The 85mm f/2.8 PC t/s Micro nikkor as a portrait lens

[tcb.photo]

I've been debating weither to purchase the 85mm f/1.4 for portraits,

for about 6 months now. In the past, I've used either my 28-70mm

f/2.8 AFS, or the PC Nikkor 85mm for portraits. On the F100 or D100

the 85mm PC Nikkor is manual focus, but works well. However, it

obviously is slower to use than the 85mm f/1.4 D would be.

 

Here's my question, This photo was taken with the PC Nikkor, no T/S

adjustments. It's not artistic, just a test of a young neighbor boy

who just got out of the creek. I had it set at 2.8, is the "Brokeh",

to use a Leica term, as good as it would be with the 85mm f/1.4 D?

Does it make a good portrait?

 

You might notice how sharp the PC Nikkor 85 is, even wide open. So I

would have to use a "Soft" filter with it, If I wanted a "softer"

look

 

Any opinions are appreciated. I'm not looking for a "Critique" on

the qualities of the photo, as I said I know it isn't artistic. I'm

only including the photo as an example of the wide open effect of

the 85mm PC Nikkor T/S, so you can help me decide if it's a good

enough portrait lens

 

Thanks for your input

 

Rob<div></div>

[shawn_rahman]

Rob,

 

From the pic you posted, the micro lens appears to be fine as a portrait lens. Unless there is a compelling reason you want to buy another lens with the same focal length, I'd suggest you shoot a bunch of portraits and reassess.

 

I have used the 85 f/1.4 AF-D, and find that, while it is a superb lens, is not worth the extra money you'd pay for it over the 85 f/1.8 AF-D, which I find to be amazing, and at under $400, a great value. I think the 1.8 is the best AF portrait lens that Nikon makes right now. Wide open, it is fine - stopped down, it is superb.

[larry_menzin]

The 85mm PC is a tremendous lens. There is something else you might try if you have the 28-70 AF-S and it's too short for portraiture: try using it with the TC-14E (if you have it). I know that they are not listed as compatible by Nikon, but it works if you keep it within the 50-70mm range (70-100 with the converter). That way you get AF-S, a longer lens, and a little bit of softening all in one go. Just a suggestion!

[jason michael]

Rob,

 

I own the AF 85mm f1.4 and have previously owned the AF 85mm f1.8 (I like the 1.8

but I love the 1.4). I would recommend both over the PC Nikkor 85mm for speed,

bokeh/boke, shallow depth of field, and definitely for overall portraiture. The 85mm

f1.4 is a lens like no other and if the cost is justifiable I would choose it anyday over

the others. My 85mm f1.4 has made photographs that I know would be unachievable

with any other lens. If you want a serious portrait lens (which has a slew of other

great uses) get the 85mm 1.4 (or if you are willing to consider another focal length

the 105mm f2 DC is another best of the best). I do not doubt the quality of the PC

Nikkor 85 but I wouldn't be comfortable with it as a portraiture lens when other

legendary lenses are available. Regarding your soft comment, with the aperture at f

2, f1.7, or f1.4 you can have a very specific part of your subject in sharp focus while

the rest softens beautifully into the depth of field sunset.

[ilkka_nissila]

But how do you tilt the plane of focus with the 85/1.4?

[ken_schroeder]

Rob, my 85 is an old reliable f2 with 20 years of faithful service. I was excited to see Nikon offer the 85 PC. I suggest you study the paintings of Vermeer. Imagine looking at them through a groundglass. I generally use a 4x5 for portraits. I like being able to adjust the geometry of the image (keep parallel lines parallel). I think the 85PC could mix some of the view camera's corrective ability and the 35's spontanaeity.

 

Softness? My favorite light is open shade. It allows a quality of sharpness without harshness. You might also want to experiment with film and developer combinations. (Steve Anchell's Film Developing Cookbook is an excellent text.) You might someday opt for another lens, but in the meantime, you can buy the book and a lot of film and chemicals for a fraction of the price of a 1.4. Your images will direct you.

 

The shift capability of the 85 is useful in many areas. Architectural, still life, landscape (trees should be straight, too). Even if you should decide you want a faster lens for portraits, I would be very reluctant to sell the 85PC.

[jason michael]

Ilkka,

 

How do you get your models to maintain their patient composure while you tilt the

lens?

[tcb.photo]

There have been some excellent points made, and some good ideas

 

To answer a few of the inquiry that were made, first, I would not sell the 85mm PC. I use it for macro work and it has some amazing abilities that I'm just beginning to understand. I've never tried to use the T/S abilites of the lens for a fast informal portrait. But It might add some interesting effects in a more formal setting, where you have time to experiment. I would think it would be best to use in on a digital though. That's how I've been learning to use the lens, the digital gives me the ability to see the photo instantly, and then adjust for my mistakes with the lens. the photo I included, was taken with a F100 and no T/S adjustments.

 

I'm not a big fan of the Nikon "DC" lens. In the past I used both of them, but didn't really "love them" I'll have to examine the 85mm f/1.8 in more detail. I hadn't considered it before, but there seems to be quite a bit of support for it as a less expensive alternative.

 

Thanks again for the excellent insghts

 

Rob

[eric friedemann]

Per Jasnon's comment, I loooooove my 85mm f/1.4 AFD ... but in a manly way. For shallow-focus portraits, it's a beautiful lens. But past about f/4.0, it isn't, in my experience, better than the swell, old 85mm f/2.0 AIS lens. The f/1.4 has a sweet spot at and between f/2.8 and f/4.0.

 

Your 85mm f/2.8 PC is a macro lens. Hence, close focus and sharpness were the primary design considerations. I wouldn't go out of my way to use the 85mm PC for portraits unless I wanted to do that funky tilt-shallow-focus thing you see in all the hip zines.

 

Frankly, for general portraiture, I use my 80-200mm AFD lens. I'm usually shooting at f/5.6 to f/8.0 with multiple strobes and I love to be able to compose with the zoom.

 

One last thing, if you want to do head or head-and-shoulders shots like the one above, IMHO, 105mm to 135mm would be a better focal length range. With that in mind, if you want shallow focus, you might want to look at the 105mm or 135mm DC Nikkors (though you can acheive the same sort of effect in Photoshop).

[ilkka_nissila]

The 85/1.8 is a nice lens and very good for the price.

 

Sure, the 85 PC is a Micro-Nikkor but both it and the 105 were also designed to duplicate as portrait lenses. At least Nikon advertises them that way, and in my experience the 105 is ok (although I prefer the 85/1.8). It depends on your style of portraits, for example Steve McCurry uses both the 85/1.8 and the 105 Micro-Nikkor ... and the results are well-known. I think this group brags about bokeh considerations all too much while missing that you can avoid the problem by choosing a proper background.

 

I don't have the 85 PC so I can't comment on experience on how difficult it would be to use for portraits. I've seen portraits taken with it and LF cameras, and I think it's a nice effect occasionally used. Certainly a bigger deal than using the defocus control feature on the DC Nikkors. I would expect that you need to work with a tripod, but hey, that's what I need to get sharp eyes at f/1.8 on the 85/1.8 also, and the DOF on the 85 PC is larger than that.

[charles_miller]

First, thank you for posting the image from the Nikkor 85mm PC lens. Brilliant close up shots of flowers from the 85mm PC lens have already been posted and they had a superb sharpness and a beautiful overall image quality.

 

However, I would rate the "Brokeh" of the image you just posted as neutral. Another Nikkor lens with neutral "Brokeh" is the 105mm f2.5 AI / AIS, and many thusands of well-regarded protraits have been taken with it. But it is not the best available lens for portraits because the Nikkor 85mm f1.4 AFD lens, the Nikkor 105mm f2.0 AFD DC lens, some Contax lenses, and some Leica lenses are even better.

[tcb.photo]

Hi Charles

 

I do agree with you regarding the Brokeh. It's not that I don't like the 85mm PC, I do. I can even envesion that there are certain portrait conditions that it would be advantageous to use. In some ways, the T/S could create an very interesting effect, but it would have to be mastered. But for a simple street portrait like the one I posted, you are very correct regarding brokeh, I'm also an old Leica user, so I'm very familiar with the ability of their lens to create this "effect". That's why I've consdered the purchase of another lens, to give me a different "portrait effect" when needed.

 

The 85mm f/1.8 would be less expensive, so I definately will consider it. I'm going to have to do a search and see if there are any examples of portraits taken with it on photo net.

 

Good point again

 

Thanks

 

Rob

[eric friedemann]

"The 85mm f/1.8 would be less expensive, so I definately will consider it."-

 

Rob, I had the 1.8 and it is a super lens, particularly for the money. The 1.4 is 2/3rds of an f/stop faster, but comparing current U.S. prices at B&H, the 1.4 is $1,020 and the 1.8 is $355 after rebate.

 

The 1.4 has somewhat better construction, but the main difference, besides the 2/3rds f/stop, is that the 1.4 has rounded a diaphragm that makes for somewhat better bokeh. On the minus side, the 1.4 is bulkier and heavier ... but it looks so much cooler than the 1.8!

[charles_miller]

Rob, I've used the Nikkor 85mm AF f1.8 and I got mixed results with mine. Under controlled indoor lighting, it produced excellent and sometimes even superb results. But in contrasty outdoor lighting situations, I was less than thrilled because I got some slightly blown out background areas that I don't see with other primes. I would recommend you "try before you buy" an 85mm AFD f1.8 lens.

 

The 85mm AI'd f1.8 HC or 85mm f1.8 AI lenses have a very nice "brokeh" and OOF highlights have a nice gradient from their centers to their edges. But there are only five aperture blades, so the highlights are pentagonal. I personally love the little pentagons and they are now a part of my "signature". But I think a circular aperture would seem better to most peope. My example is also pretty sharp wide open, and wonderful at f2.8. I would like to have this lens upgraded with a nine bladed diaphram and a chip. Sigh. There may still be an Ai'd 85mm HC lens for sale in the classified section.

 

Cheers,

 

Charlie

[jason michael]

The term is bokeh (pronounced boke (rhymes with yoke) ah, so boke-ah) not

"brokeh" (sounds like something Elvis would say, "I brokeh my guitar"). "Boke" (with

the same pronounciation as bokeh is also acceptable (Japanese origins)). And yes, I

was an English Major before getting involved with photography.

[jamesr]

Jason

 

I thought this was a interesting question regarding Nikon Lens, not a spelling "bee". But you must be one of those guys who, even though they have nothing of importance to add to a conversation, seem to want to put their "2 cents" in. Either add something important to a conversation, or stay out of it.

[ken_schroeder]

I'm curious..... The only 85mm lens I have used is my twenty year old f2 AI. The only time I thought it did not perform well was with tree bark at f32. I put the blame on the operator for not remembering diffraction loss. I also used a 100E briefly with good success. My question for those of you who use the newer lenses: Do you see a noticable improvement with the newer, faster, and considerably more expensive lenses?

[joe_petrik]

Jason,

 

I thought Rob's use of "brokeh" was intentional -- a comment that Nikon generally doesn't do the blur thing very well, that Nikon's bokeh is brokeh.

 

Joe

[ken_schroeder]

If we are going to talk about bokeh, how about some imput from participants who are knowledgeable and have a sensitivity to Japanese language and culture to shed some real light on the subject?

[ilkka_nissila]

I can't see anything wrong with the bokeh of my 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 105/2, 180/2.8 AF Nikkors, and since I didn't choose these lenses with bokeh in mind, which Nikkors then don't do the blur very well? And which brand in the same price class does it better than those lenses that I mention?

[joe_petrik]

Ken,

 

<If we are going to talk about bokeh, how about some imput from participants who are knowledgeable and have a sensitivity to Japanese language and culture to shed some real light on the subject?>

 

The term for how lenses render out-of-focus elements is indeed of Japanese origin, but why would anyone need to be knowledgeable and sensitive to Japanese language and culture to have an opinion on a photographic term? It's just a word (and English borrows so many from other languages) for a subjective aspect of lens quality. I mean, you wouldn't need to be any more Japanese to talk about bokeh than you would need to be French to talk about déjà vu.

 

 

 

Ilkka,

 

<I can't see anything wrong with the bokeh of my 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 105/2, 180/2.8 AF Nikkors, and since I didn't choose these lenses with bokeh in mind, which Nikkors then don't do the blur very well? And which brand in the same price class does it better than those lenses that I mention?>

 

 

I don't know if you directed your question at me, but I'll take a stab at it...

 

Of the Nikkors I've tried, the following have exceptional bokeh:

 

-- 45 f/2.8 AIS-P

 

-- 105 f/2 AF-DC

 

 

Of the ones I've tried, the following have very good to good bokeh:

 

-- 24 f/2.8 AIS (good)

 

-- 35 f/1.4 AIS (good)

 

-- 85 f/1.8 non-AI (very good until stopped down a couple of clicks)

 

-- 105 f/2.5 AIS (very good)

 

-- 180 f/2.8 AF (good)

 

 

These Nikkors have so-so to crap bokeh:

 

-- 18 f/3.5 AIS, though it's hard for anything to be out of focus with an ultrawide (great lens, crap bokeh)

 

-- 50 f/1.4 AIS (exceptional lens, crap bokeh)

 

-- 55 f/1.2 non-AI (so-so lens, so-so bokeh)

 

-- 55 f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor (exceptional lens, crap bokeh)

 

-- 105 f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor (exceptional lens, crap bokeh)

 

-- 300 f/4.5 ASI IF-ED (very good lens, so-so bokeh)

 

 

 

Admittedly, this is not a definitive list of Nikkors (aren't there at least a 100 lenses in the full Nikon program?), and bokeh itself is clearly subjective, but, for what it's worth, I think some Nikkors do out-of-focus blurring much better than others. I'd rather do portraits with a 105 DC than with a 105 f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor, for example.

 

As for lenses with better bokeh than Nikkors in the same price class? I've got experience only with Nikkors but glancing at pix on Photonet, it seems that some of the Minolta and Canon lenses have rather good bokeh. Leica is almost always exceptional in this regard, but the glass is most definitely not in the same price class -- a 50 f/1.8 AF Nikkor is about $150 and a 50 f/2 Summicron is about $1000.

 

By the way, I'm a long-time Nikon shooter and have never shot a Leica, but I have a friend who does. The real kicker with bokeh is that one of the best examples I've seen is from a $50 Russian knock-off, the screw-mount Jupiter 50mm f/2. That was an eye opener! -- http://www.avzine.com/vuk/g01/BW010905-eatonC.htm

 

Joe

[charles_miller]

Joe, thanks for posting "a stab at it". I have used several of the lenses you mentioned above, and in those cases my opinions match with yours very closely.

[charles_miller]

Illka,

 

I don't know how your 50mm f1.4 AF preforms. But the 50mm f1.4 AF Nikkor I used performed as follows when set at f5.6 or at f8.0. Objects near the plane of focus were rendered beautifully. I truly think the subject was rendered at least as well as any lens at any price. But objects behind the plane of focus often appeared doubled. The easiest way to see this is effect is when there are bright OOF objects behind the plane of focus. This double-line bokeh cluttered the appearance of the shots I enlarged to 8 X 12. When the effect was really severe, the photo looked like the background had been double exposed. In milder cases, there was just sort of a "paint by numbers" apperance to the background. Since I usually shoot in conditions where I can't control the background, and I have to shoot at f5.6 to f8.0, I switched to the 45mm AIP lens, which is no sharper. But it has a much better "bokeh" in those conditions.

 

By the way, I still think the term "brokeh" is great, and I just have to use it again to annoy who ever, I mean whom ever. Or is it whomever? OH, WHAT EVER!

 

Cheers,

 

Charlie

[tcb.photo]

I mispelled the term, obviously it was a mistake, but what is really important isn't the spelling, but the meaning.

Thanks again for the opinions of the different 85mm lens.

 

Rob

[david_h._hartman]

<em>"At least Nikon advertises them that way" --Ilkka Nissila<br>

</em><br>

Yes at least Nikon advertises them that way and some are fooled. A 105/2.5 AI or AIS and a AF 105/2.8D are not interchangeable. One has beautifully smooth backgrounds at large apertures and one focuses to 1:1. If you want a portrait lens buy a portrait lens if you want a macro lens buy a macro lens.<br>

<br>

<em>"...which Nikkors then don't do the blur very well?" --Ilkka Nissila<br>

</em><br>

The 55/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor comes to mind, then again its a macro lens.<br>

<br>

Ilkka, you have the AF 105/2.0D DC, from what I read you have it made in the shade. Even so you should get a 105/2.5 AIS as an object of worship :)<br>

<br>

Im not trying to pick on you, these two phrases were just handy to use.<br>

<br>

Sorry,<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

This "bokeh" thing can be carried to extremes, both ways. All lenses are a compromise, Some know this, some dont. Asking every lens to do everything isnt reasonable. Some lenses are more versatile than others, others are quite specialized.