Portrait lens for Mamiya 645 110mm vs 150mm

<p>Save me some money what would be the better portrait lens for the Mamiya 645 1000s. I was under the impression that the 150mm f3.5(the one I have) was the better portrait lens, but now I hear that the 110mm f 2.8 is actually the 'ipso facto' portrait lens for the 645.</p>

<p>If my math is correct (35mm lens = ( (MF lens / 2) + 2% )) so 66mm = (110mm /2 = 55m) + 11) would make the 110 too short to be a standard portrait lens at 66mm. Standard portrait lenses in 35mm folkore are the 80-110mm lenses. Although you can surely use other lenses, they are not considered standard portrait lenses. </p>

<p>You're correct. The 150mm roughly translates to 90mm+ on 35mm, making it the "portrait lens". <br>

The 110mm doesn't really have an equivalent in most 35mm formats. They also didn't replicate it in the 645AF line, if that means anything.</p>

A 110 mm lens on 6x4.5 has the same horizontal angle of view as a 70 mm lens on 35 mm format, the same vertical angle of view as a 63 mm lens on 35 mm format and the same diagonal angle of view as a 68 m lens on 35 mm format.<br>So it would correspond roughly to a 70 mm lens on 35 mm format, the popular short focal length of many 35 mm format zoom lenses. A bit short for, but usable as, a head-and-shoulders portrait lens.<br>For the 150 mm on 6x4.5 format, the equivalents for those angles of view on 35 mm format are 96 mm, 86 mm and 92 mm. So roughly equivalent to a 90 mm lens on 35 mm format. Quite good for a head-and-shoulders portrait lens.

Harry I prefer the 150 over the 110 and I also like the 120 Macro which is very sharp. At the same distance the 150 has

a shallower depth of field, at the same angle of view the 110 is slightly shallower although they are fairly close.

<p>Insofar as, in the U.S. at least, the big majority of decent-sized prints have a 4:5 aspect ratio, <em>effectively</em>, to go from 645 lens focal length to 35mm lens focal length, you need to divide by the ratio of the short sides of the film, which is 1.73 (that is 41.5 / 24). So a 110mm lens on a Mamiya 645 is like a 64mm lens on a 35mm camera. IMO, such a lens is too long for full-length portraits and too short for head-and-shoulders portraits, to say nothing of tight head shots. So unless you want to take half-length portraits, IMO the 110mm, whatever its optical qualities, is not a good choice. To me, 150mm (which Mamiya made in various f/2.8, f/3.5, f/3.8 leaf shutter, and f/4 varieties, IIRC) is good for head-and-shoulders portraits. For tight head shots, I'd want a 210mm. (Incidentally, I have an 80mm f/2.8 and a 150mm f/3.5, but not any of the others.)</p>

<p>Of course, all of this is premised on what subject-to-camera distances / what perspective you like. That is somewhat subjective, but I think that my tastes are fairly mainstream: the most pleasing results <em>usually</em> (there are exceptions to every 'rule') come from subject-to-camera distances of about 6 to 10 ft (1.8 to 3.0m). If you like the camera closer, you want a shorter lens, and vice versa.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I was under the impression that the 150mm f3.5(the one I have) was the better portrait lens, but now I hear that the 110mm f 2.8 is actually the 'ipso facto' portrait lens for the 645.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A few of us have expressed a preference for the 110mm focal length, but I'm not sure we're in the majority! I wouldn't go so far as saying that it is the 'ipso facto' portrait lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The 110mm doesn't really have an equivalent in most 35mm formats. They also didn't replicate it in the 645AF line, if that means anything.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not originally, but they have added it more recently (110/2.8 leaf shutter lens in collaboration with Schneider). OTOH, that lens works only a camera (645DF/DF+) which <em>only</em> takes digital backs, and the slight crop factor of most digibacks renders the framing of that lens a bit closer to that of a 120mm or 150mm on full 645 format.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>At the same distance the 150 has a shallower depth of field, at the same angle of view the 110 is slightly shallower although they are fairly close.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Philip, I know you meant "subject coverage" when you said "angle of view". The angles can never be the same of course.</p>

<p>So what do I like about the 110/2.8 for photos of people? A few things.<br>

First of all, handling. It's light, bright, easy to focus, and more hand-holdable than a longer focal length (thinking of the reciprocal of the shutter speed "rule" and its derivatives).<br>

Second, sharpness at f2.8 and f4. It beats the 150/3.5 I used have, which was itself very good.<br>

Third, bokeh - very pleasant both front and rear.<br>

Fourth, and this is more personal, I often like portraits with "context" - showing some of the person's environment or what they are doing. The wider angle (35 degrees, vs the 26 degrees of a 150mm lens) facilitates this. If I want to concentrate on someone's face, I would probably go straight to a 200/210mm lens.</p>

<p>Here are some examples with the 110mm on my M645 1000s. Please excuse the hairs and dust. Bear in mind that these are little kids - an adult would fill the frame a bit more! I am showing these to emphasize the bokeh and framing. The 1st and 3rd are wide open; the 2nd was f4 IIRC.<br>

<img src="http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/8648/cen400bb53gam07rt700pix.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/3320/cen400bb67700pix.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/324/e200a12700pix.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>It's not about the focal length Harry. The 110mm f/2.8 N lens has a quality all its own. Similarly the 70mm f/2.8 Leaf lens has a sort of "plastic" quality to the image that you just don't get from any of the other Mamiya Sekors. I don't find the look of the 150mm f/3.5 N, or its f/4 C predecessor for that matter, nearly as pleasing.</p>

Good catch Ray - indeed I did (as the angle of view does not change). I was also referring to the 150 F3.5 in my DOF

comments.