Solution for portraiture?

Hello everyone!

 

I'm switching to Nikon and am not so sure about which lens I

should go for concerning portraiture. Here's what I'm already sure

about (all lenses must be autofocus, since I'm planning to add an

autofocus-body sometime down the road):

 

FM3A

24mm/2.8 D

50mm/1.8 D

 

Here are the lenses I'm taking into consideration for portraiture:

 

Nikon Micro 105mm/2.8 D (good: macro, 52mm filter-thread)

Sigma Macro 105mm/2.8 EX (good: macro, cheaper/bad: 58mm filters)

Nikon DC 135mm/2.0 D (good: DC and good tele w/TC/bad: price)

Nikon DC 105mm/2.0 D (good: save $100/bad: kinda short w/TC)

Nikon 85mm/1.8 D (good: quality, small, inexpensive)

 

Yet another idea would be to use a SOLIGOR 1.7 TC on the 50mm lens

to save weight and space. Then of course, portraiture should not be

my main subject, but I'd have at least something in my extremely

small bag -also very important to me!- to shoot an occasional

portrait. The extra space and the money saved could then eventually

go into a "real" tele lens, but, so far, I don't think I really must

own one, renting might be the cheaper option for me.

 

In case you want to know who I am and why I want to switch to the

FM3A:

I'm from Germany and almost exclusively shoot slide-film for color-

purposes. I'm collecting equipment for my own darkroom which should

be ready in less than a year. I will then be printing B&W and try to

make prints from my slides. I'm an amateur, and I'll never be

printing any larger than 30x40cm (Inbetween 11x14 and 16x20 in.)

 

I've had a Minox 35ML since I was 16 (I'm 31 now) and took it

everywhere with me. I loved the fact that it was so small,

unobtrusive, but still gave me excellent results -when it was not

being repaired. What I always missed was that the 35 mm lens

sometimes made things appear too small, I missed a 50mm lens - and of

course something for portraiture. I also missed being able to use

filters.

 

In 1999 I bought the following (the Minox was broke for the 4th

time!):

 

Canon EOS 50e (Elan IIe)

battery pack

28-135 IS lens

 

What I found out: combo is highly versatile, but always

intimidates people because of sheer size, camera died on me in cold

wether (just around Munich) and in rain (Louisiana, swamp-tour), I

find the IS pretty helpful, but still I don't need all the features

an all electronic AF camera offers, and I always take my time for

taking photos.

 

Now I want the FM3a and go with small and as few primes as

possible to end up with a light and small combo that I could take

anywhere again, main subjects are landscapes and architecture (travel-

photography) and portraiture. I also want to go into night and low-

light photography. Action, sports and animals aren't exactly my thing.

 

If you have read this far, I really must thank you for your

patience and I'm looking forward to hearing from you soon.

 

Regards,

Markus

If you do not plan to use autofocus, see if you can find a very clean 105mm f/

2.5 AI-S Nikkor or the 105mm f/1.8 AI-S . These are very famous for being a

wonderful portrait lenses. I also like the 105mm f/2D DC Nikkor.i would also

consider the unheralded 85mm f/1.8D AF-Nikkor. It too is is an excellent

portrait lens. <P> I do not like the 105 mm Micro Nikkors for a variety of

reasons, none of which may be applicable to you.<P>I won't recommend the

teleconverter option as you seen very interested in optimum photographic

quality and I also worry about the mechanical quality of the Sigma.

For the price of the 135/2 DC, you could probably find a used 105/1.8 AIS for portraits (great lens) and a 180/2.8 AIS for tele work.

Markus,

Go ahead and buy whichever autofocus lens you want, but my best portraits are with the very inexpensive, often ridiculed, manual focus Nikon 100mm f/2.8 Series E lens. There are two version, same optical formula. I have the later version, with the silver grab ring in the middle. It is just sharp enough all the way accross wide open, with a little bit of light fall-off at the corners that works great for most portraits and renders a very natural perspective. The lens is light-weight and sturdy and can be had for much less than $100. It amazes me every time I use it and I usually shoot with modern Leica glass.

 

Would you really want to shoot portraits with autofocus? I would not trust it. I would want to choose precisely what to focus, especially when shooting wide open or one stop down. If you want a heavier, better constructed lens, go with the MF portrait legend - the 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor AI/AIS.

Markus,

I re-read your question, and I have one for you:

Since your type of photography is landscape, architectural, and portraits, what advantage do you hope to gain with an autofocus body? It seems to me that what you do is better served by manual focus with prime lenses. All your subjects are static or nearly so, giving you plenty of time for composition and deliberate focusing. I would stick with the soon-to-be-legendary FM3a and maybe pick up another as a back up down the line.

Just my two cents.

Markus,

 

Do you have an AF body in mind? There are several choices that will work fine with manual focus lenses. Of the current bodies; the F100, F5, and D1x/h will meter with them. If a used body is an option, the N90s would be a good choice but it does not support the VR functionality.

 

Keep in mind that none of the G lenses would be a good choice for your FM3a. The G series lenses lack an aperture ring and would be all but useless on a manual body.

 

If you like a bit more working distance from your subject, the 180mm f/2.8 AF-D would be another option. This lens, with the TC201 would give you a 360mm f/5.6 lens. The only AF teleconverters made by Nikon are for the AF-S lenses and cannot be used with non AF-S lenses. You may want to consider the Tokina teleconverter line, they will maintain AF when you get an AF body.

 

You mentioned low light. The 85mm f/1.4 AF-D would be a good choice as a portrait lens and f/1.4 is the widest aperture available in an AF lens (in the Nikon system).

 

Of the AF 105mm options, my choice would be the DC version. The defocus feature of this lens is worth the cost. If you have any interest in macro photography, the 105mm Micro would be a good dual use choice. I have the 105mm f/2.5 AIS and use it with both of my bodies (FM3a/N90s), this is one lens I will NOT get rid of.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Vernon

Are zoom lenses totally out of the question for you? It would seem to be the best solution to avoid the image degradation of a TC and avoid multiple lenses. There are some very fine zoom lenses out there that should work well with portraiture.

 

If you've narrowed your choices to those listed and you really want a dedicated portrait lens then my choice would be for one of the DC lenses. Although you hear lots about the 135mm focal length being great for portraits I personally find it to be far too long. I'm too far away from my subject to communicate effectively and I don't have enough room in my little in-home studio...105mm is much better. Lots of people don't like the 105micro much, not sure why as my experience with it as a portrait lens has been very good. It also, then, gives you macro/close-up options which you may become interested in in the studio.

--evan

I know you are trying to save a few bucks, maybe you can still find a non-AFS 80-200 AF-D ED. Great through the whole range, sweet at 135mm for portraits. Sharp enough for any portrait.

The DC lenses are, from what I hear, excellent portrait

lenses. But expensive and heavy, and I don't have direct

experience using them.

<p>

I did a comparison of the 105mm f2.5 versus 105mm f2.8 micro.

I think the f2.5 is better for portraits. And it's cheap and

lightweight. Only downside, from your list of requirements,

is that it's not AF. Still, it's <em>the</em> classic portrait

lens for 35mm format, and it will work on all AF

bodies worth having. The comparison is at <a href="http://www.lanset.com/rcochran/battle105/"

>http://www.lanset.com/rcochran/battle105/</a>.

If you want to walk around and not carry a load:

1. Your FM3A body.

2. A 45mm f2.8 P Nikkor.

3. A 105mm f2.5 Ais Nikkor.

A used 105/2.5 AIS. Or consider a 75-150 E series F 3.5 zoom lens, which is small, light and very sharp for arounmd $100-150 used. There really is no equivalent small telephoto zoom like this anymore, and it covers a wonderful range for portraiture while providing good quality, much better than the consumer zooms of today. Just a thought.

<b><i>I do not like the 105 mm Micro Nikkors for a variety of reasons...</b></i>

<br><br>

Ellis, I highly value your opinions and would really like to learn more about your reasons for dissing the generally well regarded 105 Micro Nikkor.

<br><br>

Thanks!

<<all lenses must be autofocus, since I'm planning to add an autofocus-body sometime down the road>>

 

I understand you but I think you'd be a LOT happier with manual focus lenses for now. They just feel better on the FM3A, and as a result they actually work better (because focusing is so positive). The Nikkor 105 f/2.5 AI or AIS is the lens you want. It's not very expensive, and if you sell it upon purchasing an autofocus body some time in the future, you'll get a lot of your money back. Meanwhile, you'll be using a terrific lens.

 

If you really, really, really want autofocus lenses, the 85mm f1.8 AF-D is a very cost-effective solution, and the 105mm DC lens is very highly regarded but it's a mighty pricey piece of glass. I use the 85mm myself on my autofocus body, and the 105 f/2.5 AIS on my FM3A.

 

The FM3A with a 105 AIS mounted is a "meant for each other" combo and you'll fall in love with it if you just try it.

 

Have fun,

I'd only get a portrait lens if you try the 50 and it doesn't work for what you want.

 

If you feel the 50 gets you too close for comfort or includes too much background, then consider a longer lens, either something ~100mm or ~200mm. Since the 28-135 IS was too big for you, skip the 135 and 105 DC lenses. Get the 105 Micro-Nikkor: the 105/2.5 may be slightly sharper, but it isn't effectively any faster than the macro lenses and requires annoying accessories to do what they do.

 

Even if you never use the 105/2.8 at 1:1, you'll appreciate not needing to swap extension tubes on and off all the time for things that are just beyond the helical of the 85/1.8 or 105 non-micro lenses.

 

Ellis's opinion on the 105/2.8 AF is here:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00121H

 

I haven't tried it so I'm not going to make an argument about its quality or lack thereof. For your purposes, though, I'm not sure that Ellis's arguments against the lens make a lot of sense -- no one contemplates the 200 AFD as a lightweight travel lens, and the 60 AFD is not a great option for low-light work.

Markus,

 

I own the 85/1.8D and the 105/2 DC. Both are excellent for portrait work, but if you are on a budget the 85 is hard to beat. It's a tiny bit soft wide open, but if you stop down to f2.8 sharpness is very good while still providing beautiful out of focus backgrounds. It's not the sturdiest lens in the world, having a plastic barrel, and the focus ring rotates as the camera autofocuses, which can be distracting to me, but I have had no problems with mine.

 

If quality is a higher priority than budget the 105 DC is the better of the two lenses. This is absolutely the best portrait lens I have ever used in any format. It's incredibly sharp, even wide open, but with the DC option you can fine tune it's look to your own tastes.

 

I use mine not only for portraits, but also for fashion work when 35mm is called for, and I have done a number of shoots using only this lens.

 

It's built like a tank, but is not what I would call heavy, and handles beautifully. It really is in a class of it's own.

 

I have also used the 135 DC, but I agree with the comments about it being a little too long for portraits, the 105 provides a more intimate working distance.

 

Good luck.

<em>"I do not like the 105 mm Micro Nikkors for a variety of reasons..." --Ellis Vener</em><br>

<br>

Here is one more wondering why?<br>

<br>

I have my own reasons: mainly the lack of free working distance when use as a macro.<br>

<br>

Thanks,

Here is one more suggesting Ai and Ai-s Nikkors for the FM3a.

My top picks for short telephotos are 85/1.4 AIS, 105/2.5 AI or

AIS (fabulous lens), 180/2.8 ED AI or AIS (not just good wide

open, almost perfect). The 135/3.5 AIS though of humble

reputation is a fine performer. The 85/2.0 AIS a fine lens when

you dont want to play the Cyclops. <br>

<br>

Sad to say the 50/1.8 AI or AIS will beat every lens above (on

charts). I really wanted my 105/2.5 to be the best but it had to

settle for a 3-way tie for 3rd. The 55/2.8 AIS Micro came in 2nd.

<br>

<br>

There is more to a lens than just shooting charts or maximum

aperture. I was about to sell my 20/3.5 AIS after buying a 20/2.8

AIS. After reading <a

href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html" target="_new">Bjørn

Rørsletts</a> lens evaluations I decided to keep the 20/3.5.

It performs well when pointed into the sun, something I like to do.

Here is Bjørn Rørsletts <a

href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/" target="_new">first page</a>.

<br>

<br>

Hope this helps,

I can't resist throwing in my 2 cents-

 

I use Nikkor primes almost exlusively for personal work. In my experience, the 24/2.8 D is outstanding for a retro-focus wide, and the 50/1.8 D is excellent too. The 50/1.8 D is hands-down the price/performance champ- incredibly good optics. For a normal I use the 55/2.8 micro, which is almost as sharp as the 50/1.8, but is more versatile IMO, and the difference in quality is almost imperceptible. Next in my line-up includes the 85/1.8 D, which is nothing short of brilliant. I notice slightly decreased contrast @ f/1.8 vs. f/5.6, but it remains very sharp wide open in my experience. So usually my F3+MD4 leaves the house with the 24/2.8 D, the 55/2.8 micro, the 85/1.8D, and the 180/2.8 D, which is nothing short of incredible. Far surpasses the 80-200/2.8 D wide open. The 105/2.5 AIS? another great lens- I had a hard time choosing between it and the 85/1.8D for regular use- but I don't keep it too far away. IMPORTANT: I believe the 85/1.8D will lose focal length as you focus closer, whereas the 105/2.5 will gain focal length. This makes a big difference in the portait application. since the 180 loses (slightly) focal length as you get closer, it offers a good comprimise, as it allows tight portraits in tight quarters easily. I love my line-up, and I've cursed the gear with a spell that will ruin anyone who tries to pry it from my dead, cold hands.

I always marveled at the b&w shots I got from my Nikkor 105 2.5, but I never had used it for color portraiture. Well, last week I did. Here's the result. You be the judge.<div></div>