Portrait Lenses

[ioanis_georgiadis]

<p>If money is not a problem (Ok! Ok! I say "IF") which one of the 4 lenses mentioned below is better (sharper?) for portrait photography?<br>

Nikon AF 85mm f/1.4D<br>

Nikon AF 105mm f/2.0 DC/Nikon AF 135mm f/2.0 DC<br>

Nikon AF-S 105mmf/2.8 VR G (Macro)<br>

I realize of course that all the above are different lenses to one another, and all can be used for portrait photography, but which one is the best (If such a question can be asked...)<br>

All of you, lucky enough to own the above, please comment.<br>

PS<br>

Reading Ken Rockwell didn't help me reach a decision, it rather makes me want to buy all 4 of them! (or at least 3) and I am sorry to say that money IS a MAJOR problem...</p>

[dave_l.]

<p>If you search Photo.net for "Nikon portrait lens" you will get a LOT of discussions about this very issue. <br>

No one can give you a good answer without knowing which camera you are using. That will make a BIG difference in the answers you get.</p>

[bgelfand]

<p>Portrait photography, especially formal portrait photography, usually does not require fast focusing; the subject is still or at least controlled. Since money is a factor, you may wish to consider some of the older manual focus lenses at the same focal lengths, depending upon you camera. The 105mm f/2.5 AI is still one of the classic portrait lenses, especially for film or FX digital cameras.</p>

[pge]

<p>I often used these focal length with film, but the digital crop (assuming you have one of those cameras) has made these focal lenths pretty long. I have been using a 35-70 f2.8 lens with a d200 for portraits and I prefer these focal lengths now for that kind of shooting. </p>

[paul_b.1]

Nikon AF 85mm f/1.4D on DX body and Nikon AF 135mm f/2.0 DC on FX body. Both 105 are too long or too short on DX or FX body.

[ioanis_georgiadis]

<p>Mea culpa...<br>

The camera I intend to use the lenses on is NIKON D3 (I also own a D200)</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I suspect this is more of a personal preference and you will get many different but good answers. You might be better off if you can rent each lens and use it to determine which suits you best. If you are using film or fx the best value might be a 105mm f2.5 AIS.</p>

[2yellowdogs]

<p>"Reading Ken Rockwell didn't help me reach a decision..." <br>

Shocking. Truly shocking.</p>

 

[ronald_moravec1]

<p>Tight head, 135. 1/2 to 3/4 body 85. 105 for inbetween.</p>

<p>The idea is to stay around5- 6 feet and get the composition you want.</p>

<p>85 1.4 has softer edges than the 85 1.8 intil about 2.8. Some feel if gives better bokeh and a smoother look to skin as will the 105 DC and 135DC. The 2.8 macro is very sharp at 4.0. </p>

<p>For DX, the 85 is approaching too long already. I used to use my 55/200 about 75mm or 80mm, but remember the focal length of zooms shortens as you focus closer. My 60 2.8 also worked ok. Do not discount the 55/200. Not a great lens, but more than decent optically.</p>

<p>The old 105 2.5 Ai is now what I use for FX as default. Sometimes a 85 or 135 or even my Leica 125 2.5 adapted to D700. I think that one gives the nicest rendition of all at the expense of AF and Auto Diaphragm. Heck it is 1955 lens, 58 years old. Good samples sell for $2000.</p>

<p> </p>

[ronald_moravec1]

<p>Tight head, 135. 1/2 to 3/4 body 85. 105 for inbetween.</p>

<p>The idea is to stay around5- 6 feet and get the composition you want.</p>

<p>85 1.4 has softer edges than the 85 1.8 intil about 2.8. Some feel if gives better bokeh and a smoother look to skin as will the 105 DC and 135DC. The 2.8 macro is very sharp at 4.0. </p>

<p>For DX, the 85 is approaching too long already. I used to use my 55/200 about 75mm or 80mm, but remember the focal length of zooms shortens as you focus closer. My 60 2.8 also worked ok. Do not discount the 55/200. Not a great lens, but more than decent optically.</p>

<p>The old 105 2.5 Ai is now what I use for FX as default. Sometimes a 85 or 135 or even my Leica 125 2.5 adapted to D700. I think that one gives the nicest rendition of all at the expense of AF and Auto Diaphragm. Heck it is 1955 lens, 58 years old. Good samples sell for $2000.</p>

<p> </p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<p>Since you asked specifically about "sharper", at conventional portrait apertures (say f11 on a D3, with studio strobes) all four lenses you list will have apparently equal sharpness, "perfect" sharpness because they will all out-resolve the D3 sensor by a significant margin. If you open up a bit, they'll probably all be equal to about f4, and the macro will take the lead at f2.8. But if you want to go even higher, I'd oput the 85mm f1.4 in the lead at f2.0.</p>

<p>Personally, I'd skip the macro, it has two annoying characteristics when used as a portrait lens. First, it's bokeh (the quality of the out of focus parts of the background) is excellent for a macro, but not as good as the other three lenses.<br>

I own both the 85mm f1.4 and the 135mm f2.0 DC. The 135mm tends to be my favorite. I learned portraiture with a 135mm and 35mm film, so that combination has always been "comfortable" for me. I also have had the 105mm f2.5 that Carl mentioned for decades. That lens has the best image quality of the decades old "classic" portrait lenses. Its image quality, more than the "friendliness" of its focal length, seduced portraiteers over to that lens. So the portrait moved in a little closer to compensate, and you can actually see this if you compare portraits from the 50s and 60s to portraits from the 80s.</p>

<p>Moravec-san wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Tight head, 135. 1/2 to 3/4 body 85. 105 for inbetween.<br>

The idea is to stay around5- 6 feet and get the composition you want.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While this is appropriate for Japanese style portraiture, or some child portraiture in the UK or US, it is not the norm for adult portraiture in the UK or US. You will find that working from 8 to 10 feet is more common in those countries. Humans get a feeling of "closeness" from a picture by analyzing (at a subconscious level) things like how large the nose, eyes, and ears appear in relation to each other. We don't know that we're doing it, and we sure don't know how we do it, but we know what's a "safe" distance, and what picture looks like we're invading the subject's personal space, or they, ours. There's a opposite effect, of course. If the image is taken from too far away, the subject becomes more abstract, less a person, more a mannequin. That's fine for some forms of photography: it's not unusual to be working at anywhere from 15 to 50 feet from a model in fashion shooting. But most people find extensive distance robs a portrait of intimacy.</p>

<p>Now, I'm going to use a little math here, but it won't be bad. Framing for an 8x10 portrait, you will use 24x30mm of the D3 24x36mm sensor. At 5 feet, the 85mm captures a rectangle (30mm/85mm*5ft) = 1.76 feet (more or less 1'9") tall. That's a tight head, not a 3/4 body, unless the body is about 2 feet tall. The 135mm covers (30mm/135mm*5ft) = 1.11 feet, or 13 inches. That's a headshot so tight that the chin will touch the bottom of the frame and some of the hair may get cut off at the top.</p>

<p>At a more comfortable 8 feet, the 85mm can cover 33", waist to a couple of inches above the head, for a pretty nice torso portrait. Back up to 12 feet, and it should make it to 4 feet.</p>

<p>The 135mm at 8 feet will give you 21 inches, which is a pretty nice portrait, chest to hair. (good for seniors for the yearbook shot).</p>

<p>Long story short, if I could only afford one lens, I'd go with the 105mm f2.0 DC or the 135mm f20. DC. The 135mm if you've got space for it, and your market is fine with a more "aloof" style of portraiture. If I could afford two, I'd go with the 85mm f1.4 and the 135mm f2.0 DC.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Very interesting answer from Joseph.<br /> Which one is better for portrait photography?<br /> I`m a partially lucky owner, I have the 85 and 105VR. I don`t know if my lenses are "the best" for portraiture.<br /> I suppose you`re looking for a lens with high sharpness and beautiful bokeh. The defocus control on the 105 and 135 DC lenses allow you to modify the spherical aberration, diminishing that ugly sharp lines on out of focus subjects or highlights, at the foregroud or background. Most other lenses have more beautiful blur at the foreground and ugly sharp lined out of focus subjects or highlights at the background, and that`s all. <br /> Both DC lenses come from the film era where retouching were not as easy as today. Looks like Nikon designed the 105 and 135 DC specifically for portraiture demands. The focals are into the most desired range for that task. Nikon surely knows how to made good lenses. It makes me think that this lenses actually are the best for portraiture but not interesting with today`s digital tools. Also, screwdriver focus system on a very expensive lens. <br /> Any lens could give a good portrait, my own favourite one has been made with a 50/1.8AFD... the king of the ugly bokeh. The 105VR is my "official" portait lens probably the sharpest amongst your list with a reasonable good bokeh. I usually shoot RAW and process the images before printing, then that blur control on the DC can be easily emulated or surpassed (I`m not so picky about bokeh, thought). I`m waiting for the 70-200VRII to replace the 105VR for portraiture. The wide aperture on the 85/1.4 is another attractive feature on a very different glass.</p>

[rick_helmke1]

Money being an issue, consider the MF lenses, AI preferably. You can probably find a good copy of the classic 105/2.5 for $100 or less and it is excellent. I was also impressed with the 135/2.0 and it isn't much more costly. Shooting portraits at 2.8 or 4 can yield fascinating results. Look at some of the old school portaits utilizing very shallow DOF and you'll see what I mean. Rick H.

[hal_edmonds]

<p>The 85.</p>

[ron_hiner2]

<h1>Ioanis</h1>

<p>Ioanis -<br>

I have and love both the 85 1.4 and the 105 DC. Where I shoot the bulk of my portraits is in a room that is about 12 feet by 20 feet with an 8 foot ceiling. I really don't ever use the 105 with the D3 -- my space is not big enough. I use the 85 all the time. I also use a 24-70 at the long end of its range. The short end makes for unflattering portraits.<br>

85 is the right length for my space. If I had a bigger space, I'd still use the 85 most of the time, but I'd use the 105 more.</p>

<p>Ron</p>

[images by mr. j]

<p> Nikon 135mm f2.8 Series E with built in hood. Mint. With both caps. <br />$100<br />is it worth the investment. keep in mind that I not rick and cant purchase high end lens. I just want some good glass. </p>

[frank.schifano]

<p>My two favorites for 35 mm work are both AI lenses on film bodies, the 85 f/2 and the 105 f/2.5. If you're not shooting action and you have strobes, the AF and the CPU are superfluous and only add more $$$ to the deal. The old manual focus lenses have glass that is as good as the newer stuff, without having to pay for features that you may not need.</p>

[fju]

<p>It's personal preference. Your lens choice should be very personal to you. You have to figure this one out on your own.</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>No one uses AF for portraits. With the shallow depth of field that you need, AF is useless.<br>

The 105/2.5 Ai-s. Cheap, not so sharp that the pores of the skin become a feature, nice smooth focus, beautiful contrast and bokeh and you would probably have to go to Summicron to get a nicer result.<br>

The 85/1.8 is better than the 1.4. At 1.4 if the eyes are in focus, the nose or ear's may not be. Fastest is not the best. Remember that you are dealing with a 3d object so you need dof and to be in the lenses sweet spot.</p>

[samoksner]

<p>Nikkor 105 f2.5. Cheaper then the 4 you have listed and a known performer by most who have used this lens. I personally own the 85mm f1.4 and the 105 f2.5 and used the 105 VR extrensivly, the 105 f2.5 is my faorite of the batch. I love it to the point where I have bought 2 (with different coatings) and tomorow when i leave for France for 2 weeks on vacation, my only 2 lens' will be a 35 and the 105. This lens can hold it's own against the best modern glass.</p>

[carlwakefield]

<p>I would choose the 85 1.4 - I think its works really well on Full format and crop body. On full format some people may find it a little short you will need to be close to your subject. But you will never regreat having it. You will make great pictures with this lens without any question. For sure nobody will every be satified with one lens we always want more. but your on the safe side with this.</p>

[paul_b.1]

<p>If you have both D3 and D200, I think 85/1,4 would be the right choice. On D200 this lens will be 127mm/1,4..., perfect for portrets (my personal preference).But ," for sure nobody will ever be satified with one lens, we always want more"(Carl W.)</p>

[carlwakefield]

<p>Hello Ioanis this shot was with the Canon 85 1.8 lens at 2.2 from a 5D.<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/8045834">http://www.photo.net/photo/8045834</a><br>

Regards Carl</p>

[p_m12]

<p>I agree with Joseph W, but I give my 2 cents here now. I have used Nikkors: 85/1.8 AF, 85/1.4 AF, 105/2.8 AF Micro, 105/2.5 AIS, 135/3.5 AIS, 180/2.8 and 300/4.0 lenses. </p>

<p>The classic HEADSHOT lens is the 135mm for full-frame camera bodies, shooting at f/5.6 or f/8.0 or even f/11 (because the nose, eyes and ears should be in focus for good portraiture). To blur the background, increase the distance between the person and the background, instead of opening up the aperture to f/2.8. The 135mm gives the needed working distance, about 8-10 feet, to make the person feel comfortable. The Nikon 135mm f/3.5 works fine for this and it's very cheap. If your background is not plain and you need better bokeh, the 135mm f2.0 AF DC is better but very expensive.</p>

<p>The classic MODEL photography lens is the 85mm for full-frame camera bodies, shooting at f/2.8 to f/16, depending on the pose and focus desired. The closer you are to the model the more depth of focus you will need, unless you are doing creative art. The 85mm allows you to get above the model if necessary (looking down on the person) or get farther back (15 feet) for a full length portrait. Shooting at f/1.4 is problematic because the viewfinder only sees f/2.8 and you will miss the focus quite often. The 85mm f/1.4 AF is extremely good from f/2.8 to f/5.6 but expensive.</p>

<p>The 105mm works better for model photography outside or in a larger studio, or if you find the 85mm makes your clients too uncomfortable because of the shorter working distance. </p>

<p>I hated the 105mm f2.8 AF Micro lens because I prefer to focus manually on the eyes and it is very hard to fine tune the focus of this micro lens, because one small adjustment causes a big change in the focus. The Nikon portrait lenses are far better for manual focussing than the micro lenses. AND contrary to popular misconceptions, the MICRO lenses are NOT sharper than the portrait lenses. The 85mm f/1.4 AF and the 105m f2.5 AI & AIS are very sharp. In fact, you may need to use a soft focus filter to get smoother skin tones in many of your clients, especially the ones over 40.</p>

<p>For group or familiy portraits you will need a 50mm or 35mm depending on the working distance available to you. </p>

<p>As a general rule, 180mm and longer is not good for headshots because it flattens the persons face too much. An experienced portrait photographer can see this in the photo. </p>

<p> </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em> 8 to 10 feet</em></p>

<p>Can your subjects hear you at that distance? I would have to be in another room than where my background is. ;-)</p>

<p>I like the 50/1.8D for 2/3 body shots or small groups (on FX), the 85/1.4 for a waist up, 105/2 DC for a head shot and the 135/2 DC for general outdoor people photography and for indoor concerts etc. These are all good lenses. I think macro lenses are too contrasty for portraits and their skin rendition isn't optimal either. It's much easier to get a good portrait if you start by using good lighting and a lens which is designed for this task. I intensely dislike the idea that post-processing is used to redo the skin, usually this results in a poor mage - and then people use these creations in their portfolios, yikes.</p>