portrait lenses...

[deantaylor]

<p>hello</p>

<p>It has been mentioned that some lenses will produce portrait 'distortion'--e.g., <br /> protruding nose, small ears, etc.--avoided by using a different focal length lens.</p>

<p>Looking at several lenses, all Nikon: 35mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.8 and 105mm f/4, for a Nikon D7000 (the<br /> 105mm is in the mix for another creative interest: macro use).<br>

<br /> What is to be expected with tight portrait shots for each, for example, which one minimizes<br /> the distortion mentioned above?</p>

<p>thank you</p>

<p>Dean Taylor</p>

<p> </p>

[User_6502147]

<p>You could tap in "portrait lens" in the search box and you'll get 10 pages of opinions. Most likely you'd get the right answer for you.</p>

<p>Much depends on personal style, the subject at hand, and other variable.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[deantaylor]

<p>yes, every concern has already been covered nine thousand times--understood, Les.<br>

But, there are those souls who like helping others, and the immediacy of a new thread invites <br>

current interaction. Right? <br>

thank you</p>

[q.g._de_bakker]

The distortion isn't distortion, but simple perspective.<br>Get really close to the nose of a sitter, and the eyes and the rest of the face may be twice as far from the lens as the tip of the nose, so will look much smaller. Move quite some distance away, and the difference between the distances from camera to the tip of the nose and to the eyes will be relatively small.<br>So what you need is enough distance to keep things in the perspective you are after. It's that distance, perspective, not the lenses that does the trick. Focal lengths only matter then because if you move away far enough, a shorter lens will show too much of the surrounding, the longer lens will let you frame the sitter, while both picture the sitter from/in exactly the same perspective.

[alan_olander1664878205]

<p>To answer your question, either the 50mm or the 105mm would keep you at a good distance for tight head shots with pleasing perspective when used with a DX camera like your D7000.</p>

[deantaylor]

<p>To recap, if I prefer a tight head shot, minimal-to-no background, the 105mm might serve me <br /> well, i.e., minimal-to-no perspective<em> trompe l'oeil</em>...</p>

<p>thanks, mate!</p>

<p>To pursue it further, can you fathom another lens offering similar value for what I am after: portrait and some macro work?<br /> Nikon Nikkor AI-S 105mm F4 Micro Lens 105/4 AIS</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>It's you and your customers, if any, who will determine what focal length is 'best' for portraiture.<br>

I've seen portraits done with fisheye lenses, even more often with wide angles like 35mm (on full-sized sensor).<br>

I've also seen portraits done with long telephotos, so whatever.<br>

<strong><em>On 35mm sized sensor</em></strong> ("full frame"), the traditional "portrait" lenses were short telephotos in the 75mm to 105mm range.<br>

<br />Macro lenses may actually be too sharp for portraits without a slight diffusion filter, unless you're into the every crack and wrinkle crowd.<br>

IN pre-auto-focus days, the most famous 'portrait/street' lenses were the ~75mm Biotars and the 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor (not the macro).</p>

 

[Thomas J.]

<p>On a DX or FX Nikon, the 85mm f1.4G lens is insanely good for portraits. I rented one recently for a shoot. The lens is a beast and the bokeh is butter. Expensive lens to buy, cheap to rent. As many others have mentioned over and over on these boards, you should try renting a couple of the lenses you're interested in to see which fits your needs. Good luck.</p>

[henryp]

<p>

<br /><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_Girl">Steve McCurry's "Afghan Girl,"</a> one of the most iconic portraits of the 20th century was shot on 35mm film, with a Nikon FM2 and Nikon's legendary 105/2.5 lens. IMO this is the single greatest portrait lens for the format. YMMV</p>

<p>Henry Posner<br /><strong>B&H Photo-Video</strong></p>

[SCL]

<p>If cost is a factor, I can honestly say that the old Nikon Series E 100mm/2.8 can do a terrific job also. It is a manual focus lens and I don't know if it meters with your body however.</p>

[EdStone]

<p>I have a AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D lens from B&H photo that I truly love and have used it for portraits on both FX and DX cameras with very good results. At the current price you could get this and your 105 macro and have a greater choice of lens. </p>

<h3 data-selenium="itemHeading"><a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/247091-GREY/Nikon_2137_Normal_AF_Nikkor_50mm.html" data-selenium="itemHeadingLink"> </a></h3>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>if I prefer <strong>a tight head shot</strong>, minimal-to-<strong>no background</strong>, the <strong>105mm</strong> might serve me <em>[using a Nikon D7000]</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes.</p>

<p>On your D7000 a 105mm lens means that you’ll be shooting about 12ft to 15ft (about 4.5mtrs) from the Subject and the FRAMING can be a bit looser than a Tight Head Shot, which will allow for a choice of various ASPECT RATIOS for the Final Image.</p>

<p>Also, even if you are shooting outdoors, about 12 to 15 ft is a workable distance such that there is enough intimacy and proximity, Photographer to Subject, to create RAPPORT and to DIRECT the Subject, if warranted. For example, I find that a 135mm Lens on an APS-C Format Camera for Tight Head Shot is getting a little to far away to keep a good contact with the Subject (if that is necessary to keep that contact).</p>

<p>A 50 mm lens (and to FRAME the Subject to a Tight Head Shot) would mean you’d be shooting at about half that distance (6 to 7.5 ft). The PERSPECTIVE of that shot, by virtue of the Camera to Subject Distance, would begin to render the “<em>distortions</em>”, that you want to avoid.</p>

<p>However, you could choose to use a 50mm lens, and stand further away from the Subject and CROP tighter in Post Production. The point being that a 50mm lens might be a more flexible tool if you ever want to make a wider portrait shot than always a ‘Tight Head Shot’.</p>

<p>Obviously, in this particular respect regarding flexibility, a ZOOM LENS would be more flexible, than any of the three aforementioned PRIME LENSES.</p>

<p>For me, for the specific shooting scenario that you have described, I would use an 85mm lens, if I were to choose a Prime Lens for the task.</p>

<p>I don't find macro lenses too sharp for Portraiture, I have two Macro Lenses (a 50 an a 100) and I have used them both for Portraiture - that's an Artistic call: I don't mind the detail, in fact quite like it, especially in Black and White Portraiture. </p>

<p>WW</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>As some others have said, the 105/2.5 would ideal for tight portraiture, though it's a little long for that application on DX. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>The 105 f/2.5 is indeed long-ish on DX, but it is extremely good value compared to the 85 f/1.4 lenses (and a stellar performer), or the 105 f/2.8 macro lenses. It will not do macro, however, so it depends a lot on how far you can stretch your budget. Since you ask about the manual focus 105mm macro Nikons, I do not know whether that is because of budget considerations, or whether you prefer the old metal MF nikkors (both would be valid points).<br>

If you want one lens to combine macro and portrait on DX, I'd add a few more lenses to consider to the mix: the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 Macro (I've got this, and the 105 f/2.5, and they're awfully close), Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro, Sigma 70mm f/2.8 macro, Tamron 60mm f/2 Macro or Nikon AF-S 60mm f/2.8G macro. The latter are (in my view) just long enough to work well for portraits, where 50mm is still a wee short.<br>

If you can stretch to two lenses, the Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.8G is worth considering for sure for portraits.</p>

[Jochen_S]

<p>For a <em>tight</em> headshot you'll have to get almost intimate with the 50mm on DX. So either buy 2 (I usually bag 50 & 135mm, my 100mm is broken & overweight) Or look at the inbetweens. Sigma 70mm sounds like a smart choice.<br>

Anyhow: Perspective rendering is the same on any lens at a given focal length; So I can only repeat; Grab a crappy zoom & figure out what 'll work for you. - If you only have a 18-50mm kit zoom & no money, buy a somehow mounting 3rd party 70-200 from the 80s for $20 and dryswim shooting corporate portraits with shirt on clothes hanger and crash helmet (a simple cardboard mask could serve as head too, I'd recommend a sheet of rough sandpaper to start with) cobbled to a broomstick behind your trestle table. - If you have a bit of money: the least expensive long zoom is worth considering. If you are seriously pondering a manual focus lens: Try to get an inexpensive impression of that experience first! - Especially macro lenses aren't everybody's cup of tea; mine here have a lot of focus throw; a 90° turn of the ring gets them from infinity to 1m other manual focus lenses spread that range over 180° and more. - I recall handling a manual Pentax 100mm 1:1 macro in a store and passing on it since I couldn't deal with it's focus throw, while I felt OK with Leica R's counterpart. Do you have the watchmakers' hands to make the minimal hints of movement to get such a lens focused? - Are you getting along with manually focusing the long end of your wide open kit zoom? - I firmly suggest to buy macro lenses either hands on or for AF.<br>

If you want portraits with blurred background: A f4 lens might be a tad slow. - It really depends. - I do stop down for my own attempts and just bought a 90mm f4 for fullframe. But with AF cameras and SLRs a somewhat faster lens might make focusing easier and faster. - I don't state (or agree upon) a need for f2.0 & faster, but f2.8 might be desirable. - Lens speed doesn't matter much in office lighting when you add flash but as soon as things get dimmer - barely lit homes, or if you want to try available light shooting in bright indoors enviroments you won't be happy. - I simply don't see "in focus" on my DSLR screen in these conditions and my AF hunts and activates assist light.<br>

With a Nikon I wouldn't skip AF in a lens. I struggled with a manual focus 90mm Tamron on my DSLR for a while, got vexed and bought a 100mmAF macro. The only MF lens I am still using on DSLR is a 14mm.<br>

Macro lenses for portraits: My ex insisted on using the more flattering 50mm f1.4 instead of the (at same apertures) considerably sharper f2.8 macro and a buddy ended collecting uncoated pre-WW2 lenses to replace his aspherical APO etc killers in similar situations. What I am trying to say: What works depends on your taste subject('s displayed age & gender) style lighting and postprocessing skills.</p>

 

[deantaylor]

<p>hello</p>

<p>To follow up, located a mint micro Nikkor AF 105mm 2.8D for use on the D7000 (experimenting with it now--<br /> will post a couple of micro photos...). I haven't explored it as a portrait lens yet...</p>

<p>thanks to everyone who contributed!</p>

<p>Dean Taylor</p>