Micro lens for Portrait? Is it a good idea?

[khiem_le1]

<p>Hi guys,<br>

I am planning to get a 105mm G for my d700, but not quite sure if this is a good lens for Portrait as well. There is no doubt that it works beautifully with macro, but is it a good choice for portrait?<br>

The reason why I chose this lens is because I haven't got any tele lens, so I guess buying this lens could possibly give me two options: for Macro & Portrait.<br>

I heard people saying that Macro lens is too sharp for Portrait, but don't we always want sharp lenses? To what extent that the sharpness this lens produces will not be beneficious for Portrait?<br>

Thank you for your opinion,<br>

Khiem</p>

 

[photo5]

<p>The Micro-Nikkor lenses are good for portraits as they are highly corrected and have very little distortion. I used my 55mm f3.5 Micro-Nikkor for head and shoulder portraits in a portrait class I took as the instructor told me it was well corrected enough to not make the nose look too big. I was working indoors and didn't have the room to stand far enough away to use my 105mm 2.5. And in the digital era, there is no such thing as a lens that is too sharp, when it is so easy to apply a filter in post to an image that needs it.</p>

[leslie_cheung]

dave is right in that you can use macro lenses for portrait and it's never too sharp imo. But he's wrong in that one needs a highly correctted lens to shoot good portraits. I wound spend more time on lighting, subject's comfort, backdrop and bokeh than lens correction which also can be corrected in post. Perpective distortion is more important than lens distortion.

[craigd]

<blockquote>

<p>I used my 55mm f3.5 Micro-Nikkor for head and shoulder portraits in a portrait class I took as the instructor told me it was well corrected enough to not make the nose look too big.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This statement makes no sense to me. 50mm is a bit short for a head and shoulders portrait in the full-frame 35mm format; on Nikon DX cameras it's not too bad, since you get a field of view roughly equal to 75mm on full-frame. But the differences between a 55mm Micro-Nikkor and an ordinary 50mm Nikkor (any of them) have nothing to do with making noses look big. That has more to do with simply getting too close to your subject, which a too-short focal length tends to encourage due to its angle of view (if, again, you're going for tightly-framed portrait). If the 50mm Nikkors suffered from severe barrel distortion, maybe I'd see some merit in your instructor's statement, but their barrel distortion, while it does exist, is pretty mild.</p>

<p>As to the OP's question, a 105mm f/2.8 Micro should be a decent choice for portraits on a D700. It isn't necessarily ideal, since excessive sharpness in portraits tends to bring out details you don't really want to emphasize, like skin pores and wrinkles; also, many portrait photographers favor faster apertures like f/2 to maximize the separation between the subject and the background. But it should be adequate if you can't get another lens optimized for portrait work.</p>

[khiem_le1]

<p>Thanks everyone for your opinions,<br>

Seems like the 105 micro G is a good choice for my situation. I intended to buy a 85 1.4 as well but the budget is low at the moment, so this 105 may solve the issue.<br>

If you have used this 105 G, what do you think about the bokeh? Is it excellent? If possible, please show me a few sample portrait photos taken by this lens.<br>

Thanks in advance,<br>

Khiem Le</p>

[photo5]

<p>Craig, I agree that it is a bit short for head and shoulders, but I was in school and I didn't have access to an 85mm lens, only a 55mm and then 105mm, which was too long for me to use indoors. The assignment at the time was to use bounce lighting for a portrait. He cautioned me that a normal 50mm lens would most likely distort the faces and make the noses look too big, but that the Micro-Nikkor was better corrected so it would do it less than the normal 50mm. <br>

I have never used the 105 Micro G so I can't comment on its performance. But my 105mm f2.5 Nikkor is superb in every way and I've shot many portraits with it. It is sharpest at f4.</p>

[woolly1]

<p>I would suggest a Tamron SP90/2.8, not only is it a very sharp lens but it has great bokeh, is cheap and just about the right length for head/shoulder portraits.<br>

Also is a superb macro, I have both the series ii version of this and the 105/2.8 Micro AF-d and reckon the Tamron pips it to the line. Super sharp for macro and creamy bokeh for 15ft shots ..... how can you lose?</p>

[elliot1]

<p><em>"50mm is a bit short for a head and shoulders portrait in the full-frame 35mm format</em>" You know, Nikon has the that warning on the side of the lens box on every 50mm lens they sell.</p>

<p><em>"on Nikon DX cameras it's not too bad"</em> How can this be? Only the field of view changes on DX, not the focal length. I am confused...</p>

<p>Khiem, the 105mm will be an excellent portrait lens for you IF you have the working distance. If you find the images too sharp, you can make in-camera adjustments to the sharpening setting or make adjustments during post processing.</p>

<p>Also, the 85mm f1.8 is an affordable choice to the 85mm f1.4 although neither offer macro ability. Enjoy your new lens. It is an excellent one!</p>

<p> </p>

[jose_angel]

<p>I use the 105VR for portraits on a D700. In fact, it is my favourite lens for portraiture since I bought it, sending to the unemployment all my other staff from 85 to 180 including a 85/1.4, other Micro-Nikkors, the classic 105/2.5 and current pro-zooms. I don`t have DC lenses.</p>

<p>I think it`s better as a portrait lens than macro specialist. For baby shots it`s irreplaceable. VR is a great help when shooting handheld as is its closer focus ability.</p>

<p>Bokeh is correct, I`d say reasonable for a sharp, modern lens. The only issue could be that is not a "true" portrait lens; some photographers certainly prefer the smoother rendition of specialists like 85/1.4 or DC models. Instead, I prefer sharp, detailed faces. Like with any other lens, if you want nice backgrounds you should prepare them avoiding highlight spots, bright straight lines and others.</p>

<p>If the focal lenght is right for you, I think the 105VR is by far the most practical choice.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>I`m sorry to repost this pic one thousand times, I don`t have any other available right now... Taken with a 105VR @ f2.8 on a D300:</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/7349990-lg.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="548" /></p>

[khiem_le1]

<p>Thanks everyone for your opinions,<br>

Hi Jose, just like you, I also prefer the sharp and detail portrait, cos it looks more dramatic and realer.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Like with any other lens, if you want nice backgrounds you should prepare them avoiding highlight spots, bright straight lines and others.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't quite understand this, so what you mean is avoid having bright light spot in the background, like some kinds of light bulb? If possible, would you please show me some portraits that were taken by this lens? I just couldn't find a lot of them on the web. </p>

[richardsnow]

<p>Khiem - </p>

<p>What I am about to post is nothing more than <em>my opinion</em>.</p>

<p>I have shot portraits with everything from a 50mm f/1.8 to a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR</p>

<p>My favorites are the 85mm f/1.4 and 105/135mm f/2 DC.</p>

<p>One of my least favorites is the Micro 105mm f/2.8. It is a great lens, don't get me wrong, but I find I prefer the sharp center and softer corners of the 85mm f/1.4 for portraits. The pros to the Micro 105 are that it focuses extremely close, is super sharp and renders out of focus areas wonderfully... everything you'd want in a macro lens. It's single downfall for portraiture is one of the pros for it's abilities as a macro lens. It's the super sharpness...and it's pesky ability to pick out and seemingly amplify every skin imperfection in a portrait. </p>

<p>While it's just a matter of taste, I find super sharp portraits to be unflattering, as they show every imperfection and require too much work to process in post. That's what eliminates this lens from my choices for portrait lenses.</p>

<p>Hope this gives another perspective.<br>

RS</p>

[khiem_le1]

<p>Hi Richard,<br>

Thank you for your opinion, extra information and user's review is always valuable. Your comment is exactly what I have heard from many people: that the lens is too sharp which it can bring out too much (than needed) facial details. I have always wanted to see some portrait photos taken by this lens to see what a portrait looks like with an excellent macro lens.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Khiem, I`m at the office and I don`t have samples here; light bulbs, that is, specular, bright spots and lines (reflections) in an <em>out of focus</em> "back stage" use to result in that defined "doughtnuts" with more or less sharp edges, and that double sharp specular lines; I use to find them quite disturbing and ugly when I`m looking for a soft, blurred background.</p>

<p>As I found almost impossible to have a lens that render this things in a pleasant and forgiving way, I simply try to choose the background, avoiding them, before the shot.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Check what I mean with "double lines" <a href="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00R/00RtQJ-100363584.jpg">here</a> (105VR @ f5.6).<br /> Distracting background spots are <a href="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00T/00T8c4-127215684.jpg">these</a> (105/2.5AiS @ f2.5).</p>

[craigd]

<blockquote>

<p>How can this be? Only the field of view changes on DX, not the focal length. I am confused...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because focal length corresponds to field of view for any given format, but field of view for a given focal length varies between formats. DX is a smaller format than full-frame, so it requires a shorter focal length (or greater camera to subject distance) to achieve the same field of view as FX. Therefore, to say "50mm is a bit short for closeup portraits on full-frame, but it's not too bad on DX" is reasonable. Similarly, 105mm is a fine portrait length for full-frame (35mm), but it's way too short in 6x7, where you'd probably rather have something around 180-200mm.</p>

<p>Similar remarks apply if we're talking about the ideal aperture for portraits. Many people like to shoot portraits at f/2 or wider with a 35mm camera, but DOF at f/2 would be too shallow in 6x7 (assuming you could find a 180mm f/2 lens for 6x7 in the first place).</p>

[elliot1]

<p>I guess whether the lens is suitable for a portrait or not is subjective and depends on what type of portrait you want and what size print you are making. I like the focal length for portraits. I also like the 85mm for portraits. I like using the 70-200mm for portraits. My point is that just about any lens will give excellent results for portraits, depending on what you are trying to accomplish. The 50mm will certainly not distort facial features like a wide angle will even when very close to your subject.</p>

<p>Of course, you can always shoot in DX mode on an FX body and get perfect 8 x 10s (and perhaps a bit larger) with 6mp, getting the same FOV as on DX.</p>

<p> </p>

[craigd]

<p>Of course it's subjective to a degree, and it depends on what you're trying to do, but when people make general statements about what focal length is good for what sort of picture, they're usually speaking in the context of conventional assumptions about what makes a good picture. I'm sure we've all seen portraits taken with a fisheye lens (one of Jimi Hendrix's album covers comes to mind); those aren't necessarily "bad" pictures, and may even be quite good, but the fisheye effect isn't what people usually have in mind when they think about what a good portrait looks like.</p>

<p>Shooting in DX mode on an FX body is basically just in-camera cropping, and I think cropping is largely irrelevant to the issue here. When people talk about 85mm or 105mm being the ideal closeup portrait length, the assumption is that you're using all or nearly all of the image, not throwing half or more of it away. Likewise, given a suitably motionless subject, you could shoot a portrait with a macro lens by taking extreme closeup images of individual facial features and stitching the images together, but that again is not what people usually mean when they ask for advice on portrait lenses.</p>

[khiem_le1]

<p>Thanks, everyone for your valuable experience and opinions, now I can have a strong confidence to buy this lens for quite a number of shooting purposes, including portrait ;).<br>

My main concern is the sharpness of this lens that whether this will be a Pro or a Con in Portrait shooting. But from what I can see, it does not seem to cause a lot of "problem" and this lens is still an excellent lens for portrait. The focal length (105mm) is just about right for me.<br>

A smooth & soft bokeh is what I prefer for my portrait, that is why I was a bit concerned about this 105mm because I think it's too sharp so the bokeh will not be as smooth.<br>

@Jose: Thanks for the sample images, i get what you mean.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Anyone know what the real focal length of this IF lens is at various distances? Also the bokeh has got to change with distance as the elements shift around to change focus, surely? I'm not saying anything against the 105G macro, just wondering if anyone has tracked the changes in focal length and bokeh against focusing distance.</p>

<p>Personally I'll stick with my AiS 105mm f/1.8 for portraits, at least I know that the EFL gets <em>longer</em> the closer it's focused.</p>

[sem_svizec]

<p>> Anyone know what the real focal length of this IF lens is at various distances? <br>

I'd guess this one does not shrink the FL much at close focus, considering the relatively long working distance at 1:1. Unlike the IF AFS 60/2.8G known to shrink its FL considerably at close-focus. </p>

[khiem_le1]

Thanks, everyone for your opinions. Very much appreciated!

[errol young]

<p>I use my 105 2.8 VR macro for portraits. Good backgrounds, sharp renditions (I can degrade that in PS if needed), good working distance.<br>

I have been using it at events to snipe at people across the room. Turns out, people like those shots a lot.</p>