Which 105mm lens???

Hi,

 

this thread should really be called 'Which lens do you find best for portrait?'. I have a D700 and a 24-70 which stays

on most of the time but I'm finding this a little too short sometimes for portraits. I manage ok in the studio and the

D700 is fine if I have to crop down a bit..... I have the 85 1.8 as well but that is usually not enough of a jump. I have

a wedding coming up in July which I know I'll need a 'portrait' lens for. The choice seems to be between the 105VR

or the 105DC (or the 135DC, or.....). The 70-200 VR II looks great, especially now that it is coming down in price, but

I'd rather have the option of a smaller, lighter dedicated 'portrait' lens.

 

Any comparisons or other suggestions welcome.

 

andyc

<p>Check how much you crop to see what focal length you would like. If you crop 80% off the shortest side and shoot it at 70mm you are in effect shooting with a 70mm/0.8=87.5mm focal length without cropping.</p>

<p>For portraits I like the 105/2.5 AI but perhaps manual focus is not an option for you. Image quality is very good, bookeh as well and the weight and size of the lens is perfect (435gr/15.3oz).</p>

<p>85mm/1.4 or 105mm/f2 DC are the most dedicated portrait lenses. 135 DC is also a possible solution. </p>

<p>In the same time, all wedding photogs are using 70-200 VR... I love primes but I must recognize this superzoom could be a great solution for weddings and portraits. </p>

<p>Unless your bride and groom are super dedicated to photography and willing to endure posing while you find your perfect framing with a fixed 105mm lens get a 70-200 or 80-200. Zooms are much faster to use and you can get different croppings within seconds without changing your position or moving B&G.</p>

<p>I`m owner of the 105VR and 70-200VRII... I can tell you some of my feelings (I use both almost exclusively for portraiture):</p>

<p>VRII: used to the 105VR, I love the ability of zooming up to 200mm(*), it was one of my main reasons to buy this lens but... I`m surprised I find myself using it mostly between 70 and 105/135 (portraits). Right now, I haven`t missed a closer focus distance for adult shots. My biggest concern is that I never know how to transport it, I find it too bulky. Everybody notice it. To have a tripod feet is great. I have the feel that this lens works like a charm (AF, VR, everything).</p>

<p>105VR: Definitely smaller. Probably the only added feature that currently make me to choose this lens over the zoom is the minimum focus distance, not for macro shots but for "portraiture details" (hands, eyes, etc.). The versatility of the zoom is winning over the lightness of the prime (for "normal" use, I mean). It is not sharper than the VRII.</p>

<p>The older 105mm (non-macro) lenses were developed from a Zeiss Sonnar design. These are among the best ever made by Nikon, and I think that the current 105mm is still in that tradition. I have an older non-AI, MF version of the lens, and it is one of my all time favorites.<br>

Sure, a modern zoom can do the job. Which you find best suited to your own work style and flow is something you'll have to figure out for yourself, though.</p>

<p>If I were a working photog I would most likely acquire the new 70-200 because a zoom is definitely appropriate for this work (weddings). That being said, I love my Zeiss 100mm Makroplanar T lens as it is astounding. Shots with that lens and the D700 have a distinct "3-d" look to them and have awesome color rendition as well. Would a manual-focus lens be the best selection for weddings? I don't know; never shot a wedding and don't ever intend to. I got my 70-200 VRI for just this purpose but have rarely used it. After all the bad press about the old 70-200 would most likely take a beating if I sell it but if I started to do photojournalistic type stuff it would still work well for that. The flexibility of the zoom is a real asset in certain instances, like weddings I would surmise.</p>

<p>I use an MF Nikkor 105mm f/1.8 with the D700 and find this combination gives amazingly good IQ. The lens is fully useable wide open and also allows precise focusing, using either the confirmation light or by eye. I previously used a 105mm f/2.5 MF Nikkor which was also a very good lens, but I feel the f/1.8 version definitely has the edge over it (and also looks more impressive to the customer).</p>

<p>As others have said you may find that manual focusing does not suit your style of working. Personally I like to take my time over portraits, so MF is not a handicap. If you want to buy new or definitely need an AF lens then I'd look at the VR 105mm Micro-Nikkor, or Sigma's cheaper alternative. The edge can always be taken off the sharpness of these lenses using Photoshop, by setting the in-camera image to soft or by use of a filter over the lens. OTOH a lens with naturally soft focus can't easily be sharpened up.</p>

<p>Framing is easy with a prime when you realize that the distance to the subject in ft is proportional to the coverage in ft.<br>

At 105mm on FX the subject distance is 3 times the coverage. So if you shoot a vertical full length shot, say 8 ft coverage, you have to be 8x3=24 ft from the subject.</p>

<p>I have the 105/2.5 AIS and indeed the lens is wonderful. The 105/2.8 VR macro is also a great lens. I love it for macro but not for portraits. I'd recommend you look at the 105/2 DF or the Zeiss 100/2. When I was shooting a lot of studio portraits, I used the 105/2.5 and 85/2 almost exclusively.</p>

<p>The Nikkor 80-200 AF-S version is a good one and another vote for the Zeiss 100 Makro and Nikkor 105 F2.0 DC lens</p>

<p>I have the 105mm f/2 DC and and the 105mm f/2.8 Micro and the 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S. The 105mm f/2 DC is the best portrait lens of the three, and perhaps the best Nikon I've ever used. That said, you will lose shots trying to shoot a wedding with it. I'd use the 70-200mm. If you really want to use the 105mm, you need a second body. The 105mm micro is sharp, but not as good a portrait lens as the others, IMHO. The new VR version may be different, I suppose.</p>

<p>thanks to all who contributed - it looks like the 105DC is the best option for portraits but not necessarily for weddings. So it's a choice between that and the 70-200 - will carry on saving up and hit the shops to do a lens test around easter time<br>

andyc</p>

<p>Probably the "old" 70-200 is going to be the best, most cost-effective solution FOR WEDDINGS. Extreme corner sharpness (on FX) would not be critical in those shots. If shooting DX, no worries anyway. Now that the new lens is out, really good deals on clean used 70-200's are available everytwhere evidently. If cash is not a problem, then the new 70-200 makes sense. BTW the old 70-200 lens still works very well and is a great lens.</p>

<p>The 105VR is going to give you high contrast images compared to the 105DC. The DC was designed for human portraiture and its contrast response reflects this - medium contrast. Sure, a decent photog can make a beautiful portrait with a micro lens but the same image is likely to be prettier if made with a portrait lens. <br>

The DC also focusses faster than the 105VR and has the DC feature. DCs have "mojo", just like the 105mm f/2.5 AIS, and it's hard to explain until you shoot one. <br>

Either 70-200VR will be more versatile, on DX or FX. <br>

I own the 105DC and a 70-200VRII. Love them both.</p>

<p>I am using the 105DC at weddings now. No problems and very nice colors.</p>