Anyone Else Have Difficulty Settling on a Portrait Lens for 35mm?

A portrait lens? Shooting portraits with a 35mm, I have, over the years, shot with just about everything from 24mm to 180mm. While my personal preference would be one of the 85/105/135 Nikkors (very sharp, flattering perspective, etc.), the subject's personality and/or the environment will often suggest otherwise...

I use a 105 2.5 and a 180 2.8. Wide open the 180 is really nice.

i don't use a nikon with film but pentax, leica and olympus (half)
and i use everything from a 28mm - 135mm to make portraits.
pretty much any lens can be used as a portrait lens depending on
the type of "portrait" being made ... stopped down wide open .. &c

I've always preferred the 100mm range for 35mm portraits, and currently I'm using the 105mm f1.8 AIS lens. A little soft and flat wide open, but that's what I'm looking for in a portrait lens.

Maybe it's just me- but, I prefer the portraits with less fussy backgrounds; if too fussy a background, I'd rather take that out of the equation, by moving around , light changes, etc.,.

The first photo looks more flattering *possibly* cos of wayy more light? I actually find the middle photographs better to look at, but hey, ymmv. Or maybe just your preferred model!

On my Nikons I prefer the 135mm if I want good enough bokeh and to be at a distance to subject, I have also shot with 35mm and 50mm depending on what I needed. I suppose you've to decide what you like and go with it.

I have a 105 f2.8 e and I find it ridiculously bad to use. Maybe it's just my copy.

momus said:

I have examples. These I like. The first is w/ a Leica R 90 Elmarit, the next three are w/ the 85 2.0. I'm warming up to the 85 2.0. Maybe I just had some flat light on the first roll yesterday. I looked at some old photos from the 105 2.5's I owned (the old design seems razor sharp!) and I did notice that I was able to just get the front of the face in focus, but wow, it's too sharp for my tastes. The last one shows the occasional weird bokeh w/ the 85 2.0.

Perhaps I don't need another lens, I just need another model like the first gal :}


View attachment 75590
View attachment 75591
View attachment 75592
View attachment 75593

Click to expand...

Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk

analoguey said:

I have a 105 f2.8 e and I find it ridiculously bad to use. Maybe it's just my copy.

Click to expand...

do you mean 100 f2.8 e? It's quite different from the classic 105/2.5 many of us have recommended.

I havent used one, but you might try a Nikon 135mm f2 DC. The DC stands for Defocus Control.
I understand that it actually has a ring that allows you to control how soft it is.

It sounds to me like you are very particular about the soft/sharp and bokeh of your lens. Having full control may be just the thing for you.

Someone mentioned the Thambar, a lens which I have yet to see "in the flesh" but, I am told" gives unique portraits because it is. "Acceptably soft" and has a central stop mounted on a clear filter. I am also told that mirror lenses have terrible bokeh because the have the central mirror. For portraits that are "old school" I use an uncoated 135mm Tessar taken from a medium format Mentor camera. I have tried making a central stop by supergluing an old button battery onto a UV filter... it's a cheap Thambar. I can't say it made any difference. The "golden hour" available light does though.

<rambling> David

Love my Tamron SP 90mm F2.5-easily my most used lens in 35mm.

I ahve the 90mm SP also--it's great for picking out details on the street.

darinwc said:

I havent used one, but you might try a Nikon 135mm f2 DC. The DC stands for Defocus Control.
I understand that it actually has a ring that allows you to control how soft it is.

It sounds to me like you are very particular about the soft/sharp and bokeh of your lens. Having full control may be just the thing for you.

Click to expand...

From my understanding the DC lenses are not soft focus lenses at all. They are sharp lenses so your subject will be in very sharp focus. The DC lenses do have a ring on them (defocus control) that controls the look of the background blur or bokeh they have.

Hi! My name is Mike and I'm a portrait lens addict. (Room: Hi Mike!)

Here are some of the lenses I own and have used with 35mm film in Nikon Mount for posed portraiture. You'll note that the 105mm f/2.5 is not on this list -- I decided to cover that focal length with a macro lens instead:

Tokina 60-120mm f/2.8 AT-X. I actually bought this to use as a portrait zoom on a DX camera, but it works quite well on film as well for couples. At least in the U.S., this is a bit of a rarity, but it typically sells for under $150 when one hits the market.

Nikon 75-150E f/3.5. This is a cult classic for good reason. While Nikon made it for the consumer market, it was embraced by studio professionals to the point that there was a call to make a Nikkor version of it. While f/3.5 isn't optimal for environmental portraiture, I find it especially useful when I take the camera "in hand" for photographing children.

Tokina 80-200mm f/2.8 manual focus, Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D, and Nikon 70-200mm VR f/2.8G zooms. I owned these lenses in sequence. Each of them did a reasonable job for portraiture, but I really prefer a smaller lens for the task. Not only are they ergonomically more difficult to use, but on a couple of occasions I could see that my subjects were slightly intimidated "looking down the barrel" of these.

Nikon 85mm f/1.8D. I use this one when I want a fairly intimate perspective and either my subject gets a bit fidgity, or when I want to limit depth of field more than I can with the next lens on this list.

Tokina 90mm f/2.5 macro. Another cult classic, and for good reason. I actually like the "look" of shots from this lens a bit better than the 85mm Nikkor, but because so much of the focus throw is dedicated to close focusing, it's harder to obtain precise focus at portrait distances.

Nikon 105mm f/2.8 VR Micro. Obviously, I can't use this on my Nikon FA, but on the F100 it performs well enough that I haven't bought another 105mm. In the 1980's I also used the 105mm f/4 AI and 105mm f/2.8 AI-s Micro lenses, but that was more to save money than because they were nice portrait lenses.

Nikon 135mm f/2 DC. I use this lens for more formal portraits and environmental portraits. As a portrait lens, it's only real flaw is Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration when used at f/2 and f/2.8.

Nikon 180mm f/2.8D. I bought this to attempt to reproduce the more aloof look of 1950's promotional movie stills and glamour shots. Alas, I could never get the lighting quite right. The longer perspective made the shot look a bit flat, but when I tried to correct for it with split lighting I didn't like the results either. Just not my style, I guess.

So no, I don't have difficulty settling on a portrait lens for 35mm. Instead, I choose one based on the perspective I wish to achieve and a bit of sheer caprice.

Hi Mike! My name's Jake and I've been an APUGer for 10 years..

Trying to define what you like and don't about a lens is so subjective that it becomes an impossible task to recommend anything.

What one person finds sharp another will find lacking or too harsh. And it's because we all want something different. It's why we shoot different cameras, different formats and different types of film ... if you shoot film.

Perhaps, you're dissatisfied with your photos.

I can tell you some things that generally are true.

- Most "portrait" lenses in the 75mm-135mm are plenty sharp.

- Women do not want to be photographed in hi-def ... ever.

- Cameras that seem less intimidating can be better tools for portrait work when photographing people who aren't used to being photographed. That's why a TLR can be a nice portrait camera. They are very non-threatening, and people relax.

- Cameras that take many shots in a sequence make most people tense.

- The best portrait lens is both sharp and soft at the same time.

My favorite lens (in 35mm format) for people is an 85mm Sonnar in Rolleiflex QBM. My second favorite is a Tessar at f/8 for medium format.

benjiboy said:

The Canon FD 85mm 1.2L is the best I've ever used.

Click to expand...

Yes, it's my favorite for 35mm.

darinwc said:

I havent used one, but you might try a Nikon 135mm f2 DC. The DC stands for Defocus Control.
I understand that it actually has a ring that allows you to control how soft it is.

It sounds to me like you are very particular about the soft/sharp and bokeh of your lens. Having full control may be just the thing for you.

Click to expand...

That's not what it does- think of it as the Anti- Floating Element
It introduces aberrations into the background (or foreground) to smooth out the background

This bad boy http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/390-sony_135_28 uses a different method to also smooth out the back ground

I use an 1970s 85f/2 for portraits and it works well for me. my new 85f/1.8 gets little use and I don't know why but I prefer the old one.

yes, what a great smile! you cannot go wrong with her.

I'm addicted to the Nikon 85/1.4 - the classic A1s manual version. It can be shot wide open for selective depth of field, or stopped down for great sharpness. I use it primarily for black and white work ... for color I might be tempted to try the Zeiss (Cosina) 85/1.4 (a bit different bokeh and slightly warmer color). I'd love to own the 135DC, but can't justify the expense, since 90% of my shooting is large format.

Well, I ended up keeping the Nikkor 85 2.0. It's very capable at portraits set to 2.8 (2.0 is too soft), and the small size and light weight made the difference. Mounted on my EM, you couldn't ask for a smaller setup. If I'm careful I can keep it away from backgrounds that create those distracting highlights. People seem to either love this lens or hate it. It has the ability to just get the face in focus, and not the whole head, and that's important.

Ralph, I had a non ai 85 1.8 too, and while mine was sharper than the 85 2.0, it wasn't nearly as good for portraits. Better for a walk around lens, as long as you don't mind the additional weight.

"2.0 is too soft" - Is it not a gift for portraits. ;-)

depends on the sitter. =]

I am not like everybody else. Love 35mm and 50mm lenses for portraits. I like to get close. Both attached portraits with a Pentax 35mm f/3.5 lens. The one of the boy cropped to square, of course.

nwilkins said:

do you mean 100 f2.8 e? It's quite different from the classic 105/2.5 many of us have recommended.

Click to expand...

oops, I checked again! My bad; It is the 100mm!

There is an unfortunate problem w the 85 being too soft at f2. You'll probably get the eyes and mouth nicely in focus, but not the nose and chin! I had some strange looking shots w/ that lens at f2, and by 2.8 they looked fine.

In some comparison portraits between this and a Leica R 90 Elmarit (both at 2.8), it was tough to pick one from the other, notwithstanding that the Leica's 90mm lens had my sitter larger in the shot (more than I had guessed it would). OK, the Elmarit had more contrast too, but the Nikon shots looked fine. In fact, I liked them more than the Leica shots. Contrast isn't an issue, as it's easy to bump that up after the neg, or even before in developing.

You could probably utilize the softness. I need to shoot it some more for sure. It could be used for more than portraits, or even for portraits where you wanted a certain look. The bokeh is really nice.