Good MF Portrait Lens

[scott_mcloughlin]

So I've decided that an FM3a will be my second Nikon body (thanks to

all for advice on that).

 

I want to order her (him?) with a good MF "portrait" lens. I already

have a short tele 85/1.8 AFD on my N80 (fast, cheap - but a really

yucky focus ring), so I'm looking for something with a longer focal

length than that.

 

I like to shoot with shallow DOF, so good OOF (bokeh, whatever) would

be ideal.

 

BTW, I'm not too keen on plunking down $$$$ on the 105 AF DC. Super

nice lens, but the high cost of the nicer AF lenses is one of the many

various reasons I'm picking up a nice, sturdy MF FM3a.

 

Any suggestions?

[harry_akiyoshi]

Do the obvious and pick up a used 105mm 2.5. They're cheap, sharp, and well-built. Pretty good bokeh -- better than the 85 f/1.8 AF.

[raczoliver]

I also often see some 135mm manual nikkor lenses in a local camera shop, but never really hear any opinion on them. Anybody has experience?

[hugh_t]

Interesting post, you don't see this one often. I will be glued to the computer to see these results!

[BernardMiller]

As Andrew said, grab a 105/2.5. Apparently, practically every

iteration of this lens displays superb quality. My ancient AI'ed

version produces wonderful images, and I'm sure the newer

ones are likely even better.

[Spearhead]

I use a 35mm as a portait lens, sometimes a 50. Maybe you have those and could try them. You can see some of my portraits <a href="http://www.spirer.com/alone/">here,</a> maybe then you will see that you don't need a long lens.

[Michael R Freeman]

You want longer than 85mm, don't want to spend $$$ for a 105 AF-DC (can't blame you for that - pricey), want a good portrait lens, and obviously prefer manual focus.

 

Obviously, you have narrowed your choice down to the 105 f/2.5. It is a good choice. Go to KEH and buy a used one - no need to waste money on a new one.

[grant_.]

ive seen jeff regularly shoot portraits with wide lenses...this one being an example...

<br>

<br>

<img src="http://www.spirer.com/NY2004/thumbnails/abball.jpg">

[vedearduff]

Scott,

 

I'll add another vote for the 105mm f/2.5 AI/AIS. This lens is great for portraiture. The one I have is AIS and I could not be happier with it.

 

If you want something a bit (ok, quite a bit) longer, you may want to consider the 180mm f/2.8 AIS ED. I also have this lens and it is great for tight head shots. It also has a really nice bokeh.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Vernon

[ky2]

<p>Hi Scott,<br>

<p>Although I love my 105/2,5-- you already have a lens that's very close in perspective. Let me suggest to you something different. My very best potrait (and possibly all-together) lens, is the Nikkor 180/2.8 AIS/ED; Yes, it's harder to frame a portait with it, but the results are truly stunning. I often use this one only for potraits (either candid or staged), and enjoy a wonderful bokeh along with fine-detailed sharpness.</p>

<p align="center"><img src="http://www.photo.net/bboard/image?bboard_upload_id=14600984"></p>

<p>Try to break out of the "square" -- the 180 is a wonderful potrait lens. It also doubles as a great macro lens with appropriate tubes (I use the PN-11). Have fun!</p>

[scott_mcloughlin]

Jeff, I've seen some of your pics before - just fantastic! I'm quite a 50mm fan myself these days. I got a Bessa R + 2.5/50 just so I could always have a compact 50mm kit with me. My 50/1.8 AFD works just fine on my N80 as well :-) I'm also learning to shoot with wides, first with my Nikon 24 and just recently with a CV 4/21.

 

The 105/2.5 does seem *the* classic choice from my surfing for info around the Web. I'm also very intrigued by the 135/2.8, which gets little air time in Web discussions, but does get fairly rave reviews when it is mentioned.

 

Are there any opinions on the 105/1.8 vs. the 105/2.5? I do like that I can shoot my 85/1.8 handheld indoors.

 

The 105 is a little close to my 85. While this doesn't matter in the long run, something longer might be more fun to experiment with in the short run. I'll definitely consider the 180. Never thought of that. I've a cheapie long tele zoom that I can use to check out that particular FL.

 

I took a gander at prices over at KEH, and the beauty of the MF lenses is that I could probably pickup both a 105 and a 135 in EX or better condition for a relative song. Go figure.

[grant_.]

heres a few i shot with a 35mm lens...

<br>

<br>

<img src="http://s93887327.onlinehome.us/photos/portrait2.jpg">

<br>

<br>

<br>

<img src="http://s93887327.onlinehome.us/photos/portrait1.jpg">

[david_h._hartman]

The classic recommendation would be the 105/2.5 AI or AIS.

Mellow backgrounds at f/2.5~4.0 and portrait distances. Nice wide

open, very sharp by f/5.6. A touch of spherical aberration is

responsible for these effects <a

href="http://www.nikon.co.jp/main/eng/society/nikkor/n05_e.htm"

target="_new"><u>(as I read here)</u></a>. This lens is probably

best for head and shoulders portraits. I like the 105/2.5 AIS

very much. Ive owned three of the Xenotar/Gaussian-types

and one of the older Sonnar-type. The 105/2.5 AIS has the

smoothest focus. The AIS has a built in hood that I dont

use. I prefer the HS-8 or HS-14 lens hood for their better

protection.<br>

<br>

Here is a clip from...<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html"

target="_new"><u>David Ruether's Subjective Lens Evaluations.</u></a></p>

 

<table border="1" cellspacing="1">

<tr>

<td width="15%">Lens</td>

<td width="15%">Grade</td>

<td width="70%">Comment</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td width="15%">85mm f2</td>

<td width="15%">4.8 (several samples)</td>

<td width="70%">performance declines at wide stops near

minimum focus (both conditions together), otherwise this

lens is excellent even wide open</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td width="15%">100mm f2.8 E</td>

<td width="15%">4.8 (3)</td>

<td width="70%">light and compact; excellent performance

even wide open</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td width="15%">105mm f2.5 later</td>

<td width="15%">4.8 (several samples)</td>

<td width="70%">(large rear element [late non-AI with

black front]), performance declines at wide stops near

minimum focus (both conditions together), otherwise this

lens is excellent even wide open</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td width="15%">135mm f3.5</td>

<td width="15%">4.5 (2)</td>

<td width="70%">very good sharpness at all stops</td>

</tr>

<tr>

<td width="15%">135mm f2.8 compact</td>

<td width="15%">4.8 (4)</td>

<td width="70%">performance declines at wide stops near

minimum focus (both conditions together), otherwise this

lens is excellent even wide open</td>

</tr>

</table>

 

<p>There are a number of additional lenses in this catagroy that

I didn't include. I recommend visting David's link above. I hope

I didn't "quote" to much here. There's a lot more at

his site including a portfolio and in-depth lens reviews...<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.ferrario.com/ruether/default.htm"

target="_new"><u>David Ruether's Main Page</u></a><br>

<br>

There is an item I find interesting here. The 85/2.0 AIS, 105/2.5

K, AI and AIS and 135/2.8 AIS are all noted as follows... "performance

declines at wide stops near minimum focus (both conditions

together)" which as I see it about 2m (6.6') and a good

distance for a portrait.<br>

<br>

Here is a link to...<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_surv.html#top1"

target="_new"><u>Bjørn Rørslett's Subjective Evaluations</u></a><br>

<br>

Here is the entrance to...<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.naturfotograf.com" target="_new"><u>Nærfoto

Bjørn Rørslett</u></a><br>

<br>

This is one of my favorite sites.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[titrisol]

I liked the 105, specially the Micro-Nikkor 105. Good for portraits also, very flat field.

[todd peach seattle, washi]

I am a fan of the 105/1.8. I actually have a couple of the 105/2.5 (pre-AI and AI) as they came to me bundled with other stuff. I *want* to like the 2.5, but they're too slow. Like you, I use my 85/1.8 AFD near wide open often.

 

The 105/1.8 has dropped in price considerably in the last 24 months (now down to ~$225 at KEH) and I finally gave it a try. It has quickly become one of my most used MF lenses. It has nice image quality wide open, and the speed more closely matches my needs.

 

I should note that I almost never set out to do formal 'portraits', I just shoot candids that often have the 'feel' of portraits. The 105/1.8 also makes a nice available light indoor sports lens.

[davidfink_photography]

I think Todd probably makes a good point regarding the 105/1.8......namely, that its added speed would be a significant benefit if your usual application will be for environmental portraits in existing light.

 

I love my 105/2.5 (and don't own the 1.8), but I use it most often with studio lights. For natural light, I tend to rely on the 85/1.4.

[mskovacs]

I was also thinking AIS 105/1.8 but for another reason: it takes the same 62mm filter size as your AFD 85/1.8. 105/2.5 + a decent polarizer and a couple of filters eats up the cost difference compared to the 105/1.8!

[douglas_green1]

Here's a radical idea:

 

Try the 105mm f2.5 AI, and get one used. Figure about $125-150.

[roland_vink]

Given your original question, I'd also consider the AI or AIS 105/2.5. It has a longer focal length than your AF 85/1.8. I don't think the focal length is too close, there is a noticeable difference. I find 85mm is good for indoor work where 105mm is too long, while 105mm or longer is great outdoors.

Focusing is very smoooth. It's sharp with just a trace of softness which gives your images a pleasing appearance, and the out of focus rendition is very smooth. It's also relatively cheap on the used market.

 

The AF 105/2.8 is also a very nice lens, but it's expensive. Images have a crisper look and the out of focus rendition is not as smooth. For portraits etc, the 105/2.5 is nicer.

 

The AIS 105/1.8 is another option. It shares the same 62mm filter size as your 85/1.5 which may be useful. Most reports are favorable. I tried one briefly, the results were good although I felt the 105/2.5 gave a smoother rendition. However the faster aperture will allow you to defocus the background more. Of course, this lens is heavier and more expensive.

 

I have used the AIS 135/2.8 quite a bit, with good results. It's very compact considering its speed and focal length. It's a little longer and the same weight as the 105/2.5. The bokeh is smooth and you can achieve good shallow DOF effects. If you feel 105mm is too close, the 135/2.8 is worth considering.

 

The series-E 75-150/3.5 is another great short tele. Very sharp through the zoom range, focuses relatively close and produces nice out of focus effects. Manual focusing is usually good but zooming can be quite loose (zoom creep), it varies from lens to lens.

 

Too many options? Well, you can't really go wrong with any of the above. If you can, go to a camera shop with a good range of used gear and handle some of these lenses yourself - that will tell you more than I can say.

[david_h._hartman]

Just incase I was to subtle above I think Nikon designed the 85/2.0 AIS and 135/2.8 AI/AIS with some residual spherical aberration at portrait distance and wide apertures for pleasing background rendition. This is just a guess but I think it�s a good one.

 

For a sharper rendition wide open backup or shoot at f/5.6 or consider the 100/2.8 E and 135/3.5. If you want to have it all, buy them all. I don�t find 85, 105 and 135 too close to one another but then I horde Nikkor lenses. The prices are so low now the biggest problem may be storage space.

[scott_warn]

85mm f1.8 is my favorite because of the speed and narrow depth of focus and I think the bokeh is quite nice. The 85 is the lens that I mount up first anytime I am looking for casual available light portraits, it is perfect for candids. If you want to go really cheap, the 135mm f3.5 is a huge sleeper of a lens, sharp as the famous 105, good bokeh, and real cheap because everyone avoids this focal length. The 135 is very common at the 40 dollar price point and it also has a very pleasing perspective. My third choice would be the classic 105 f2.5, no problems with this lens except that everyone wants one and the price is around 150 to 200 dollars for a clean AIS version.

[kelly_flanigan1]

The 8.5cm F2 ; 10.5cm F2.5 and 13.5cm F3.5 were earlier Nikon products; for Nikon Rangefinder; Leica thread mount; and at least the 13.5cm Nikkor was in Exakta 35mm slr mount too. There was also a 8.5cm F1.5 in rangefinder mount too.<BR><BR>The 10.5cm F2.5 in rangefinder has the same optics as the Nikon F 105mm F2.5; thru about 1970/1971; a Sonnar design...The post 1971 105mm F2.5 is a Gauss design; a tad better at close distances.

[david_h._hartman]

<em>"I *want* to like the 2.5, but they're too slow."

--Todd Peach<br>

</em><br>

Try taking the 105/2.5 IC, K, AI or AIS out doors in the morning

or late afternoon. Use a HS-8 or 14 hood instead of the built in

hood on the AIS. Try back lighting with a fill reflector or fill

flash. The 105/2.5 Xenotar/Gaussian-types are very resistant to

flare and ghost so they make a great lens for back lit subjects.

Id use the 105/2.5 anytime you dont really need f/1.8.<br>

<br>

Here is David Ruether on the 105/1.8 AIS, <em>"performance

wider than about f4 can be good, though disappointing compared

with other Nikkors in this range, but excellent stopped down some."

</em><br>

<br>

Here is Bjørn Rørslett on the 105/1.8 AIS, <em>"A nicely

balancing lens that is sturdily built and fairly heavy. It

produces very sharp and contrasty images within its optimal range

from f/4 to f/11. Wide open, image contrast is lowered by

internal flare, so the f/1.8 setting shouldn't be used

indiscriminately."</em><br>

<br>

In my tests the 105/2.5 AI, AIS and 105/2.8 AIS Micro all beat

the 105/1.8 from f/2.5~2.8 to f/5.6. My biggest disappointment

was I that wanted better performance in the range of f/1.8~f/2.8.

My test on charts were at 2m which probably is not the strongest

distance for 105/1.8.<br>

<br>

I think this is a case of the slower lens performs better until

it runs out of aperture speed. The 105/1.8 AIS is one full stop

faster than the 105/2.5. Ive tempered my criticism of the

105/1.8 but David and Bjørn observe the same lens I once owned.<br>

<br>

Its too bad the AF 105/2.0 DC is so expensive. It gets

glowing reports and its only 1/3 stop slower than the 105/1.8

AIS.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

<em>Interesting post, you don't see this one often. I will be

glued to the computer to see these results! --Hugh T<br>

</em><br>

So how did we do, Hugh? Were pretty consisten so we must be

telling the truth.

[gary_loo]

Okay, so far, everyone has given some very excellent reasons for going with various 105's. I also like Dave Hartman's analysis. But let me share my experience. I too was in the same situation as you, where bokeh was very important to me but I didn't want to spend $$$$. In my opinion, there are really only two lenses that have the bokeh that I am after and they are the 105mm f/2.0D and 85mm f/1.4D. Assuming that you are willing to go with a grey market version, the price difference between the two lenses is $71 and if you go with the USA version it is $80 (using B&H current prices). I eventually went with the 85mm 1.4D because the 105, while excellent, was a little too long for most "casual" shooting of people portraits. I have shot with both lenses extensively before I purchased the 85mm 1.4D but in the end, I had to steel, beg and mortgage my house because the bokeh was just so good. And if you amortized the cost of either one of these lenses over 50 years, it would only be about 0.04 cents per day. But we all know that lenses this well built could easily last 100 years so the cost per day drops to 0.02 cents. And that is my two cents worth of information!

[gary_loo]

Here is an addendum to my previous post. I re-read Scott's original post and realized that one of his reasons for going with a MF FM3a is so that he can pick up some of the bargain MF AiS lenses that go on sale from time to time on say Ebay. In that case, I would change my selection to the Nikkor 85 f/1.4 AiS MF lense. I have seen this sold on Ebay for around $450 and this lens is every much as good (if not better) than the 85mm f/1.4D. In that case, then over a 100 year period, the cost of such as lens would be less the 0.01 cents per day!