rusty johnston Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 Does anyone have experience or examples of this lens used for people portraits? I'm trying to purchase lenses that accomplish multiple tasks and this lens is very appealing. This lens has a great reputation for close-up work but how does it fair in other instances? Thanks in advance to all who contribute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_spencer3 Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 Rusty, This question comes up from time to time and most respondents seem agreed that micro/macro lens for portraiture is not advisable since the very precise resolution and flatness of the image that is useful for close ups is not very flattering to your subjects. Also, near focus is usually good, inhanced probably, but focus at a distance may be less than precise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Ingold Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 The 105 Macro works well for 35mm film, but is too long for digital - features are flattened to much. You can always soften the results, with a filter (e.g., Zeiss Softar) or in Photoshop. The bokeh is a little hard, compared to a 105 DC, for example. The 105 DC is much better suited to portraiture and general photography, but is not well suited for macro shots. What do you need the most? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig_bridge Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 The 105mm f/2.8 AFD micro is a variable focal length lens (about 80mm at 1:1). This allows it to be a very sharp lens at all distances, many would argue too sharp for a portrait lens. The older 105mm f/3.5 micro designs were also very sharp lenses out to 30ft (not as good at infinity) so they performed well in typical portrait range. If you are trying to capture weather beaten faces and like the 105mm perspective, all the 105mm micros are great portrait lenses. If you are after soft focus hide the wrinkles, you want a 105mm DC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_h._hartman Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 The AF 105/2.8D Micro-Nikkor should work well for a macro lens IF you also buy a Zeiss Softar #1 or #2 or the Hoya version. The problem with macro lenses for portraiture is the skin needs to be perfect and the AF 105/2.8D Micro-Nikkor gives rather harsh defocused back ground rendering.<br> <br> The 105mm lenses for portraiture are the 105/2.5 AIS/AI/IC, AF 105/2.0D DC and the105/1.8 AIS. The 105/2.5 is specifically designed to give mellow background rendering at portrait focus distance and f/2.5~4.0.<br> <br> Hope this helps,<br> <br> Dave Hartman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alex_lofquist Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 In addition to macro work, it excells as a short "tele". If the subjects' contrast is too harsh, try posing them under gauze screens if outdoors, or using softbox lighting indoors. This will fill in the cracks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_jenkins Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 And I'll give my standard response... Some of the best portraits I've seen taking by professional photographers have been taken using the 105/2.8 Micro-Nikkor. I use the 105/2.5 AI Nikkor, but there's no reason not to consider the Micro-Nikkor if that's what you really want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_wisniewski Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 Surprised no one mentioned this. The 105mm micro has a long focusing scale that's geared towards macro, getting you out almost 80mm of extension, quickly, for close focusing. It's very, very hard to focus at portrait distances and get an accurate focus for sharp, sparkley eyes. As far as other comments, I've found that there's no such thing as "too sharp" a lens for portraits. Sharp lenses put detail in the irises, texture in the hair, sparkle in the eyes, and the texture on the lips that makes them look their glossiest. Since darn near every portrait gets a little retouch (how many faces are 100% blemish free?) PhotoShop's "smart blur" filter is wonderful for softening skin without damaging eyes, hair, or lips. Best of all worlds. Even a soft focus lens or filter starts with sharp detail and adds "fuzz" in a manner similar to a Gausian blur. You can still see the detail through the haze. Some of my favorite portrait lenses are insanely sharp, the Nikon 85mm f1.4 or the old 105mm f2.5, for example. Bokeh (the quality of the out of focus image) is rather important. That's the area where the macro lenses fall apart (well, except a certain 90mm Vivitar). If your background is cloth, harsh bokeh does weird things to it, making ugly double lines out of wrinkles or the texture of the cloth. If the background is "environment", harsh bokeh calls attention to any out of focus edge, corner, line, wire, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_cochran Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 <center> <img src="http://webs.lanset.com/rcochran/prettypics/alissa1.jpg"><br> <cite>An older portrait I took with 105mm f/2.8 micro<br> Try to ignore the wrinkled background</cite> </center> <p> It's funny to hear someone say the 105mm f/2.8 is too sharp for portraits. On the other hand, people claim that the (non-micro) 105mm f/2.5 is a good portrait lens, in fact, it's widely regarded as a classic portrait lens, some say one of the best portrait lenses ever made. In my own side-by-side tests, I found that it's significantly <em>sharper</em> than the 105mm f/2.8 micro at portrait distances using the same aperture. <p> The 105mm f/2.8 micro is a fine portrait lens. I have a slight preference for the 105mm f/2.5, because it has a slight edge in sharpness, bokeh, and handling, but the f/2.8 micro isn't far behind in any category. Its biggest drawback is that it's bigger and heavier, and the aforementioned problem that the focus throw is designed for macro, which makes it less than optimum for portrait distances. But it's a good "jack of all trades", and if I could have only one 105mm lens, this would be it. <p> A side-by-side comparison of the f/2.5 with the f/2.8 micro is found at <a href="http://webs.lanset.com/rcochran/battle105/">http://webs.lanset.com/rcochran/battle105/</a>. <p> Among all the possible factors that go into making or breaking a portrait, the choice of whether to use a micro or non-micro 105mm lens has to be pretty low on the list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icuneko Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 Some people really do prefer "sharp" portraits as they convey a sense of reality missing in softer or touched up ones. This "as-it-is" style is, ofcourse, one style. There are others. Take your pick. Horses forcourses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_markiewicz Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 if you're looking for advice from a pro, don't listen to me. but i've had great success with portraits from the 105/2.8 lens. an example below...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefDevos Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 105 2.8 MICRO NIKKOR<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_h._hartman Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 <em>Even a soft focus lens or filter starts with sharp detail and adds "fuzz" in a manner similar to a Gausian blur. You can still see the detail through the haze. --Joseph Wisniewski</em><br> <br> Joseph,<br> <br> I can agree with most of what you say but I do disagree with the word haze. The Softar and Harrison & Harrison Black Dot filters and their derivatives have a different effect compared to the Nikon Soft #1 & #2 and other more common soft focus filters. The Softar type filters add spherical aberration while the back dot filters adds diffraction. These do not cause the ethereal haze or blurring of highlights that other soft focus filter cause. <br> <br> The H & H Black Dot filters are used in cinematography to soften wrinkles in close-ups of older leading men so they appear younger compared to younger leading ladies. The last thing desired in this situation is a haze over the face of the leading man.<br> <br> I have no objection to sharp lenses on the right subject but use a lens with bite on an older woman you wont have a happy subject. The 105/2.8 Micro-Nikkor(s) and the 105/2.5 and 105/1.8 AIS Nikkors are different lenses. I own both a 105/2.5 AIS and 105/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor and do not consider these a duplication. They are both great lenses and interestingly by f/5.6 the 105/2.5 just edges the 105/2.8 Micro at a focus distance of 2m. For practical purposes they are identical. The 105/2.5 give lovely mellow backgrounds at f/2.5~4.0.<br> <br> There was a portrait of a young woman in a brochure that came with the Nikon FM2 or FE2 that was shoot with a 55/2.8 AIS Nikkor. The Nikon Way or something similar. The detail and lighting even reveled a very fine peach fuzz on the face. The image was very effective. This shows that a Micro-Nikkor can indeed be use for portraiture. However the subject and lighting had a lot to do with the success of the photo. The image was very sharp without appearing harsh.<br> <br> Regards,<br> <br> Dave Hartman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 "The image was very sharp without appearing harsh". For micronikkors, in addition to the sharpness, there is also high contrast to worry about. Suitable soft lighting will make photos without the harshness. I have a few 70mm-75mm lenses. One 75mm lens can be used even under direct sunlight with no harsh renderings (and a beautiful bokeh). A 70mm f/5.6 lens is very sharp and contrasty, similar to the 70mm f/5 micronikkor. Both need soft lighting. The micronikkor, however, gives very disturbing background (out of focus) rendition. The same applies to the 55mm and 105mm micronikkors I use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russ_butner___portland__or Posted April 5, 2005 Share Posted April 5, 2005 As usual, I have to agree with Lex. I have and use the Nikkor 105 f/2.5 and the Kiron 105 f/2.8 macro (which I believe to be sharper than the Nikon 105 macro) and both of them give me wonderful portrait results. Russ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arturo_de_la_fuente Posted April 6, 2005 Share Posted April 6, 2005 Rusty, I own a 105/2.8 Micro and I can warmly recommend it for portraits and for other uses too. I bought it for similar reasons as you: as a middle tele but also for macro and portraits. You can get fine results with the 105mm when used for portraits. Just keep in mind that it is not a portrait lens; it is a macro lens that can be used for other purposes (among others, portraits). I think the main limitation of the 105mm for this use is not related to sharpness, but to the AF system (this was mentioned by a previous contributor). The lens design is optimised to autofocus at very close distances, and it is not ideal at some 3 metres (i.e. the typical distance for a portrait). You risk that a few of your portraits will not be razor-sharp focused in the eyes, but that's all. (Having said that, I must recongnise that eventually I bought a dedicated lens for portraits -a 85/f1.4) Incidentally, I discovered a situation in which the 105mm is better than the portraits-oriented 85mm: when taking pictures of babies you must get real close (because their faces are smaller), and many times the minimum focusing distance of the 85mm is not close enough. For that purpose a macro lens does the job better. I attach a portrait taken with the 105mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hendrik Posted April 6, 2005 Share Posted April 6, 2005 Hi all, I Have and love my 105 Micro! And as stated before, a sharpm image can be softened. But a soft image..... The only problem I have is using it with a digital 1.5 crop factor. Distance to subject becomes a matter of concern and the studio is only so big. The 60mm micro is perhaps more practical in confined spaces. Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_wisniewski Posted April 8, 2005 Share Posted April 8, 2005 Rusty - here's a silly idea, if you don't mind manual focus (and no metering). I presume, because you recently sold your F100, that you've "gone digital", probably with a D70. Am I close? I had a chance to play with a couple of Voigtlander lenses, and enjoyed them so much that I ordered some for myself. The two I ordered are the 40mm f2.0 and the 75mm f2.5. The 40mm is a 60mm equivelant on the D70, just right for full body work. And the 75mm is 113mm, close enough to my beloved 105mm f2.5... Biggest problem, while the 40mm takes nice 52mm filters, the 75mm takes 49mm filters, and I'm not sure if its bayonet lens hood will work with a 49-52mm step up ring. I'm getting bad in my old age, I should have mentioned these my first post... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marquis_bradette Posted April 8, 2005 Share Posted April 8, 2005 I remember watching a National Geographic TV special " Search for the Afghan girl" and saw Steve McCurry shooting portraits with a Nikon F100 and a 105 2.8 Micro AF... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now