6x camera, you have the framing of a 80mm lens from the same distance, but you still have the DOF of a 50mm lens - and for some portrait photographers this is a problem, as they like to play with the DOF.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
You like to keep a safe distance? Very Happy


Surely ! Laughing Woman can be dangerous! Seriously try to make portrait with both lenses and look result! Orio has absolutely right about bokeh.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 02, 2008 10:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, you're right of course, I was thinking only of the framing, but it must be much more restrictive with 75-100 on a 4/3. I don't do portraits though!


PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 6:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
200 USD is nothing if you compare what Tamron SP 90mm f2.5 provide! Yes , this is an excellent portrait lens too.

No magic in lenses too if you like to use only cheap ones, result will be cheap too. This range as usual the best quality and expensive ones from every manufacturers. You can't produce same image with a Jupiter-9 even if a good lens than most expensive brothers. I tested many lenses in this range but none of cheap ones reach quality of higher priced ones.


@Attila,

You recommend the Tamron SP 90/2.5 over the 180/2.8 CZJ Sonnar? what about compared to the Tair-11 and the Kaleinar? Helios-40? 135/3.5 CZJ Sonnar?

I'm not after absolute quality, as you said.. portraits aren't all about sharpness, but other things -- bokeh, spherical aberration...


PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
The "problem" (if it can be called this way) is that with a 50mm on a 1.6x camera, you have the framing of a 80mm lens from the same distance, but you still have the DOF of a 50mm lens - and for some portrait photographers this is a problem, as they like to play with the DOF.


That's why I love to use very fast 50mm lenses as portraits lenses. The wider aperture compensates the shorter focal length as fas as DoF is concerned.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
No, not a deal try sometimes.I have Olympus I like to use 75-85mm.
On 2X crop will not equivalent with a 100mm lens on film body.


I don't understand what you mean, Attila.
I understood that you prefer 75-85mm for portraits. That's fine.
But do you say that a 50mm lens on a 2x crop cam does not show the frame of a 100mm lens on a 135 film cam??
Why is it called 2x crop then?


PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
100mm lens not only frame it is take subject closer a 100mm lens on film camera produce different result than an 50mm lens on 2x crop camera they are not equal.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
... for sure this excellent ones never reach top Carl Zeiss or Leica quality this is my conclusion.


True. And I think we can add Nikkor and Zuiko (and perhaps Takumar) lenses to this bunch of top glass.

The problem is that with the two "top stars", even more so with Leica than with Zeiss, you pay for the name as well.
You have to pay a lot of money to get a "perfect" lens, right, but then there is also the point to consider what you get for your money, the so-called "value".
Are the last 2% of performance and image quality worth several hundred Euro? For a pro they are, but for me? I doubt that...
And "real collectors", who pay several times what they earn a month for a lens just to "have" it, are people with disengageable brains. Laughing Wink


PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
Attila wrote:
... for sure this excellent ones never reach top Carl Zeiss or Leica quality this is my conclusion.


True. And I think we can add Nikkor and Zuiko (and perhaps Takumar) lenses to this bunch of top glass.

The problem is that with the two "top stars", even more so with Leica than with Zeiss, you pay for the name as well.
You have to pay a lot of money to get a "perfect" lens, right, but then there is also the point to consider what you get for your money, the so-called "value".
Are the last 2% of performance and image quality worth several hundred Euro? For a pro they are, but for me? I doubt that...
And "real collectors", who pay several times what they earn a month for a lens just to "have" it, are people with disengageable brains. Laughing Wink


Surely, ok to pay hundreds more.

You have over 1000 EUR camera and you used with 50 EUR lenses.
They are not in pair at all. Only one times try a lens around 1000 EUR Leica or Contax and your opinion will dramatically change.
I tried only once Orios's 135mm f2 Contax I still can't forget it. It has a whole word difference not only few percent.
Or look CZ Distagon 35mm f1.4 pictures taken by Poilu they not a bit better from others it is completely different from others.
In Leica or Carl Zeiss you pay the quality not the name only I am sure.

Last edited by Attila on Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:34 am; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
Orio wrote:
The "problem" (if it can be called this way) is that with a 50mm on a 1.6x camera, you have the framing of a 80mm lens from the same distance, but you still have the DOF of a 50mm lens - and for some portrait photographers this is a problem, as they like to play with the DOF.


That's why I love to use very fast 50mm lenses as portraits lenses. The wider aperture compensates the shorter focal length as fas as DoF is concerned.


Absolutely! I use anything from 35mm to 180 for portraits with an Oly depending on the circumstances but my favourite is a 55/1.2 Zuiko. A wafer thin DOF if you want it.
I'm also a bit of a fan of a 28mm on a 4/3 camera for when you need to be closer to the subject. Sometimes with shots of the kids you can't keep your distance, and the way they move a little more DOF is useful.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Surely, ok to pay hundreds more.

You have over 1000 EUR camera and you used with 50 EUR lenses.
They are not in pair at all.


but Attila... if I buy 1000 EUR lens I can only buy one. But I can buy 20 lenses that are 50 EUR Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy


PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
That is worst habit I did same Sad Orio is lot smarter than us, he bought fine lenses.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 8:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
actually to tell the truth i play with MF lenses because they're "fun." but I'm not very good at fast shooting because they are MF.

so I would not spend $1000 on an MF lens. I would get the Pentax DA* 50-135/2.8 SDM and you would be sure I would use it a lot Very Happy


PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
On many areas don't need to shoot fast that is MF lenses territory. I have repair man friend who is repair and try many expensive AF lenses.He say none of them reach old Mf lenses quality.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
...Surely, ok to pay hundreds more...


This might be true. I have never used a $1000,- MF lens or at least one that would still cost that much today. (I have got some lenses that were really expensive when they were sold new...)
It is just hard to imagine that, given the great results I get from "cheaper" lenses, the really expensive lenses can be such a big difference.

Furthermore, I also think like orly_andico: MF lenses are fun for me and I really like to try and play around with many different lenses, rather than having just three or four excellent ones. You might call it silly and you might be right, but that's the way I like it. Wink


PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Carsten wrote:
It is just hard to imagine that, given the great results I get from "cheaper" lenses, the really expensive lenses can be such a big difference

all Fiat cinquocento owner doesn't understand why someone get a Mercedes to drive in the city
all Mercedes owner doesn't want to anymore a Fiat cinquocento
both are perfectly right and have very good argument Laughing


PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
You have over 1000 EUR camera and you used with 50 EUR lenses. They are not in pair at all...


From an economic point of view, that's perfectly right.
But isn't that all what the fun is about? Showing that a €50 lens produces great results on a good cam?
The camera is now that we shoot digitally much more important than in the "old" times when everybody was shooting on film. So it is perfectly OK with me that the cam is much more expensive than the lenses I use.
The most expensive lens I have is the Tokina AT-X Pro 4/12-24 which did cost me about €400,- and thus my 40D was more than twice as expensive than the most expensive lens I own.

But my Leica Elmarit-R 2.8/35 did cost about DM 900,- when it was sold new (60s). If we take into account the inflation that equals an amount of about €4.000,- (four thousand!) today. Here are some more equivalent prices (incl. inflation) for lenses I have:
Nikkor-S.C 1.2/55 : € 2.000,-
Olympus Zuiko MC Auto-S 1.4/50 : € 400,-
Sigma Zoom-0 II 3.5-4.5/28-85 MC : € 600,-
Tamron SP 3.8-5.4/60-300 MC 23A : € 1.500,-
Kiron 2.0/28 MC : € 500,-

Once again, these are not the prices they are worth today, but the equivalent pruchasing power when compared to the prices of "everyday" items (bread, cheese, water, beer, pens, furniture etc.)

If you take these figures into consideration, even a "cheap" lens sits in a completely different light.

That does not mean that I contradict you when you say that the new (and even today very expensive) Zeiss or Leica lenses are the best you can get. That most probably is true...

Last edited by LucisPictor on Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:46 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
Carsten wrote:
It is just hard to imagine that, given the great results I get from "cheaper" lenses, the really expensive lenses can be such a big difference

all Fiat cinquocento owner doesn't understand why someone get a Mercedes to drive in the city
all Mercedes owner doesn't want to anymore a Fiat cinquocento
both are perfectly right and have very good argument Laughing


Very true! Very Happy


PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kds315* wrote:
Anyone used the Ennalyt 1.5/85mm for portraits??

I only used it for flowers shots so far and liked it a lot....


Here is a chance to try: Click here to see on Ebay


PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
the Super-Takumar 50/1.4 supposedly would cost over $2000 if Pentax were to build it today...

certainly in terms of build quality it's comparable to the Leica 90mm Elmarit that I tried briefly on an M8 digital...

@Attila,

i don't think ANY AF lenses are repairable. Canon repairs them (the big ticket ones like 300/2.8 etc) but the repair is >50% price of new lens, I think they just replace the entire optical group or something...

the Pentax Limited AF lenses are supposedly really good (mechanically). have yet to try one Confused

Last edited by orly_andico on Sun Aug 03, 2008 10:44 am; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 9:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
all Fiat cinquocento owner doesn't understand why someone get a Mercedes to drive in the city
all Mercedes owner doesn't want to anymore a Fiat cinquocento
both are perfectly right and have very good argument

I fact I know someone who have a mercedes, a porshe and a old cinquocento
he told me that when he was young, it was his dream car and now he is happy to own one
It is the same for me with contax, 20 years ago I could not imagine buying expensive Zeiss lens, now I am happy I can


PostPosted: Sun Aug 03, 2008 11:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
Carsten wrote:
It is just hard to imagine that, given the great results I get from "cheaper" lenses, the really expensive lenses can be such a big difference

all Fiat cinquocento owner doesn't understand why someone get a Mercedes to drive in the city
all Mercedes owner doesn't want to anymore a Fiat cinquocento
both are perfectly right and have very good argument Laughing


It's so true! Then you have cases like a car produced both by Volkswagen and Seat that were identical, but the VW costed about 1/2 more because of the name.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 3 of 4