People shots with a 35mm ?!

[Ronald Moravec]

On the border - but 35mm is still ok. The more on the edge of the frame, and closer to the person - distortion will be more visible. It depends more from a style you want to achieve: I have seen nice portraits with 21mm and use distortion in a good way - for example make models legs look longer.

I personally would use 50mm or 105mm for portraits.

You mean perspective, not distortion which is curvature of straight lines not going thru the image enter.

Perspective is size relation of near and far objects and is determined by camera to subject distance, not focal length. If you are too close, nose gets too big. Too far back, face looks flat. 5/7 feet is about right. Longer for full length. Pick a focal that requires minimal cropping.

Cameras used to come with 50 mm lenses because that is most versatile.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I'm not sure what I want yet. Either upper body and head or whole body. I think a 105mm would be too long. 50 would be nice I guess but lenses are so damn expensive. I have an M6. Don't really want to buy another lens.

35mm is a great focal ength for the Leica and made famous by great street photographrs such as HCB and others.However, something has to be said for having a normal focal length for any format.a 50mm lens for your Leica would be a wise investmentand hardly a case of GAS. go for it a fixed fast normalwill give you lots of flexibility and often insight in what else you do or not need.You decided to purchase a high-quality camera.Now, you can't get cheap with glass. that would be like guying a Ferrari and not having money for the tires.get a used ummicron and start taking portraitsuntil you're ready for a 90mm Elmar

 

[dehk]

I got a 50 cron, if you got a 35 cron I can trade you.

 

[polyglot]

Dead Link Removed, taken from about 2.5m. Could have gone 2x closer with no issue.

I do agree with others that having something longer is very useful though, and you would use a 90mm way more often for people shots.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

If you are in Tokyo it should be no problem to find decent LTM 50mm lens and order cheap M mount adaptor for it. Like CV Nokton 50 1.5 LTM. Cheap lens comparing to the cost of M6.
My RF portrait lenses are 50mm. Have no desire for longer RF lens. None of my 50mm are expensive and I don't feel I need expensive ones from what I see on the prints.
Also, RF, if I'm not mistaken, gives less distortions comparing to SLR.
35mm is fine as well. I do take family portraits and street candids on this focal length often.

 

[naeroscatu]

I'm currently using the 50mm Summitar (screwmount) from the Leica IIIF on the M6 with a cheap adaptor. This lens is very good and not as expensive as the M ones. I have not tried but once you have the adaptor you can probably employ a number of soviet made lenses like the forementioned Jupiter 50mm/ Industar etc. These are dirt cheap but have good optical quality.

 

[Prof_Pixel]

Also, RF, if I'm not mistaken, gives less distortions comparing to SLR.

Say what? For a given format, the perspective distortion (like larger noses) should only be a function of lens focal length which impacts the shooting distance for a traditional head and shoulders portrait.

 

[polyglot]

Say what? For a given format, the perspective distortion (like larger noses) should only be a function of lens focal length which impacts the shooting distance for a traditional head and shoulders portrait.

Wide RF lenses tend not to be retrofocus because they don't need to clear the mirror. Distortion (barrel, pincushion, wave, etc) is therefore typically lower in wide RF lenses than in older/cheaper wides designed for SLR use. For longer (50mm+) lenses, there is no difference.

 

[markbarendt]

Will head and upper body shots show a lot of distortion?

That depends, you have to consider everything in photography from end to end, scene to print. You need the context of the final product to make the lens choice meaningful.

The distortion seen in wide angle shots and flattening seen with narrow angle shots are the result of a mismatch between "the camera taking angle" and "the print viewing angle".

For example a shot from a normal focal length lens (50ish lens for 135, or 100ish for 6x7) printed at 8x10 and held at a normal reading distance is probably going to look pretty normal to you.

Using a wider angle lens (say your 35 on your Leica) and printing 8x10 again and holding the print at the same distance you'll start to see distortion if compared to a 50, bigger noses etcetera. BUT, if you print that shot from your current lens at 11x14 instead and use the same normal reading distance the distortion goes away. Holding a smaller print closer than normal does the same thing.

 

[darkosaric]

Using a wider angle lens (say your 35 on your Leica) and printing 8x10 again and holding the print at the same distance you'll start to see distortion if compared to a 50, bigger noses etcetera. BUT, if you print that shot from your current lens at 11x14 instead and use the same normal reading distance the distortion goes away. Holding a smaller print closer than normal does the same thing.

Now I am lost . Bigger noses and distortion will be there at 8x10, but not on 11x14 from the same negative?

 

[markbarendt]

Now I am lost . Bigger noses and distortion will be there at 8x10, but not on 11x14 from the same negative?

Yep.

And at 16x20 (assuming the same viewing distance from your face to all the prints) the print will start to look like it was shot with a long lens, faces look flatter.

Print a shot from an ultra wide rectilinear lens, say a 16mm lens on 35mm film, big enough and stand in the right place and it will look normal. You may actually have to turn your head back and forth to see the whole shot.