Portraits : Older SMC-M Prime or Modern 3rd Party Zoom ?

[paramate_horkaew]

I recently got my hands on one of the SMC-M 135/3.5 lens. My friend

has a Tamron Macro 70-300 LD which also perform quite nicely - I was

told. Any one has a chance to test/compare both lense?

 

Suppose that I am to pick one to do portrait, which one can give better

picture quality? Should I borrow the Tamron and shoot at 135 or stick

with my old pal SMC.

 

P.S. I don't mind the convenience of zoom though.

[wim_van_velzen]

I would certainly stick with the 135: it is light weight and very easy to use.

<p>

After having done some series, you'll exactly know what perspective the lens has.

<p>

For portrait the ultimate sharpness isn't necessary, but in my experience the way unsharpness (like in the arms, the hair etc, background) is rendered, is better with a prime than with most zooms.

<p>

<a href="http://www.fotografiewimvanvelzen.nl">Wim</a>

[jeffpolaski]

The 135mm focal length was very popular years ago (when I first started shooting film). It's a good landscape lens, street lens, and portrait lens. But, then I have a bias toward prime lenses. The 135 length is IMHO at the outer limit for standard portrait photos. Anywhere from 80mm to 135mm is considered typical portrait length for 35mm film. With a 135 lens you'll get a somewhat flatter facial aspect, but it's still quite good.<div></div>

[stemked]

Hello Paramate.

 

I've had both lenses, frankly for portraits I'm not crazy about either lens.

 

The 135mm is *tiny* has a little pull out hood and a 49mm filter thread, really cute. I liked this lens because it was so small; I used to bring it on my bike-photo kit. Maybe it was just the specific lens I had, but I found it a little soft at f3.5 and frankly a little slow for a portrait prime at f3.5. I also had a $10 cheapie screw mount Spirltone (which I used with a K to universal adaptor) 135mm f2.8 that I like much better for portraits. Likewise, a later 135mm f2.8 A lens that I picked up was also a nicer portrait lens.

 

But then you didn't ask about other lenses, did you?

 

I picked up the 70-300 LD Tamron macro for whale photography, and have been happy with the lens as a general travel lens when I want to go light. It is soft above 200mm, but I can live with that. In fact the lens is currently with a friend of mine in the Galapagos (his second time taking the lens there with his K1000 and a college biology class). I have never used it for portraits for the same reason noted above; it isn't fast enough for my tastes for a portrait lens.

 

You also didn't note what camera you use. The 135mm is a nice manual focus lens, and the 70-300 Tamron is pretty good too so manual focus isn't a problem with either lens (and a delight with the 135). If you use a all manual camera you have to keep in mind that you will need to set your shutter speeds on the 70-300 post-zooming because the lens does change f-stops.

[keith_merrill]

Nice shot Jeff, now I wonder if this was shot on digital if you would still be able to view the image? but I digress.

 

I currently use the M 135/3.5 lens and it is a nice feeling, compact manual focusing lens. Its cheap too. I think I paid 15 dollars for mine off of ebay, and it is in mint condition too. The 135mm focal length is one of those lengths that you either love or hate, especially for portraiture. My favorite lens for portraiture is my 77 limited, and not only because of the focal lenght, but because of the wide aperature. It throws the background out of focus easily and with portraiture, about 70% of the time I am trying to do that. So if you are going to get a lens for portraiture, I would advise getting something with a fast aperature. This is why lenses in the 75 - 90mm range with super fast aperatures get sold so much, even when the photog owns a fast zoom. f2.8 doesn't cut it a lot of the time.

 

The 135 makes a good street shooting lens for me. I use it when I want to compact the scene and give the image a telephoto effect. Plus it mates with a black mx body like it was born with it.

 

 

The softness that Douglass talks about is there, but only wide opened and it isn't all that bad, actually it might be a plus with portraits. I don't know too many people who wouldn't benefit from some soft lighting and a soft effect filter. Hell, a good way to make somebody glow in portraiture is to put a piece of pantyhose in back of the lens. I do find this lens to be darn sharp stopped down one or two stops. I traded a takumar 135f2.5 in because the lens sucked so bad wide opened and pretty much every aperature other than f8.

[paramate_horkaew]

Thank you very much for all your comments :)

I take it that the 135/3.5 is most suitable for street candid, then?

 

Well, this morning I did just that ;), wondered around streets and took some shots. Couldn't wait to process them. (The waiting is the best part digital can't beat, isn't it?)

 

Actually, I meant to aske how they compare 'optically', i.e., contrst, sharpness and stuffs. Nevertheless, I learnt from your comments that portraits are not just about sharpness .. thanks, guys!!

 

Well, in terms of DOF + throwing out backgroud, I assume that the verdict is 135/3.5 SMC, right? Excellent!

 

I was thinking of getting the 135/2.8 as well but somehow decided not to, probably because of the price difference.

 

By the way, my gears are a MZ-L and a MZ-M (backup) + a 28-105/3.2-4.5 and a 50/1.7 - simple really.

 

Oh! and a DMC-LC33B - got it for x-mas ... ;D

[david j.lee]

i agree with jeff on focal lenght for portraits. if i were you i would try to get an

85.. f1.8 takumar, impresive lens,imho.

[larrydressler]

Stick with the "Prime" to me Prime means PRIMO. :)