105mm Micro for Portraits?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

<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.

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, of

course, one style. There are others. Take your pick. Horses for

courses.

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>

105 2.8 MICRO NIKKOR<div></div>

<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.

"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.

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

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.

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

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...

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...