Which MD or MC lens for portraits?

Hey all,

 

I have a Minolta X-570 and am interested in getting a lens to do some

portraits. I was looking at the 85mm lenses on ebay and have found

that they are too expensive for me. So now I'm considering one of the

135mm lenses. Which version is the best? I hear a lot of people

talking about the 135/3.5 but I've also seen some f/2's. Would the

f/3.5 version have a shallow enough dof for portraits?

 

Overall, what is the best portrait lens with a reasonable price?

 

Thanks!

 

Patrick

Patrick, there are f/2 85mm lenses and a 100mm f/2.5 that is also a good portrait lens. See http://www.rokkorfiles.com for additional information on the 85mm. Antony has done some great tests. I have all three lengths just in case. That is an MC 85mm f/1.7; a 100mm f/2.5 and a 135mm f/2.8. Each lens has a different special function.

 

Luke

I guess the two main things I'm worried about here is depth of field and the focal length. Is 135 or even 100mm too close for portraits? I think the 85mm would be ideal due to it's length, but would a 135 still work well? Aslo, in order to get that creamy background, what maximum ap. would I need? I was thinking somewhere around 2.8 or less, but i've heard 3.5 could work too..

To get what you want give yourself some time and a goal: I use a 85/1.7, 100/2.5 and different versions of the 135/2.8's which all took some effort/money/time to find (still looking for that 85/2). Depending on setting I've used all lengths. For a beginning, try starting with the 135/2.8's; they're not that much more expensive than the 135/3.5's, and Minolta evolved the 135/2.8's through different configurations (6/5, 4/4, 5/5) so you can tune for the optical effects you're looking for. The later 5/5 135/2.8 probably would give you that effect that you want: look for a second generation MD Rokkor (or Rokkor-X) version with "tapered" DoF scale. And keep some (or a chunk of) money aside for when an 85 or 100 pops up.

Oh, and yes the 135/3.5 at full open will not give you that effect you want except at more subject/background separation.

My favorite lens for portraiture is the 58 f1.4 used at f2.8. The lens is very sharp at f2.8. For tightly cropped shots you are kind of close and friendly but for normal portraiture shots it's perfect for me. However for portraiture shot of people you do not know it is probably not long enough. The next best thing is the 135mm f2.8 which is a bit long indoor sometimes. However if you have both lenses then you just decide what is best for the situation. We are talking budget here. Myself I like the 58mm f1.4. Just a great all around lens at about $40.00 on ebay. I just took my daughter's prom pictures using that lens outdoors with fill flash and they are beautiful. Kodak UC400 film, a great budget film for all around use including portraits. Remember the key word here is budget. There are better lenses and film for portraits if you want to spend a little more. With 6 kids the budget is very important to me.

Ross, you're right in identifying the 58/1.4 MC as a great lens at a great price. Being a MC lens and near normal focal length it's in relatively low demand, but it is marvellous for most kinds of portraits. The 85s are much sought after so the prices are correspondingly high. The 100 is also in demand, but less so. I got a 100/2.5 on eBay for a very good price because the seller had overstressed the cosmetic damage in his description. Bidding stayed low and I took a chance: the lens looks battered but is optically perfect. One of these deals may be the thing to look for.

Depends what shots you want. For tight head shots the 135mm is great. the 135/3.5 is a very sharp lens and excellent value. Nice street lens as well as it's very unobtrusive. I've got two, and they're both quite a lot sharper than the 135/2.8. The 85/2 is a gem, but rightly expensive. For head and shoulder shots you won't beat the 58/1.4 which is a ridiculously low price. The 135 at 3.5 is going to give you just a few inches of dof which should be fine. Hope this helps.

If an 85mm is out of your budget, do not hesitate to go with the 100/2.5. In my opinion, the Rokkor 100mm f2.5's are Minolta's best kept secrets. Both MC and MD versions are oustanding (there was an optical redesign) -- plenty sharp with great out-of-focus imagery. The MD version is sharper edge-to-edge, especially wide open, and is less prone to flare.

 

cheers,

 

David

I have found that a 135mm lens at f/2.8 up to f/4 has a shallow enough DOF for any portrait.

Another vote for the 100/2.5 here ... :)

When I did portraits, my favorite portrait lens was a Vivitar 135/2.8. I had a Minolta of the same configuration and it was sharper wide open, but it didn't have the same look that Vivitar gave me. I can't really put my finger one why I liked it so much. Anyway, the lens I'm talking about is an MC mount from the 70's. It might be hard to locate one in good condition, but if you do find one it'll be cheap.

 

Since the 135mm was a little long sometimes, I had a 85/f2 and a 58/1.4 as well. They were both great.

My favorite is the 85/1.7, which has beautiful bokeh. My 135/2.8 is sharper than the 135/3.5, especially wide open, and it gets some use too. It has neutral bokeh. For really tight shots I put an extension tube on it. One of my favorite shots was done with a 135/2.8 with a tube, handheld at 1/60 2.8 with braced arms. It's sharp!

I have a 100mm f/2.5 MC. It is quite sharp and I have taken many nice portraits with it. My only complaint is that it focuses to only four feet. The later MC Rokkor-X version has better coating but it still of the same design. The later MD version focuses to three feet and this is better if you are photographing small children. I sometimes switch to a 90mm macro lens for those shots.

 

I have the Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 Close Focusing lens in mounts for Konica AR and M42. For people who like the longer focal length this is a good lens. It is sharp and you can get as close as you like with it. It is true that the 85mm Minolta lenses ususlly sell for a lot more than any of the 100mm models. I have the 90mm f/2.5 Vivitar Series 1 Macro lens in Canon FD mount and I sometimes use it for portraits instead of the 100mm f/2.8 or 85mm f/1.8. If you can find one of these in Minolta mount you will not only have a good portrait lens but an excellent macro lens too.

100/2.5 It's as good as any portrait lens in 35mm. Very flattering images and nice Bokeh. To blur the background but keep the whole head in focus, you need about f5.6. Wide open, the front of the face will be in focus, but not the ears if you are going for a head shot.

 

100mm is considered by many to be the standard portrait length in 35mm, though many use 85,90,135 to good effect. I agree with others above that 58mm is good too, but probably not long enough for your purposes.

Patrick

 

The greater the focal lenght, the blurrier the background of your portraits will be. If you shop for a used 200MM or 300MM lens, you will get the portraits you are looking for. I am also selling a 135 f/2.8 Minolta Rokkor-X MD, which is great for the 135mm focal length.