MF for close-up portraits

[Michael W]

I've used a Pentax 67 with the 165mm lens and +1 extension tube for tight head shots. Don't think I have any scans however. You could google for the Pentax 67 manual, which gives all the lens min focusing info.
The Mamiya 67 also sounds practical, with the rotating back and bellows focus. You do need to be steady when turning the Pentax vertical.

[Slixtiesix]

I can recommend Rolleilflex SL66 with 120 or 150mm lens for this purpose.

[canuhead]

Mamiya C330 will get you extremely close. Just make sure to use a Paramender to account for parallax. Regret selling mine....

[rhcgn]

As suggested by a few of the others I would recommend the Mamiya RB or RZ for the job. I just finished scanning a few negs from yesterday, first one is taken with 127mm at 4.8, the other with 180mm (aperture I don't recall). Neither of them are cropped. Both lenses are the latest K/L version, taken with a ProSD and prism finder model 2, wonderful for portraits and a nice workout for the arms. Minimum focusing distances (from film plane) are 639mm and 1,099mm respectively. If you add extension rings the table applies.

rh-cgn

[fastw]

As suggested by a few of the others I would recommend the Mamiya RB or RZ for the job. I just finished scanning a few negs from yesterday, first one is taken with 127mm at 4.8, the other with 180mm (aperture I don't recall). Neither of them are cropped. Both lenses are the latest K/L version, taken with a ProSD and prism finder model 2, wonderful for portraits and a nice workout for the arms. Minimum focusing distances (from film plane) are 639mm and 1,099mm respectively. If you add extension rings the table applies.

rh-cgn

Thanks for the samples. Been seriously looking at the 6x7 Mamiyas. They look great and aren't very expensive. Found one with the 140mm Macro, but without the eye level prism. Would like one, do you use one? What about the weight, good to walk around with?
One thing that puzzled me a bit were the data for different Mamiya lenses I came across. It looks like some of the other lenses focus closer and give greater magnification.
http://www.mamiya.com.tw/RZ67Pro-IID...%20English.pdf

Cheers, Wojtek

[DesertNate]

If you want to fill the frame with a face, go longer in focal length, to around 200mm. It's better to have a longer focal length and step back than to use a shorter one and step closer. The reason is that as you get closer to your subject, the difference in distance of the different facial structures to the lens becomes larger. If your nose is three feet from the lens and your ear is three and a half feet from the lens, your nose will be magnified with relation to your ear by 16%. That's pretty unattractive, as it means that if one eye is closer to the lens, it will be larger than the other eye by a fairly large margin as well.
However, if you step back to 6 feet, the relative magnification of your features will drop by half compared to three feet such that the same photo I described above will only have an 8 percent magnification difference between your nose and ear. Double focal length and go to 12 feet and it's 4 percent.
Remember that principle every time you photograph faces- getting in close will exaggerate protruding features like noses and chins, make lips larger, noses larger, foreheads bigger, cheekbones bigger, everything that sticks out in the direction of the camera will be magnified by a factor equal to the closer distance divided by the farther distance. For most reasonable distances, this proportion ranges from about .04 to .1, but if you use a wide angle and move closer, you could end up with something like .3, meaning a 30 percent magnification of close features. That would lead to seriously grotesque rendering of your subject.

It's not the wide angle lens that will distort faces, it's the laws of perspective.

[BrianShaw]

If you want to fill the frame with a face, go longer in focal length... It's better to have a longer focal length and step back than to use a shorter one and step closer....

It's not the wide angle lens that will distort faces, it's the laws of perspective.

Amen.

[fastw]

Amen.

The problem is that longer lenses don't necessarily get you higher magnification and sometimes wider lens portraits look more interesting because of the distortion.

[BrianShaw]

If one is looking for distortion in a portrait, well... that's a look and effect all of its own. I don't like it... just like I don't like the current (?) craze for ultra-thin DOF and fuzzy noses. Others seem to like it so I try not to be too judgemental.

In general, what DesertNate says is correct for traditional portraiture. There is always the possibility for exceptions as you indicate.

[MattKing]

Thanks for the samples. Been seriously looking at the 6x7 Mamiyas. They look great and aren't very expensive. Found one with the 140mm Macro, but without the eye level prism. Would like one, do you use one? What about the weight, good to walk around with?
One thing that puzzled me a bit were the data for different Mamiya lenses I came across. It looks like some of the other lenses focus closer and give greater magnification.
http://www.mamiya.com.tw/RZ67Pro-IID...%20English.pdf

Cheers, Wojtek

The prism finders are very large - I would only recommend one as an additional accessory.

The 140mm macro lens for the RB has two advantages over the shorter lenses that focus closer/give greater magnification:

1) the 140mm macro permits a very comfortable working distance and therefore makes it easier to light your subject; and
2) the 140mm macro lens has a floating element that gives you excellent flat field performance at close-up distances. The other lenses are optimised for flat field performance at longer distances.

If you use the 140mm macro with extension tubes, you will achieve higher magnifications and maintain flat field performance.

And half life-size on a 6x7 negative isn't bad .