Nikon full frame portrait lens...
- Thread starter treeman
- Start date
- Messages
- 16,666
- Name
- Ade
- Edit My Images
- Yes
You have a D700 and need to ask that question..........:shrug:
Dependant on the size of the subject and the distance,look at 50,85,105,135,180 etc etc.............
I have an old 35 F2 MF lens and an old 180 F2.8,as well as a newer 50 and 85, I use and like them all..............
Plus my siggy 105.
Dependant on the size of the subject and the distance,look at 50,85,105,135,180 etc etc.............
I have an old 35 F2 MF lens and an old 180 F2.8,as well as a newer 50 and 85, I use and like them all..............
Plus my siggy 105.
I would say 70mm is the short end of the deal and up to 120mm but no more. I used to use an 85mm with very good results, cant remember the make, so long ago. I found that choosing the correct lens first and then adjust camera to subject accordingly to get the best. One of the qualities that sets a good portraiture lens apart from the rest is the quality of the Bokeh, the blur fore and aft of the point of focus, particularly that aft of the point of focus for portraiture. The best I've seen lately is from Zuiko, but not much use on a Nikon. I would look at the second-hand market. If it's just purely for portraits, you can afford to get the glass that does the job and handle the metering, focus yourself. To get the best of what I'm talking about brand new will cost an arm and a leg, but with patience and a lot of ferriting about, there will be something second-hand.
Go for fixed focal length not zoom, you get better contrast that way and less unconvincing work in photoshop that way.
Hope this helps
Go for fixed focal length not zoom, you get better contrast that way and less unconvincing work in photoshop that way.
Hope this helps
- Messages
- 2,225
- Name
- Will
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What are your most commonly used focal lengths for portraiture?
- Messages
- 2,032
- Name
- Barney
- Edit My Images
- Yes
So you've never heard of environmental portraiture? The myth that you shouldn't shoot portraits with wide angles is only perpetuated by those who have little imagination. Any lens can be used for portraiture, I've won a national competition with a portrait taken on a 20mm lens.
agreed - depends on how you define a portrait - I suspect you mean head & shoulders - but a half length shot (or wider0 showing the persons environment is still a portrait.
- Messages
- 2,225
- Name
- Will
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I do think this is an important question to know the answer to as it will provide some indication as to what might be most suitable for you.
I shoot people photos with focal lengths ranging from 14-300mm. For waist-up/head & shoulder portraits, I prefer my 24-70mm f/2.8 and 85mm f/1.8.
Here's a bunch of portraits I've shot with the 24-70 mostly at the longer end. These were with a plain white background so blurring it wasn't relevant.
If you're wanting a compact lens in the 70-200mm range then I'd heartily recommend trying the Nikon 85mm f/1.8. It's fast, well-built, comes with a metal hood and produces some fantastic background blurring which really helps to make a subject pop.
- Messages
- 586
- Edit My Images
- Yes
24-70 is propbaly one of the most verstile lenses.
I use mine for a load of diffrent thing from portraits to action.
Brillant too on the FF
I use mine for a load of diffrent thing from portraits to action.
Brillant too on the FF
OP
- Messages
- 4,094
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
That's the problem, it's been so long since I last did portraits on 35mm (17 years) I can't remember which of the primes was my fave. I seem to remember using 180mm on the 6x7 Mamiya.
It's looking like the 85mm might be worth trying.
I think that's a little harsh, but I do apologize, I should have been more specific. I need to do a series of head and shoulder portraits, bog standard, old fashioned style.
I know my 70-200mm 2.8 would cover the length, but find it a bit bulky for what I want.
Any thoughts on which of the 85mm's is better 1.4 or 1.8?
Why not simply use the 135mm bit of the 70-200? I don't know if you're in a studio or ourside, if the former this won't apply but if not you can always use a monopod to help steady yourself if that's part of the issue!
Also recc the 85mm I have the 1.8 but if you can stretch it the 1.4 is awsome, have a look at http://www.pbase.com/mholdef/models - stunning images most recorded with the 1.4 lens!
Also consider how you work - prime will mean you moving on your feet more, whereas the flexability of the zoom may mean less of this - nothing wrong with either as thats a personal thing to you!
Good luck!
- Messages
- 2,225
- Name
- Will
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Are you currently taking portraits with your 70-200? If so, what are your favoured focal lengths? Knowing the answer to this might help you decide which primes to consider.
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=149464
- Messages
- 403
- Name
- jonathan
- Edit My Images
- No
i have a nikon 50mm f/1.8, 85 f/1.4, 24-70 f2.8, 70-200 f2.8 and cant wait to go full frame i feel i have covered all areas just need a really wide angle to go with a eventually D700, i am just going to concerntrate on envesting on glass first.. then consider FX route.
OP
- Messages
- 4,094
- Name
- Mark
- Edit My Images
- No
Digital R...
Thanks for that link, very interesting.
Short answer, no.
But I've just persuaded Mrs Treeman to sit still for 5 mins, and it looks like I'd prefer to go for the 105mm length, 85mm seems frighteningly too close for my liking
So any ideas on the best 105mm?
Thanks for that link, very interesting.
Short answer, no.
But I've just persuaded Mrs Treeman to sit still for 5 mins, and it looks like I'd prefer to go for the 105mm length, 85mm seems frighteningly too close for my liking
So any ideas on the best 105mm?
But I've just persuaded Mrs Treeman to sit still for 5 mins, and it looks like I'd prefer to go for the 105mm length, 85mm seems frighteningly too close for my liking
So any ideas on the best 105mm?
For the sake of this post I'm considering a portrait to be a traditional head and shoulders type of shot.
Another thing to remember about the 85mm 1.4 is that the minimum focal distance is just under three feet. That's less than perfect for some on FF.
I don't know what the best 105mm is. Whenever I've tried the 105mm VR I've not liked it -I do like that it's very 'contrasty', but find that adds to making it (apparently) too sharp for my taste.
For what it's worth I prefer the 85mm 1.4 and the 135mm DC
- Messages
- 3,156
- Name
- Simon Everett
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Treeman - you have finally started to whittle the list down for yourself
I too use to shoot a Mamiya, not the RB but the faster and easier RZ, but I always envied the old dedicated portrait lens for the RB - was it 127mm or 140mm with the 3 discs for diffusion that dropped in the back. Now that I have gone away from medium format altogether and rely purely on 35mm digital I have replicated that Mamiya portrait lens with the Nikkor 105 f2 DC lens - it is an absolute cracker for portraits.
Those who have not used a DC lens (DC stands for Defocus Control) won't understand the difference it gives over a normal prime used wide open. You can do that too, of course, by leaving the DC alone and just using the lens at f2. The result from the slightly longer lens is very close to the 85mm with the slightly faster aperture (either of them).
There is another advantage too, you can get a mint, used 105DC very reasonably in comparison to the 85mm, even the f1.8. They are about the same price. The DC lens can be used to give wonderfully dreamy backgrounds and a razor sharp eye, or you can use it to diffuse the highlights that work in such a way as to reduce skin blemishes naturally, in camera. It takes a fair bit of experimentation to understand it, and the focus changes when you use DC - set the DC BEFORE you focus and then the focus is where you put it, of course. Otherwise it can rear focus on you.
Brilliant, old fashioned build quality. A slip out lens hood, but a very well protected front element anyway, it is tucked away in the depths already, I see no reason to fit a UV filter, you would have to start poking a stick down the front of the barrel to get to the front element. The AF is old, slow and noisy in comparison to AFS lenses, but you would use this in manual anyway unless your eyes are dodgy, the viewfinder snaps into focus beautifully and you can see the effect of the DC if you use the preview button.
Give it some thought - but I would go for the 105, not the 135. The longer lens loses something that is hard to define. I had them both from Nikon Pro to try before buying mine. I don't do pictures on line, I don't have a website, or flickr or facebook or any of that crap - I don't know how to work them anyway and I am not really disposed to spending time to find out....I would rather be outside.
However, there are PLENTY of examples from other photographers out there for you to see just how this lens performs.
There are two kinds of photographer; those who have never used a DC lens and know it is crap, or those who have used one and think it is great.
I too use to shoot a Mamiya, not the RB but the faster and easier RZ, but I always envied the old dedicated portrait lens for the RB - was it 127mm or 140mm with the 3 discs for diffusion that dropped in the back. Now that I have gone away from medium format altogether and rely purely on 35mm digital I have replicated that Mamiya portrait lens with the Nikkor 105 f2 DC lens - it is an absolute cracker for portraits.
Those who have not used a DC lens (DC stands for Defocus Control) won't understand the difference it gives over a normal prime used wide open. You can do that too, of course, by leaving the DC alone and just using the lens at f2. The result from the slightly longer lens is very close to the 85mm with the slightly faster aperture (either of them).
There is another advantage too, you can get a mint, used 105DC very reasonably in comparison to the 85mm, even the f1.8. They are about the same price. The DC lens can be used to give wonderfully dreamy backgrounds and a razor sharp eye, or you can use it to diffuse the highlights that work in such a way as to reduce skin blemishes naturally, in camera. It takes a fair bit of experimentation to understand it, and the focus changes when you use DC - set the DC BEFORE you focus and then the focus is where you put it, of course. Otherwise it can rear focus on you.
Brilliant, old fashioned build quality. A slip out lens hood, but a very well protected front element anyway, it is tucked away in the depths already, I see no reason to fit a UV filter, you would have to start poking a stick down the front of the barrel to get to the front element. The AF is old, slow and noisy in comparison to AFS lenses, but you would use this in manual anyway unless your eyes are dodgy, the viewfinder snaps into focus beautifully and you can see the effect of the DC if you use the preview button.
Give it some thought - but I would go for the 105, not the 135. The longer lens loses something that is hard to define. I had them both from Nikon Pro to try before buying mine. I don't do pictures on line, I don't have a website, or flickr or facebook or any of that crap - I don't know how to work them anyway and I am not really disposed to spending time to find out....I would rather be outside.
However, there are PLENTY of examples from other photographers out there for you to see just how this lens performs.There are two kinds of photographer; those who have never used a DC lens and know it is crap, or those who have used one and think it is great.
photon
Junior Member
- Messages
- 5,123
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I wondered when the DC would get a mention, but I'd like to know where you can get one for the £200-£300 of the ƒ/1.8 85mm.
The manual focus Tamron Adaptall-2 ƒ/2.8 70-150mm VariSoft is another contender, but would take some hunting down.
The manual focus Tamron Adaptall-2 ƒ/2.8 70-150mm VariSoft is another contender, but would take some hunting down.
- Messages
- 3,156
- Name
- Simon Everett
- Edit My Images
- Yes
There wasn't any price limit mentioned, which is why I didn't worry about it. I wouldn't think you would get an f2.8 24-70 AFS for the £300 for the 85mm f1.8 either :shrug:
24-70 = approx £1300
85 f1.8 = approx £300 (check, I think it has gone up a bit recently)
85 f1.4 = approx £900 (again check for up to the minute price)
105 DC f2 = approx £900 (same caveat as above)
So much the same price as all the others, except your hidden gem of the 85 f1.8 (much less build quality though).
24-70 = approx £1300
85 f1.8 = approx £300 (check, I think it has gone up a bit recently)
85 f1.4 = approx £900 (again check for up to the minute price)
105 DC f2 = approx £900 (same caveat as above)
So much the same price as all the others, except your hidden gem of the 85 f1.8 (much less build quality though).