tight head shots

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Leica Photography : One Thread

so, i'm just about to pick up a 90 mm lens for the M6 in order to do more portrait shoots. i like really tight headshoots, preferable even part of the face, both color and b&w. what can i expect from a 90/2.8 "thin" TE? Will I be able get those kind of shots or do I have to crop alot? cheers,

-- pat (modlabs@yahoo.com), March 21, 2002

Answers

Yes, the image field is smaller than the average head with the 90mm lens at closest focus. I checked it by pulling out my M with 35mm lens attached. I just manually selected the 90mm frame line. Come to think of it, you could do the same thing.

-- Dan Brown (brpatent@swbell.net), March 21, 2002.

The 75 Lux has the closest focusing ratio, allowing a slightly tighter fit, but at a closer focusing distance....just in case you were wondering.

-- Kristian (leicashot@hotmail.com), March 21, 2002.

The 90 TE is an excellent "head shot" lens. As you back off, from the 35mm to the 50mm to the75mm to the 90mm for your "fill the frame" exposures, you'll notice that the face looks more natural, as the nose and lips and chin recede in relative prominence to the rest of the face - - - particulary the eyes. Focus on the eyes, as that, IMHO, is the key to what you want to capture. Some even use a 135 in order to achieve an even more natural look of the facial contours. ( We're satisfied with our 90 TE < grin >)

-- George C. Berger (gberger@his.com), March 21, 2002.

Just FYI all "modern" Leica 90s close-focus to the same distance/ framing. The 75 focuses a notch tighter than anything else, but the other short lenses are all 'looser' than the longer lenses.

The 90's frame down to about the area of a standard magazine page - chin to forehead for a large face but head-and-shoulders for a child.

The 90 TE thin is 'supposed' to have reduced image quality close-up - but I haven't seen it in my portraits - it's still resolving lines 1 pixel wide with my 2700dpi scanner which equals 106 lpm.

Be careful framing close up - at 1 meter the INSIDE EDGE of the 90 framelines is the actual image area. It's very easy to crop stuff out accidently when shooting especially if you're used to the "framelines plus 3 thicknesses" framing at infinity.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 22, 2002.


As Andy says, it's all too easy to crop unintentionally. I'm still struggling! An SLR is much easier in that regard.

-- Ray Moth (ray_moth@yahoo.com), March 22, 2002.


Pat,

It is precisely for this purpose that I keept my Nikon FE and AIS 105/2.5. For close-focus-short-tele shoots; I simply do not trust my ability to work a rangefinder reliably. (Besides; this Nikon lens is a bargain 330$ new gray-market at B&H.)

-- Niels H. S. Nielsen (nhsn@ruc.dk), March 22, 2002.


"It is precisely for this purpose that I keept my Nikon FE and AIS 105/2.5. For close-focus-short-tele shoots; I simply do not trust my ability to work a rangefinder reliably. -- Niels H. S. Nielsen"

Neils,

I heartily second your statements. I too have precisely this combination of camera and lens, and paid $330 at B&H! I thought long and hard about getting a Leica 90mm, but after reading all the pros and cons decided to get the Nikon instead. (Note that money was not a factor in my decision as I was mentally prepared to purchase a Leica if it was better. That I already had Nikon based system resulted in my choosing the Nikon, but if I had a Canon I would have bought a Canon lens, so no brand bias here.) If one doesn't have a body, the FM3a plus lens will cost less than the 90mm Elmarit. Ok, so people here will pooh pooh a non-Leica lens, but the 105/2.5 delivers great pictures.

"Tack sharp" images do a disservice to women (the most photographed subjects with this focal length), so MTF graphs don't mean much in this range of focal length except to experts, or those into inanimate photography, or to insecure Leica owners. Before anyone jumps all over me, consider the numerous discussions here about which generation of 90mm or 50mm or whichever mm people love to use. If the logic is that Leica's newer generation of lenses are technically better than their previous counterparts, with each one being a step towards perfection, then wouldn't everyone always desire the latest generation?

As far as "bokeh" is concerned, using a SLR means that you can actually see the out-of-focus areas if use the lens wide open (or press the ?? button that puts the lens at the set aperture). Why is it that people who wax so eloquently about bokeh are loath to use a SLR when it *is* the better tool for compositional purposes at longer focal lengths. Otherwise, unless one is an expert, isn't bokeh a guessing game, more miss than hit?

Regards,

-- Vikram (VSingh493@aol.com), March 22, 2002.


Neither the starlets in the headshots nor their casting agents are looking at the bokeh.

FWIW, I prefer the sharpest image possible, even if the subjects find the lines and pores unflattering. The image can be softened as it is printed, and the actress-types will usually have the shot re-touched before they have it duplicated with their name at the bottom.

Also, at wide apertures at 90 mm and higher, the plane of focus is only a few millimeters. Autofocus is very advantageous here, when the eye closest to the camera must be absolutely sharp. Manual focusing is easier when shooting 3/4 or head/shoulder portraits, since you are standing farther away. But when you are trying for that very tight, face-only shot, with the head slightly tilted, and you want that wide-aperture soupy look (eye in focus, earlobes not), autofocus can be really helpful.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), March 22, 2002.


Chalk up another SLR user in this regard. I found that for tight head shots the 90/rangefinder combination less than perfect. For real tight shots I found the framing just not accurate enough. For this type of shooting I find the R3 and 90 F2 much better.

-- BobTodrick (bobtodrick@yahoo.com), March 22, 2002.

hm, I'm thinking a R5 could do the trick, even though a good AF SLR would be nice to have in the collection, perhaps a Contax N1 or Nx given the quality of the Zeiss lenses. Any R usesers out there?

-- pat (modlabs@yahoo.com), March 22, 2002.


For head-shots an SLR is certainly easier on the photographer's eye (but harder on her/his back!).

A Leica with a 90mm Tele-Elmarit is easier on the subject.

I consider it a mitzvah to shoot people's portraits with the M - it's a kinder and gentler "low-impact' way to capture people's souls.

J****H rewards me with great expressions and undisturbed moments. And fewer backaches.

Watch this space - I will (soon) post some shots showing how the 90 TE does at 1 meter.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 22, 2002.


OK, Pat.

THIS links to a picture I took today with the Leica-M 90 at closest focusing distance. No other artistically redeeming value. I notice that the Leica framelines tend to OVER correct for parallax - even though the lens is lower than the viewfinder, the image got cropped a tad more than I expected at the bottom, not the top.

This picture is also cropped very slightly overall (about like a slide mount) due to scanner limitations. Otherwise it shows what the leica-M sees - chin to forehead on an adult male face.

The rest of the links are to various other 90 'portraits' I've shot - most are shot at slightly longer than minimum distance.

Woman in a fountain - 90TE

Two boys at the fountain - 90 TE

90 APO portrait - sometimes sharp IS good

Portrait with 90 non-APO - also pretty sharp

Some folks use rangefinders only for 50mm and below; others go all the way out to 135mm. Me, I draw the line at 90mm - but love using it. 8^)

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 23, 2002.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ