Nikon 105mm f/2.8D and D7000: second lens...

[deantaylor]

<p>hello</p>

<p>A beginner asks for a complement lens to the micro Nikkor 105mm f/2.8D and D7000...<br>

Considering a used Nikon close-up portrait lens...</p>

<p>thank you</p>

<p> </p>

[SCL]

<p>The lens you have is fine for portraits...although you might want to soften female portraits in post procesing, as it is so incredibly sharp that it will show every crease, wrinkle, and sun spot.</p>

[deantaylor]

<p>hello Stephen<br>

Not contradicting, merely seeking clarification here, vis a vis a photo.net critique of the lens:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>The 105 Micro is not the best portrait lens. Because it is primarily intended as a macro lens, it can be focussed very precisely at distances shorter than 1 metre. <strong>The focussing throw from infinity to 1.5 metres, however, is very short. This makes manual focussing (on the eyes of your subject, most likely) rather difficult.</strong> Other lenses are more suited for portraiture, for instance the fast AF 85 f/1.4D lens and the AF 105 f/2 DC and AF 135 f/2 DC lenses. These "Defocus Control" lenses allow you to change the appearance of out of focus elements so that they appear softer or coarser. I can find no fault with the 105 Micro when used as a general short telephoto lens taking landscape or city photos.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>As a beginner, I would ask for clarification on his pov...<br>

http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/105-micro/</p>

<p>thanks again!</p>

<p>Dean Taylor</p>

[SCL]

<p>I guess it depends on your skill - no matter what lens you use, another skilled photographer will cite another one as better or more suited to a purpose. Using the defocus characteristics effectively of the other lenses mentioned is an acquired skill to avoid overdoing it. The only advantage of those lenses for portraiture, IMHO, is that they have a wider aperture than the macro..which allows for more effective use of "bokeh" or out of focus highlights. The difficulty then becomes, when working at such narrow apertures, to nail the focus, as the DOF is extremely narrow at close range. As a beginner, your lens is great for portraits (as well as many other uses). There are lots of methods, using your present lens to achieve effects similar to the defocus mechanisms, which have been used for years by photographers - everything from stretching a piece of pantyhose (with a central hole burned in them with a cigarette) over the front of the lens, to lightly smearing vaseline around the front perimeter of a UV filter on the lens to throw the edges out of focus. Save your money for something you really need. If you're a well trained seasoned professional specializing in portraiture work for hard cash...you can make the lens work for you and pay for itself...otherwise learn to effectively use what you have, and forget the marketing hype.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>In addition to what Stephen said, the focus throw is an issue when focussing manually; if you use auto-focus, it's a lot less of an issue. Just use the lens, look at the results you get and only then see if there is an issue, or not. Reviews are useful, but we do not all have the same style, approach and requirements. Nothing beats your own experiences.<br>

Another point about this lens could be that it is relatively long, and the distance between you and the subject might be more than you'd like - but this is something you probably could already confirm us whether it is a nuisance to you, or not. Some people will tell you it is too long, as some sort of matter of fact. I never found it to be the case for 'pure facial portraits'. If you have an additional lens alongside this 105mm macro, for example the 18-105VR which was sold as a kitlens with the D7000, you could try to determine which focal length works best for you.</p>

[Gup]

<p>Dean, the same review also states: 'it is also at least a very reasonable portrait lens'<br>

Something that may be worth noting is the review is now 13 years old. The reviewer is using an entry level film camera of the day. Obviously, today's modern digital sensors will have different characteristics that would affect the lens output, too. Have you read any current accounts of today's version of that lens?<br>

That review is based on the AF version of the 105mm 2.8. The current model is an AF-S. Which one are you asking about? <br>

<br>

<br>

</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I <em>personally</em> would find a 105mm a bit long for portraits on a DX body, excellent length for portrait lens on FX, though.</p>

<p>On a DX body, I'd suggest something in the 50-75mm range for portraits (short tele, that is),<br>

NOT considering other variables such as 'macro,' etc. Whether you want to show every wrinkle in crisp detail is an aesthetic judgment not related to focal length.</p>

[deantaylor]

<p>hello</p>

<p>First, sincere thanks to you pros for sharing your expertise--</p>

<p>The aesthetic consideration here is to shoot a close-up portrait--no background (read: 'bokeh') as contrast, simply the tight head view filling the frame, but without the facial distortion (protruding 'this,' or receding 'that,' etc.) we find as the effect of using certain lenses.<br>

As an aside, it would seem, then, that the current lens may obviate the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 normal lens under consideration...(not for portrait use, but other circumstances one may encounter)...</p>

<p>thank you all</p>

<p>Dean Taylor</p>

 

[lwg]

<p>On a DX camera I'd lok at something in the 60 to 85mm range for tight portraits. The various 85mm lenses have different looks. I think the 85 f/1.8 AFS is quite a bargain, and would probably serve you well. I'd go a bit shorter if you want head and shoulders type shots.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon 50mm f/1.8 normal lens</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But don't forget that this lens on a DX body this is not "normal", but short telephoto.</p>

<p>It is "normal" only on a 35mm image, approximating the true 35mm film 'normal' of circa 43mm.</p>

[SCL]

<p>Actually, on a DX body, the 50 works well for a tight facial portrait without distortion, you just need to back off a little and probably lightly crop. Although the attached shot isn't quite as "tight" as you suggest, it should give you a perspective on what the 50 can easily do on a DX body without creating noticeable distortion.</p><div></div>