3 Nikon Portrait lens - do I need all 3?!?

kman

kman

Messages
2,104
Edit My Images
Yes
Did a small fashion shoot with a model last week (not something I normally do), decided on taking 3 portrait primes with me to give them a head to head test so to speak. In the end I still can't make up my mind between these and feel like I need to keep all 3, though I don't know if its justified!?!

All images were shot on a Nikon D810, lighting with Profoto B1 flash and white reflective brolly, (2nd bare head for the black dress shots).

1. White dress - Nikon 200mm f2 vr1









2. Black dress - Nikon 84mm 1.4 G



 
3. Red dress - Nikon 135mm f2DC









To me the 135mm and 200mm have the loveliest bokeh but the 135 is not quite as sharp at f/2 as the 200mm. But the 200mm is not an easy lens to use in that its big, heavy and have to stand a million miles away for composition. The 135 is more practical but its a slow lens to use for anything else (documentary etc) which is where the 85mm prime is amazing - I use it for weddings all the time.
 
I like them all (your examples), and I would use the lenses in a similar way...
(Probably not as well as you, but the intention is there)

Would it make a huge difference to stop the 135 down to 2.8 to help sharpness?

Great pics BTW :)
 
I don't think you can beat a good 85 for 95% of the time. Yes the 135 and 200 look good, but are they that much better than a 70-200 F2.8, I am not so sure to be honest. I personally would prefer the 85 most of the time with a 70-200 when I really need the reach.

Also check out the new 300 F4, Its small and light. I have seen some pretty amazing portrait shots, at 300mm F4 provides petty good blurred backgrounds.

Nice pics by the way!
 
minnnt said:
The 135mm looks to have a little more magic to it imo.
Click to expand...

To be fair, if you can keep all 3, why not.

But if I had to choose 1 based on the above it'd be the 135, not for any magic but because it's the best compromise - the 200 will often be too long, and the 85 will definitely be too short sometimes..
 
minnnt said:
Nikon magic Phil... You know you want some.

Just FYI, the Nik 135 needs a built in motor... :whistle:
Click to expand...
I don't need any Nikon magic - or their ridiculously complicated lens choices. I love my Canon 135 f2 ;) but there's no 85mm 1.4 :(
 
The beauty of the 135 DC is the wonderful rendering of skin tones - the other two lenses are designed to be more generic in terms of tones. You also get a creamy bokeh which is missing from the others.... it was designed FOR portraiture
 
•
Your renditions are not making it easy as they are not the same.

Anyway, I would go against the others possibly and keep both
the 200 and the 85.

In my book, the 200 (that I don't have but may borrow when need
it), has all the magic one may need on location. Indeed, in my studio
it would only good enough to get tight head shots but on location, it
is my tool of choice.

The same goes for my 85, though it grants larger comps in studio.

The 135 could not find its place in my arsenal.
 
That's the beauty of having all three- the option to change the look.
 
chuckles said:
The beauty of the 135 DC is the wonderful rendering of skin tones
Click to expand...
•
If this is true, I can not recognize these qualities in the posted pictures
under the designated lens.
 
Possibly a little off topic, but how is the 135 dc on the D810? I have been tempted for a while in respect of this lens but have heard mixed reports. Out of the 3, I am liking the 200 and the 135 images posted, but it is a little difficult to fully compare as the photos are not all the same. They are all excellent however.
 
The 135 has altogether lower contrast than the other 2, assuming all things to be equal, and the 200 the best bokeh. Each looks different, so you need to judge whether you will find work for each or not.
 
minnnt said:
I think they'd wreck it tbh but agree they need to add the focal length into their 1.8g range. It would be a popular move too!
Click to expand...


TBH I'd be happy to see a new f/2 version. They didn't wreck the 85 when it was updated, but you may well be right. I can't imagine them producing a new lens with so much about it
 
Well my 85 is going nowhere as I use that all the time for weddings and for indoor portraits its ideal as well.

There is a noticeable difference between the 200 f/2 and the 70-200VR2 imo and the 200 just astound every time. Granted I need to do more controlled comparisons but this experience hasn't convinced me to let the 135 go. I do also like the 135 sometimes as a smaller/lighter replacement for the 70-200 for some of the shoots I do where I'm travelling and trying to save space/weight.

As I said before the 135 shows a little softness wide open especially on the D810, its also slow to focus so anything thats moving is going to render poor hit rates in terms of focus and the system could do with a modern update. Anything like portraiture, still life etc of course thats less of an issue.
 
minnnt said:
Told you so...

@macvisual check out the 135mm porn.
Click to expand...
Don't worry, I'm on it.....!


Hey kman, been reading up on the 200mm f/2, that's a chunky piece of quality glass alright. I think I prefer the 200mm shots as the background is bokeh'delicious.com, hmm the 135mm is gorgeous also tbh.

Are all the comparison lens shots taken wide open?
 
Last edited:
macvisual said:
Don't worry, I'm on it.....!


Hey kman, been reading up on the 200mm f/2, that's a chunky piece of quality glass alright. I think I prefer the 200mm shots as the background is bokeh'delicious.com, hmm the 135mm is gorgeous also tbh.

Are all the comparison lens shots taken wide open?
Click to expand...
Just had a look at the exif:
200 were taken at f2 and f2.2
85 at f2.8
135 at f2 and f2.2
 
Kodiak Qc said:
•
If this is true, I can not recognize these qualities in the posted pictures
under the designated lens.
Click to expand...

As you have said in another post... the rendering is not the same in the posted samples. I'm going by my experience which is; the skin tones are subtly different (improved).

What is not mentioned in this thread?

The control of bokeh you can introduce into the shots with the 135DC lens - shooting at, say f5.6, on the 85mm to give that little bit of depth of the model/subject impacts on the background bokeh. On the 135DC you can maintain a creamy bokeh into the background.

It's not really a fair comparison test that @kman has put together as he has not included the control the 135DC has which the other two don't. An interesting exercise though.
 
Barry yes thats true I didn't really play around with the DC and thats another little plus point. This was a live shoot scenario so I couldn't really keep swapping lens and repeating the same image but it helps to understand the overall experience actually working with these three. The only one thats awkward really is the 200 given its size/weight.

All were shot at or very close to wide open - only the 85mm I had to stop down a little to control my flash power (in HSS).
 
kman said:
Well my 85 is going nowhere as I use that all the time for weddings and for indoor portraits its ideal as well.

There is a noticeable difference between the 200 f/2 and the 70-200VR2 imo and the 200 just astound every time. Granted I need to do more controlled comparisons but this experience hasn't convinced me to let the 135 go. I do also like the 135 sometimes as a smaller/lighter replacement for the 70-200 for some of the shoots I do where I'm travelling and trying to save space/weight.

.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't consider the f2.8 70-200mm VRII a good swap for the f2 200mm. The 200mm is in an altogether different class, although the weight and bulk are the obvious downsides. As for the 135mm, I like the dreaminess quality, but it is very much a specific portrait lens for a specific job, so I don't think it should attempt to be an all round 135mm.

Of course if you need to dispose of any of them....... ;)
 
If you have the 70-200 f2.8 in your kit as well, then you could probably ditch the 135. The 200mm f2 gives lovely bokeh and the shots I've seen show how good it is. The 135 just doesn't look that much better than the other two in your examples. The 85 f1.4 obviously has the advantage for indoor/low light and being lighter.
Here's an interesting comparison of the 70-200 and the 200 f2.
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQx9fAAtwOI


The defocus control feature on the 135 is an interesting one. I guess if you don't know how to use it to it's advantage, then it'll actually make the image worse. (Canon used to make a similar 135mm with "soft focus").
It's such an old lens, it's a shame there's no alternative, not even from Sigma or Tamron. Sigma do make an alternative 85mm f1.4, which is pretty good (and for Canon shooters gives you an option between the 85 1.8 and the 85 1.2L).

The question is, do you need to sell any of the lenses? Do you need to invest in something?
The 200mm f2 is quite a valuable lens, so do you have enough use for it to justify keeping it? Would it be better to sell that or the 135 to invest in something else?
If you don't need to sell, then keep them all. ;)
 
If you can keep them all, more power to you. Myself, I would keep the 200f2, sell the 135 and the 85 1.4 and buy the 85 1.8g and the Sigma 24-105 Art. The 85 1.8 is 95% of the 1.4 and the Sigma is an amazingly versatile quality lens. Obviously this is just my opinion and your shooting style will ultimately decide for you.
The 200f2 is my dream lens so i'm biased there.
 
Lovely pics. The combination of contrast & bokeh in the 200mm would have me reaching for it whenever I could. The 85mm, not so much, but it's a convenient length. In these images the 135 has that low contrast portrait thing going on with a bit more flare. Sometimes that's what you want. sometimes not. You've clearly decided already but you've just helped me so ta very much!
 
I think for quality you can't beat the Nikon 85mm. Prime lenses definitely have the edge. The 85mm is also the optimum focal length for not causing any distortion / compression to the face. It also creates a comfortable 'working' distance between you and the subject that can still enable a good rapport that is so vital in portrait photography.
 
kman said:
Gonna keep them all for now I think. There's always more stuff to invest in lol.
Click to expand...

The correct choice. They are all great lenses and each one does a slightly different job. When they are right they are right.

I tend to use the 135 @ 2.8/r2.8
 
Blank_Canvas said:
I think for quality you can't beat the Nikon 85mm. Prime lenses definitely have the edge. The 85mm is also the optimum focal length for not causing any distortion / compression to the face. It also creates a comfortable 'working' distance between you and the subject that can still enable a good rapport that is so vital in portrait photography.
Click to expand...

All 3 of these are primes, and tbh the 135 and 200 are even better for removing distortion/compression than the 85mm - the longer the focal length the less distortion. I agree about the working space between photog and subject - only an issue for the 200mm really when shooting say full length as you're about a mile away :)
 
I really like the lower contrast look of the 135 dc which I assume is due to the lens and not the lighting? I still really like the old af-d lenses and the only thing putting me off getting the 135 are the reports of focusing issues.
 
Nguss said:
I really like the lower contrast look of the 135 dc which I assume is due to the lens and not the lighting? I still really like the old af-d lenses and the only thing putting me off getting the 135 are the reports of focusing issues.
Click to expand...

Partly lens, partly lighting as the strong sun is in the background coming almost directly towards the lens and filling the frame but yes compared to the other two this lens doesn't produce that strong contrast those ones do. I'm using the 135 on a corp. vid shoot today as I didn't want to carry the 70-200 abroad so has a real benefit there in portability. Focus issues is only that its slow to move all that glass about but it is accurate.
 
Phil V said:
To be fair, if you can keep all 3, why not.

But if I had to choose 1 based on the above it'd be the 135, not for any magic but because it's the best compromise - the 200 will often be too long, and the 85 will definitely be too short sometimes..
Click to expand...

Agree, why sell unless you have to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top