I have just bought my first leica, a 0.72 M6 with 35mm lux´and I would like to get a lens for closer portraits, I´m thinking about a 90 mm. Is it easy to do portraiture with the 90 mm (the framelines seem quite small)? Also I don´t know which lens to choose, it will most likely be used. I saw a nice 90 mm summicron (pre- Asph) how good is it? Would a 90 mm tele-elmar be better? For those of you that use the 90 mm AA for portrait, do you filter the lens (and what filter do you use)? Thanks!!!

-- Jonas Vilslev (jonasvilslev@groenjord.dk), September 18, 2001

Answers

I've been quite happy with the 90 Elmarit for this purpose. It's small enough to be not too burdensome to carry, nor intrusive. The DOF is quite shallow at max aperture providing excellent isolation and out of focus texture.

I have taken many very nice candid portraits with this lens. I did not find the framelines too small. If you are used to using an SLR with a telephoto, you may be (hopefully pleasantly) surprised at using an RF with telephoto.

-- Tse-Sung Wu (tsesung@yahoo.com), September 18, 2001.

This is quite personal, but here is my opinion. I have all but given up on my 90mm lens on my M6. I believe that for lenses in that range, the SLR is better for several situations, portraiture being one of them.

Some points to ponder:

1. Focusing accuracy of the rangefinder goes down as the lens focal length increases, but on the SLR these lenses are very easy to focus.

2. Visualizing of the depth of field and how it separates the sitter from the background is easier on the SLR, and all but impossible with the rangefinder.

3. The scale in the finder is better on an SLR, so critical pursuing of the subject for flaws is easier than the tiny postage stamp frame in the Leica M.

4. Minute focus adjustments of an active subject are easier with the SLR by using the entire screen and slightly shifting up and back with the whole camera, rather than racking the lens and recomposing after using the rangefinder patch.

I do use my M6 for portraits, but more of an environmental type than a formal head and shoulders shot. I really like the 50mm lens on the Leica M for this type of shot, and when combined with the 35mm lens for a wider shot, they make a good set for this kind of shooting. I do have the 90mm lens in the bag... but it seems to stay there quite a bit.

As for vintage... my sharpest photos have been made with the current Elmarit M. My best portraits were made with older lenses, including the non-aspheric 90mm Summicron, which had just the right amount of softness wide open to be flattering to the non-professional model's face. These days all of my head and shoulder portraits are made with an old Nikon 105mm f/2.5 on an SLR.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), September 18, 2001.

I use a 90 Summicron (pre-asph) with my M3s for portraiture (I also use a 50 even more often and a 135 Elmarit infrequently). The older 90 Summicron is slightly soft at maximum aperture, but gets noticeably sharper when closed down to f2.8 or smaller. For portraiture, the softness is not a disadvantage. Flare is noticeable in strongly backlit situations. I generally don't use a filter unless it's raining (to keep the front element dry).

I'm not trying to start a fight, but my experiences have differed greatly from those of Al Smith. I offer the following rebuttals in the spirit of presenting a different perspective, not to imply that Al doesn't know what he's talking about.

"1. Focusing accuracy of the rangefinder goes down as the lens focal length increases, but on the SLR these lenses are very easy to focus."

It may be more of a problem with the lower magnification finder in the M6, but the M3 can accurately focus the 90/f2 wide open at minimum focusing distance. I was forced to put a split-image finder in my 645 SLR because I couldn't focus accurately enough using the ground glass at wide apertures (150/f3.5 or 200/f4) even in bright light [I'm very-slightly nearsighted, but my visual acuity is excellent].

"2. Visualizing of the depth of field and how it separates the sitter from the background is easier on the SLR, and all but impossible with the rangefinder."

I've found that the view in an SLR (even with DOF preview) does not accurately represent how the final image will appear on film. Even with SLRs, I've found that visualizing the results in my head (based on experience) works better than using the DOF preview or DOF scales.

"3. The scale in the finder is better on an SLR, so critical pursuing of the subject for flaws is easier than the tiny postage stamp frame in the Leica M."

A legitimate point, but my standard procedure for seeing flaws is to get close to my subject and look very closely (no camera involved).

"4. Minute focus adjustments of an active subject are easier with the SLR by using the entire screen and slightly shifting up and back with the whole camera, rather than racking the lens and recomposing after using the rangefinder patch."

I also bob back and forth for fine focusing adjustments, though I use the rangefinder patch for judging critical focus. As noted above, I've found that the ground glass in an SLR simply isn't accurate enough at wide apertures.

Image below was made with the 90 Summicron side open.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), September 18, 2001.

"I saw a nice 90 mm summicron (pre- Asph) how good is it?"

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), September 18, 2001.

To Mike Dixon,

Your photos speak for themselves... they are excellent! I have tried to embrace the 90mm lens on the rangefinder (especially after the monetary outlay), but it just doesn't work for me. Obviously it works for you, and you are producing great photos with it. My joy would be expanded tremendously if I could wield my 90 as effortlessly as my 50. As always... my complements to your eye for picking models.

Hopefully Jonas will understand that I simply offered my opinion, not a solid "It can't work!" statement. Obviously, many are using the 90mm lens with great success.

-- Al Smith (smith58@msn.com), September 18, 2001.

Mike Dixon said:

my standard procedure for seeing flaws is to get close to my subject and look very closely (no camera involved).

I do this too. I generally do almost everything except final framing and shooting without the camera, and that includes choosing a shooting distance.

However, I don't think longer lens headshots are all that interesting after a while. As good as Mike's shot is, it is weak next to Mike's work with shorter lenses, which are far more successful at portraying a sense of "portrait."

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), September 18, 2001.

http://www.ravenvision.com/goths.htm

-- Peter Hughes (ravenart@pacbell.net), September 18, 2001.

Jonas, at various times I've shot a portrait with everything from 28mm to 90mm Leica lenses. The 90mm is best for closeups that go from about mid-chest to the top of the head, or closer. My 90mm Elmarit has been great for this purpose.

It's true that you can focus an 85 or 90 or 105 very well on an SLR. But the 90, especially the 2.8, is well within the range focused very accurately with your .72 finder. As for the comments about rocking back and forth to make small focus adjustments, you can do that with either system! It sound like you want to do it with your M6, so I think the 90 f/2.8 (any) or even the f/4 Elmar will be fine!

Regards,

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), September 18, 2001.

Jonas: As Mike and Peter's pictures show, the pre-APO 90 Summicron has some of the same qualities as the preASPH 35 Summicron: a sensual (even sexual) beauty of tone and form at the cost of a little sharpness and contrast wide open or at the corners (e.g. it has Dr. Mandler's design fingerprints all over it.) The Tele-elmarit and most other Leica 90s will beat it for raw sharpness at f/2.8.

Which is better? It depends on which is more important to you - maximum detail or maximum character.

I've also noticed that - contrary to published opinion - I've always gotten SHARPER results with both the Summicron and Tele-Elmarit 90s focused UNDER 2 metres than I have at longer distances - but that may just be the contrast between the sharp areas and the REALLY soft areas close up.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), September 18, 2001.

Hi Jonas, this picture was taken with the 90SAA and the 0.58 M6 at a distance of 3m (9feet) or so. Film was Tmax 400CN, scan from negative. Hope it turns out ok html-wise. Dietmar

-- Dietmar Moeller (moeller@phys.columbia.edu), September 18, 2001.

Diemar, The photo you post is excelent. How you do that with a scanner? You just scan the negative and get the result as shown? Is the scanner very expensive or just a normal scanner would have the same effect. How about scanning a colour negative or slide, would the same coloured effect on a print or on the slide be reproduced through a scanner? Can any one recommend a good quality scanner for this purpose? Regards, Tom Tong

-- tom tong (tom.tong@ckh.com.hk), September 18, 2001.

Here's a portrait done with the 35/1.4 asph.

This is my first time posting an image here, so i hope this works!

I don't really do headshots, this is as close to a portrait as I get.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), September 19, 2001.

sorry, I forgot that directory was password protected!

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), September 19, 2001.

great portraits!

I have a 90/2 pre asph with a M3 and think that this combo works great, even I don´t take portraits like those.

Rob, was this portrait you show us taken with the 35/1.4 asph.wide open?

-- r watson (al1231234@hotmail.com), September 19, 2001.

God knows. I'm never very aware of that sort of thing, unless the shutter speed is so low I'm surprised to have got anything at all.

By the look of it, no.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), September 19, 2001.

Jonas:

I have a pre-ASPH 90mm/f2 that I use with a M6 TTL and sometimes with a M3 camera. It is an excellent portrait lens, as some of the other posts on this thread indicate. The 90/f2 ASPH M lens is even better, but some photographers think it is too sharp for portraits of women as the lens brings out every pore and wrinkle on their skin! That problem can of course be dealt with easily by using a diffusing filter of some kind. Which 90mm lens you buy may depend on your budget! Any modern Leica lens is very very good!.............

-- Muhammad Chishty (applemac97@aol.com), September 19, 2001.

Jonas:

I think most of the advice you ahe already received here is good. I can add the following, in that I have both the 90TE and the 90AA.

The AA is everything everybody says it is. SHARP. So sharp that portraits even at f2 will show the pores in the skin of any subject, so the use of a soft filter is almost mandatory if you want a classic look. Interestingly, the TE is also quite sharp at f4 and above, but has a slight softness at f2.8 that makes it wonderful for portraits. I don't think it is quite as soft as the pre-asph at f2, but still very nice. Because of this dual personality and the flexibility it offers, the TE is spending its life in my bag while the AA spends most of its life on the shelf. Of course the fact that the TE weighs almost nothing compared to the AA doesn't hurt either!

-- Jack Flesher (jbflesher@msn.com), September 19, 2001.

Thanks Tom, for your kind praise. Scan was made from a print on a flatbed scanner, not from a negative, as I posted earlier. Contrast and brightness are nearly uncorrected, you can see almost no detail on the blouse. The picture should only demonstrate that you can focus close with the 90 SAA even with a 0.58 M6 and frame normally. For your questions about scanning in general: see Norman Koren's Web Site. There is also a review by Andreas Kaseder about the new Nikon ED 4000 film scanner on photo.net.

Dietmar

-- Dietmar Moeller (moeller@phys.columbia.edu), September 19, 2001.

Hello everybody, Hi Jack,

I'm very happy to read your opinion on Summicron 90 AA (indeed the only one I have used); portraitures of women at short distances give some problems if you have no attention on their make up: "May I have such an enormous black point on my so pretty nose?" OUHHHH !! Courage friends ! Alain

-- alain.besancon (alain.besancon@chu-dijon.fr), September 20, 2001.