I love my 50mm Summicron but...

[tom nb]

I love my 50mm Summicron (Leitz, built 1958) and am now whittling down my camera collection accordingly (to a

battered M4-2 + the summicron.)

 

The only drawback is that the closest the lens focuses is not very close at all - certainly less close than my Nikon

50mm f1.8 - which is a shame for portraiture.

 

Is the dual range lens much better in this regard?

 

Thoughts welcomed...

[stuart_richardson]

The modern summicron focuses down to .7m, like almost all the other modern Leica lenses. The Zeiss Ikon and ZM lenses

are a little better...they go to .5m. The Dual range also focuses .5m, but it requires remounting and goggles to do this.

There is a new 90mm f/4 macro elmar that also has goggles and does something similar. The limitation in the focusing

distance is not the lens, but the rangefinder system. When you get inside 1m, parallax and rangefinder accuracy become

troublesome. There is no longer an accurate way to focus or frame the picture. Rangefinders just aren't made for close

focus work. If you truly need macro capabilities, I suggest you stick with an SLR.

[alan_wilder1]

If you're shooting portraits at the 50 Summicon's close focus of 0.7 m you need to learn more about portrait photography. Pleasing perspective for portaiture of a person is based only on the subject to lens distance and generally done at about 1.5 m regardless of focal length to avoid exaggerated facial features. A 90 is preferable to a 50 because far less cropping (if any) is required. An old trick with Leicas if your only lens is 50 or even a 35 is to compose the shot with the 90 framelines and crop the final image in the darkroom. This will give a pleasant portrait image but obviously there will be a slight loss of sharpness depending on the degree of cropping.

[tom nb]

Alan

 

Thank you for your thoughts. I often use a Nikon 105mm which has an extremely "pleasing perspective." Though not convinced that the avoidance of exaggerated facial features is the only route to taking an interesting portrait - in some cases, even I'd say the opposite is true.

 

But thank you for the old Leica trick - I will try it. The Summicron is sometimes unflatteringly sharp, so I expect that a little loss of sharpness would not always be amiss (especially where flattery is desired.)

 

My local camera shop is selling a 90mm Elmarit. Should I splash out the shekels?

[john_gleason1]

"My local camera shop is selling a 90mm Elmarit. Should I splash out the shekels?"

 

Depends on how many shekels! You might also consider the CV 90/3.5 Apo-Lanthar. It's small and very, very

sharp. Erwin Puts considers it a close competitor to the 90/2.8 Elmarit-M, and that's high praise.

[35mmdelux]

"My local camera shop is selling a 90mm Elmarit. Should I splash out the shekels?"

 

90mm -- depends on cost and which model.

[ericd]

Seriously, what is the purpose of this thread. Taking portrait a rangefinder, with a 50mm, using Leica glass and keeping 50mm perpespective ? There is simply no solution, cropping will definitely give 90mm perspective very close from a 105mm Nikkor widely considered as an excellent lens... What special feature of the (old) 'cron are you looking for ? I think that a Leicaflex with an early SLR mount 'cron might be a close match ?

[al henry]

There is a saying that the quality of a portrait is in direct proportion to the comfort of the subject. If you are setting in someone's lap trying to fill the frame with a 50mm lens you are in trouble before you begin.

[alan_wilder1]

The original 5E/3G 90 Elmarit from the late 50's- mid 70's is a great lens specially for portraiture. A true workhorse, it has more of a classic Leica fingerprint to it's image than the two Tele-Elmarits, yet stopped down a few stops it's quite sharp. Also great for macro work with a Visoflex as the optical unit can be unscrewed and adapted to a bellows for focus from infinity to macro ranges. The current 4E/4G Elmarit is scalpel sharp (even wide open) by any current standard but less flattering if you want to hide flaws on a portrait. A good price for a clean one is about $300.

[ericd]

I would say its better to use some lens between 85mm and 200mm for portrait... But you can use anything else if you want to make something nonacademic... Why not ?

[ericd]

Alan what will has the 90 Elmarit that the 105 Nikkor doesn't have ?

[alan_wilder1]

The ability to easily mount onto an M body and superior optics to the 105 for macro work. For universal short tele shooting and portraiture, the 105/2.5 (5E/4G) is optically a little better than the 90/2.8 Elmarit but can't be used on a Leica for it's raison d'etre: quiet, candid photography.

[pensacolaphoto]

I prefer a Sonnar lens design for portraits. Here, the Nikkor 105/2.5 is a great choice.

[ericd]

I understand. But we started with the idea of using a 50mm 'cron at less than 3feet... That seems a bit close to me for quiet candid portrait photography ;-)

[vincenzo_maielli]

The limited range in the closest focus capability is the major drawback in all the RF systems. I own several Leica M cameras and own, also, the DR Summicron 50 (1962), with the proper "non glass goggles", that allow a minimum focus distance from 48 and 88 cm (in normal use, the focus work from 1 meter to infinity). The DR with the proper "non glass goggles" is very uncomfortable to use. Why not try the Visoflex II or III system with your 50 Summicron?

 

 

Ciao.

[ericd]

Was it that silly to suggest a Leicaflex with a 50mm 'cron ? I try to imagine myself street shooting with that leica rangefinder and Visoflex stuff ?

[alan_wilder1]

Visoflex + 50 'cron = strictly close macro work. Too much lens extension from the film plane.

[gary_b._herbst]

I still don't get it with people that say you can't use anything shorter than an 85 mm or longer than a 135 mm to take portraits. I have

been doing photography for over 40 years and have used almost every focal length from 19 mm to 300 mm for portraits. If you want

to go by the book fill the frame with the subjects head and some of the body then use an 85-135 mm, but not all of the time. How

much of your background do you want in the picture, are you taking a portrait of more than one person, are you able to get closer or

does the framing look right with more background. Some 'RULES' are made to be ignored. Use the lens that is right for you and your

subject, not what some book or person says is the only right way.

[ericd]

Gary I love what you say...

Any rule is made to be ignored when you know what you do...

And this rule is fuzzy...

If a portrait is a "headshot" 50mm is a bit short according to academic standards...

But at less than 3 feet we were talking about filling the frame with a face from he start. Isn't it ?

[carbon_dragon]

The DR focused a little closer but was kind of a pain to use. You had to change to a different focusing range by lifting up the focusing ring and moving over to the other setting and mount the goggles. I seldom used it when I had a DR. And I can't imagine why you'd want a portrait with a 50mm lens anyway closer than the normal lens would focus unless you want a really distorted face.

 

The 90/4 Elmar in screwmount with an adapter is a very cheap 90 for the Leica M's and it's surprisingly good. Not the equal of the 90/2.8 maybe and certainly not the equal of the 90/2 APO Summicron, but you don't really need ultimate sharpness for portraits anyway. The 135/2.8 is a nice sharp lens and also bargain prices due to it's size (with built-in goggles for M2s). So both of these lenses are buyable for very low prices and will do a good job I think. The only lens *made* for portraiture was the 90 Thambar (think I got the name right) a variable soft focus lens. Very rare and expensive though.

[blakley]

<i>

If you're shooting portraits at the 50 Summicon's close focus of 0.7 m you need to learn more about portrait photography. Pleasing perspective for portaiture of a person is based only on the subject to lens distance and generally done at about 1.5 m regardless of focal length to avoid exaggerated facial features.</i>

<p>

I routinely shoot portraits at closest focus distance with a 50mm lens, both with film Ms and with the M8 (where the 50 is about equivalent to a 65mm lens). Perhaps I need to learn more about portrait photography, but I'm pretty happy with the results. Here's the M8 + 50/1.4 Summilux ASPH - at probably about 1m - with no horizontal cropping (the only cropping is to change aspect ratio from 8x12 to 8x10):

<p>

<center>

<a href=" title="Headshot by blakley, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3003/2750915398_88be266f10.jpg" width="400" height="500" alt="Headshot" /></a>

</center>

<p>

Here's the M3 with a 50/1.2 Noctilux "ASPH" at its closest (1m) focal distance. This one may have been cropped a bit - it's old enough so that I don't recall.

<p>

<center>

<a href=" title="ribbons by blakley, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/109/257780428_998beb4105.jpg" width="397" height="500" alt="ribbons" /></a>

</center>

<p>

<i>There is a saying that the quality of a portrait is in direct proportion to the comfort of the subject. If you are setting in someone's lap trying to fill the frame with a 50mm lens you are in trouble before you begin.</i>

<p>

Then I apparently spend a lot of time in trouble. My subjects, oddly enough, don't seem to notice that they should be uncomfortable.

[ericd]

This one was a bit too cold IMHO...

But the lens is not the question...

[ericd]

"My subjects, oddly enough, don't seem to notice that they should be uncomfortable."

 

Are you that seductive ?

 

;-)

[derek_stanton2]

"If you're shooting portraits at the 50 Summicon's close focus of 0.7 m you need to learn more about portrait photography."

 

Sorry, Alan, but that's just plain silly.

 

If they objective is Olan Mills/Sears Portrait Studio-style portraits, then yah, stick to the Kodak film instruction sheet rules.

Extended to medium format, the two greatest portraitists EVER were Irving Penn and Richard Avedon. Both shot Rolleiflexes

with 80mm lenses (equivalent to 50mm on 35mm film) WITH Rolleinar closeup filters attached to get closer than the

minimum focus distance. Forget about 50mm, there are some very prominent, published/exhibited photographers making

good careers out of shooting portraits with wide angle lenses at close range. "Distortions" and all.

 

Back to 35mm. Didn't Ralph Gibson base a period of his work on using the DR 50 cron at exactly 1m for all of his shots?

 

Peter Lindbergh shot almost everything with a 50mm Nikkor. Fashion and portraiture. Same for Santé D'Orazio.... I could go

on, but i just remembered why i'm supposed to be limiting my time in internet forums....

[ericd]

Most of Avedon print are not square... If you are into cropping use a MF camera with a excellent standard lens it will beat most 35mm zooms.... That said, 8x10" is better....