Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Name that lens

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    117
    Post Thanks / Like

    Name that lens

    Quick question, sorry if this is in the wrong area. Does anyone have any clue what lens would produce this type of shallow depth of field ( blurred at the nose even, close focus distance ) that would work on an M8? Thanks a ton in advanced.




  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    310
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Name that lens

    My guess would be 35/1.4 at close distance. The perspective makes me think it's not a Noct.

  3. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    117
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Name that lens

    Hmm - I don't think so because I've got a 35mm Nokton f1.2 and still don't get this affect.

  4. #4
    Member dannh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Los Gatos, CA
    Posts
    140
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Name that lens

    Regardless of what lens was used, you could achieve this affect with a Noctilux. That would be my guess.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    310
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Name that lens

    Quote Originally Posted by dannh View Post
    Regardless of what lens was used, you could achieve this affect with a Noctilux. That would be my guess.
    On second thought, I think you're right.

  6. #6
    Mango
    Guest

    Re: Name that lens

    A 75mm f1.4 and a 50mm f1.4 could also give you similar results when the focus is set at the minimum distance.

  7. #7
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    ashwinrao1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Seattle, WA - USA
    Posts
    3,276
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Name that lens

    These images are interesting, as they seem to have a bit of distortion to the faces to suggest a wide lens, but have a look similar to the 85 mm f/1.2 lens for Canon EOS mount, for shallowness of DOF. I think your best bet would be the 75 summilux f/1.4 to get DOF, but distortion would be less, which I personally would prefer.
    Ashwin Rao
    Seattle, WA
    My Photography

  8. #8
    Senior Member f 1,0's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    664
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Name that lens

    This is the result of the Leica 75mm Summilux
    I think it is too creamy

    I do not think there is a solution for M
    Last edited by f 1,0; 25th November 2011 at 10:20.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Don Hutton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    607
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    13

    Re: Name that lens

    From the slight facial distortion, I'd guess that it was shot using a fast 50mm from very close - closer than any 50mm M lenses can focus. Anything shorter shot from that close would probably show a lot more facial distortion. I'd gamble on it being shot wide open with a 50mm Nikkor AI-s f1.2 which does focus pretty close (19 inches)... Obviously, it could also be done very easily on large format where very narrow DOF is often a big issue with portraiture.

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    117
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Name that lens

    Yea it's been quite the brain twist trying to figure it out. I've tried shooting 35mm f1.2 and 50mm f1.1 - neither spawning the same results. Similar bokeh on the f1.1 but can only get up to 1m away for focus distance, so the nose never gets that out of focus. Based on the distortion i was guessing it might be a 28mm low f but don't have one to test. I don't even want to shoot like this, I just want to definitively know heh. Whats the closest focusing distance 35mm lens? Thanks for the replies all.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Dallas, TX
    Posts
    819
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Name that lens

    A 50 Lux ASPH has a .7M min focus distance, so about 26 inches. The 75mm Summicron APO offers the greatest magnification (aside from the 90mm Macro M's). Note quite the same style and I doubt I was right at the 50 Lux ASPH's min focus distance here, but the general effect is possible (50 Lux ASPH & M8) -


  12. #12
    Senior Member Don Hutton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    607
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    13

    Re: Name that lens

    Quote Originally Posted by markmont View Post
    Yea it's been quite the brain twist trying to figure it out. I've tried shooting 35mm f1.2 and 50mm f1.1 - neither spawning the same results. Similar bokeh on the f1.1 but can only get up to 1m away for focus distance, so the nose never gets that out of focus. Based on the distortion i was guessing it might be a 28mm low f but don't have one to test. I don't even want to shoot like this, I just want to definitively know heh. Whats the closest focusing distance 35mm lens? Thanks for the replies all.
    I don't think it's any wider than a 50 - I actually shot a Voigtlander 40mm with a close-up lens to get an idea and even a 40mm produces much more dramatic feature distortion than those shots show.

    Here's a quick snap of my daughter shot with a 50mm Zeiss Planar at f1.4 at about 45cm (18inches) - I think an extra 1/2 stop would be whats needed, but I don't have one of those f1.2 Nikkors anymore! 9 year old's have much shorter noses of course...
    Last edited by Don Hutton; 20th July 2010 at 13:37.

  13. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Reykjavik, Iceland
    Posts
    2,310
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    9

    Re: Name that lens

    I agree on the 50/1.4 ASPH, since at 1.4 and .7m, I think it has shallower depth of field than the noctilux at f/1 (or .95) at 1m. Distance has more effect on DOF than aperture, so it is easy to throw all the backround out if you have a very close focusing lens. Another option would be the 90mm f/4 Macro Elmar, but then you would be getting a very low distortion lens.
    My photos are here: http://www.stuartrichardson.com and more recent work here: http://stuartrichardson.tumblr.com/ Please have a look at my book!
    My lab is here: http://www.customphotolab.is and on facebook

  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    117
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Name that lens

    Hmmmmm - 50mm at .7m ( same focus distance as my 35mm ) I am intrigued to try it out. And from the shot above, far less distortion ( clearly a plus ). I need some more money : ) I'm also interested to compare the shots I get with that lens vs. my nokton 50mm f1.1. I saw steve huffs review but would def. rather shoot for myself to see the results. Thanks gang. Much obliged.

  15. #15
    Member jeffvk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    San Luis Obispo
    Posts
    63
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Name that lens

    It was very popular a few years ago to use a slight closeup filter especially on a Hassey with an 80. I would guess this is a mild wide to normal with a +1, 2 or 4 close up filter. You could get this with an M8 but you'd have to come up with a creative focusing measuring device.(I use my arm with a 28 Zeiss at the .5 meter setting and it works fine).

    Good luck.

  16. #16
    Mango
    Guest

    Re: Name that lens

    Just get a lensbaby. Done!

    www.lensbaby.com

  17. #17
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    221
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Name that lens

    Medium format could probably get you the required parameters, although as noted close focus is an issue. Large format could get you those results without a doubt, but it's very hard getting your subject to stay in the correct plane of focus while you insert the film holder, close the shutter and cock it, pull the slide, and release the shutter. I've done this, but the hit rate isn't that great.

    I know that the likliest of my lenses (75/1.4, 50/1, 35/1.4) can't produce this.

    Henning

  18. #18
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    221
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Name that lens

    Medium format could probably get you the required parameters, although as noted close focus is an issue. Large format could get you those results without a doubt, but it's very hard getting your subject to stay in the correct plane of focus while you insert the film holder, close the shutter and cock it, pull the slide, and release the shutter. I've done this, but the hit rate isn't that great.

    I know that the likliest of my lenses (75/1.4, 50/1, 35/1.4) can't produce this.

    Henning

  19. #19
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    221
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Name that lens

    Medium format could probably get you the required parameters, although as noted close focus is an issue. Large format could get you those results without a doubt, but it's very hard getting your subject to stay in the correct plane of focus while you insert the film holder, close the shutter and cock it, pull the slide, and release the shutter. I've done this, but the hit rate isn't that great.

    I know that the likeliest of my lenses (75/1.4, 50/1, 35/1.4) can't produce this.

    Henning

  20. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    221
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Name that lens

    Sorry about the duplicates. My computer has the hiccups.

  21. #21
    Member Zlatko Batistich's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cresskill, New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    102
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Name that lens

    Quote Originally Posted by f 1,0 View Post
    This is the result of the Leica 75mm Summilux
    I think it is too creamy

    I do not think there is a solution for M
    The photos in the first post look very much like the Canon 85/1.2. Your shot from the Leica 75/1.4 looks similar, and would be the closest equivalent on the M8. Keep in mind that the creaminess of the background depends on the distance to the subject and to the background and the aperture used. The original photos were definitely not made with a wide angle lens. Best guess would be 85 (or near it) on a full-frame. The height to width ratio suggests medium format, but that could just be cropping. If medium format, than 100mm or a little longer.

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Reykjavik, Iceland
    Posts
    2,310
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    9

    Re: Name that lens

    As an aside, does anyone else find those photos noticeably unpleasant? That look does not work for me at all...not only the depth of field but the color/contrast processing. Not my thing!
    My photos are here: http://www.stuartrichardson.com and more recent work here: http://stuartrichardson.tumblr.com/ Please have a look at my book!
    My lab is here: http://www.customphotolab.is and on facebook

  23. #23
    Senior Member Don Hutton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    607
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    13

    Re: Name that lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Richardson View Post
    As an aside, does anyone else find those photos noticeably unpleasant? That look does not work for me at all...not only the depth of field but the color/contrast processing. Not my thing!
    I agree - just not an aesthetic which works for me. I actually really dislike blur in the foreground... While I find a blurred background can pick a subject up, IMO, a blurred foreground pushes it back.

  24. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    192
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Name that lens

    Maybe a vintage Nikkor 50/1.4 S.C? They lose RF coupling at about 1m, but will focus down to 18 inches. In addition to very shallow DOF wide open at closest focus, the Nikkor is a Sonnar formula with field curvature that produces "focus fall-off" as you move away from the center. (The newer Zeiss C-Sonnar may be capable of similar results - dunno what it's closest focus distance is.)
    ::Ari

  25. #25
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    192
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Name that lens

    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart Richardson View Post
    As an aside, does anyone else find those photos noticeably unpleasant? That look does not work for me at all...not only the depth of field but the color/contrast processing. Not my thing!
    I kind of like it! It reminds me of a series of portraits I saw once, that were done using a Rolleiflex TLR with Rolleinar close-up lenses.

    Ari

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •