Looking for the perfect Nikon portrait lens

[dynachrome]

Make that a flat field lens.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Wow well the obvious is to get them all and see which ones you find useful, one persons "bohkeh King" is another's background of choppy mess depending on distance to background and such. I've had just about all of them not every single portrait Nikkor but close, and used most of them hard as news paper shooter and a black and white film wedding shooter. Weddings required at least a few images in every album made with the mid-length tele used at portrait distances as well as middle distance (still overlooked as a wedding image maker IMO), so my opinions may be tainted by my own experience.

The best of the era was the AF 85mm 1.4 with the Ai-s version a close second. I vastly preferred the manual feel of the Ai-s and used that often, but not always. My shooting partner loved the AF 85mm 1.8, the cheap plastic one, and for how she used it there were always many images in the album made with it. She only used it in manual focus and she had a really good feel for the sweet spot for bridal head and shoulders portraits, I did most of printing so I saw these lenses at a optical level and was never disappointed and mostly impressed with that humble lens. Cheap now these days.

Anyway I would often swap out with a Converted H.C 85mm 1.8, lighter than the 1.4 and smaller for travel and more durable, several weddings in a row could be tough on gear and you needed backups. I also would cycle in the 105mm 2.5 Ai-S with the built in hood for a light weight low lens count small wedding shoot. The 105mm 2.5 work very well with the TC-201 essentially made for that lens IMO and in decent light gives a quick way to get a solid telephoto compression, a very handy lightweight thing to have in the bag for a unplanned 'couple with vista' type of image.

The mid-tele I wish I had gotten much sooner but was always interested in and when I had a special specific need I got one is the 105mm 1.8 Ai-s. The Ai-s 85 1.4 and the 105 1.8 was released together with the 180mm 2.8 Ai-s ED and while I used the 180 ED often (swapping with a P.C and 135's) the 105 1.8 seemed not quite this or that. I wish I had tested one way back in the news era of life or just got one, I the angle is just a bit tighter than the 85 allowing more working space, and the 1.8 is still a healthy speed and makes the lens more useful in lower light than the 2.5 by a large margin. The wider f-stops bokeh is very pleasing and usefully easy to place at commons shooting distances. As an aside, the project I got for was for video and the smooth manual focus made smooth and easy focus pulls, and a 4k on a large monitor this lens looked amazing. In addition I used it often with the TC-14A for slight in-between focal lengths rather than resorting to a zoom, the TC-14a also was very useful on the 85mm 1.4 Ai-s and the 135mm f2, I could mix those 85-105-135- together with the tc-14a and get pretty close to matching focal lengths. (so if I needed two 105's I used the 85+TC or 2 135's the 105+TC or even 2 180's then 135+TC, same era of lenses for color matching).

In addition the 105 1.8 has a 62mm filter size which now seems tiny compared to today's super sized glass. The slide hood is only useful if you shoot with filters attached. The hood slides back and its really easy to have the front glass tap something in the bag, I don't always use filters but I use the HN-7 hood for the aforementioned AF 85mm 1.8 and then I have a nice firm hood to slide into place in the bag with less chance of hitting something. As opposed to the same era 85 1.4 which has the CRC close range correction the 105mm has no such correction, and while on paper specifications you'd think the 105 1.8 would be lacking in close up performance, but in reality the slight increase in the 'natural' aberrations of closer up makes for a wonderful look to portraits, in particular at or around f/2. Here's a good one for those reading this far, this f/2 close in on maybe near the minimum focus distance with a Nikon Soft 1 filter for the ladies, don't over-do the backlighting to give it away, I call it the "minus 10 filter, ten years ten pounds etc". Enjoy, and you'll eventually have more than one in this focal length.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Oh here's a good read of that filter

NIKKOR - The Thousand and One Nights No.51 | NIKKOR - The Thousand and One Nights | Nikon Consumer

 

[grant.goodes]

..while on paper specifications you'd think the 105 1.8 would be lacking in close up performance, but in reality the slight increase in the 'natural' aberrations of closer up makes for a wonderful look to portraits, in particular at or around f/2. Here's a good one for those reading this far, this f/2 close in on maybe near the minimum focus distance with a Nikon Soft 1 filter for the ladies, don't over-do the backlighting to give it away, I call it the "minus 10 filter, ten years ten pounds etc". Enjoy, and you'll eventually have more than one in this focal length.

Hmmm.. Haven't thought about my Nikon Soft 1 filter in years! And thanks for that 1001 Nights article: I had somehow missed that one (although I had encountered the Soft-focus Nikkor 105/2.8 on Roland Vink's amazing serial-number database). I got my Soft 1 filter when I replaced my 105/2.5 AiS with a Micro Nikkor 105/2.8, and found it was too clinical for portrait use. As much as it seemed counterintuitive to degrade the image with a softening filter, the Soft 1's affect is subtle and quite nice, and really tames the Micro-Nikkor. In fact, my best portrait of my Wife was taken with that setup.

Now I will have to try it out on my 105/1.8. Alas, I only have the 52mm version, but the BR-5 adapt it to 62mm, though possibly with some vignetting. An excuse to add the BR-5 to my collection (aside from the useless-to-me BR-1, it's the only official Nikon adapter ring I'm missing).

 

[Oldwino]

Of the 85s, my favorite is the old 85/1.8 HC version. There’s something very pleasing about its rendering. The AF-D version is good too, but a little more modern (corrected) in its look.
I had the 85/1.4 AI, but I found it very hard to focus at f1.4 and was using it at f2 anyway, and so lugging around a big chunk of glass for no reason. I never warmed to the 85/2 - nothing too exciting about it.

Of the 105s, the old Nikkor-P f2.5 has that awesome Sonnar look. The newer versions are probably sharper wide open and close up, but they aren’t Sonnars.

I’ve never shot with the DC lenses, but people swear by them. Once you get into 135mm territory, I find the focal length a little long for people/portraits, and too short for most anything else you’d want a long lens for…

 

[xkaes]

Because focal length and subject are both variables, I usually prefer my 50-135mm f3.5 one-touch zoom.

 

[dynachrome]

My 50-135 is a Minolta MD.

 

[cliveh]

It really depends what sort of portrait you are trying to achieve. If you are photographing a clown, you may prefer a 28mm. However, if you want a flatering effect, I think a 90mm takes a bit of beating.

 

[GregY]

Of the 85s, my favorite is the old 85/1.8 HC version. There’s something very pleasing about its rendering. The AF-D version is good too, but a little more modern (corrected) in its look.
I had the 85/1.4 AI, but I found it very hard to focus at f1.4 and was using it at f2 anyway, and so lugging around a big chunk of glass for no reason. I never warmed to the 85/2 - nothing too exciting about it.

Of the 105s, the old Nikkor-P f2.5 has that awesome Sonnar look. The newer versions are probably sharper wide open and close up, but they aren’t Sonnars.

I’ve never shot with the DC lenses, but people swear by them. Once you get into 135mm territory, I find the focal length a little long for people/portraits, and too short for most anything else you’d want a long lens for…

Exactly.... right there!

 

[xkaes]

I think my best full length portrait -- ever -- was taken with a 300mm lens.

 

[Craig]

I think my best full length portrait -- ever -- was taken with a 300mm lens.

My best portrait was also taken with a 300 F4 AF Nikkor. Link here: https://www.photrio.com/forum/media/dave.1188/

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

Ah yes, the 85mm 1.8 H.C was a usual carry and an excellent lens overall, mine had a couple of light grazing on the front element so I mostly shot it with a super deep hood (another reason to visit serial Number site) but an easy and quick look to change to was to pull the hood off and shoot the bride with window light behind, f/2-2.8 with the front element *in the light of the window* would add just enough flare, a subtle look. The lesser coated H version has a stronger look to this method, back in the day it was a "LooK" shot against a white overl-lit backdrop, you'd counter this flare with shooting Tri-X in something like Diafine or UFG or Acufine or Rodinal, the higher contrast negative would balance out the contrast drop of shooting it that way. You can find images from 'Girly Mags and some Life celebrity portraits of the 60's into the early 70's.

I digress, back to mids.

The vastly unloved 85mm f2 is a bit of an enigma. Released at an odd moment in Nikon lens development, I personally think it has to do with the films it was introduced with for the market it was intended. The consumer market had lower quality films in color and the 1.8 H and .C have quite the contrasty reputation, and I think it worked well enough at time for the intended use as a lower cost 'portrait' length with the shall we say, "lower contrast" (others say far worse).
I had and used several copies and bought and sold many others, all with this 'grey overcast' look to it, not a happy snappy look. This is just in color, on black and white film at 2.8-4 you'd be hard pressed to see the difference with any other Nikkor of the era and focal length. It's a handy size and would have made a nice travel lens using Kodachrome or Ektachrome for at-home slide viewing with a projector, in this case the look of the lens would have helped improve the final customer use experience. They sold a bunch of them over the years so it doesn't suck as much as most people say, my copies are long gone but it would be interesting to use it with a modern Z and try a film emulsion emulator.

 

[xkaes]

How about a FAST 35mm f1.8 with a 3X tele-converter -- a 105mm f5 soft-focus.

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

I have not done portraits for years but when I did I used a Mamiya SX 135 f2.8.
I found the focal length better for me than the Nikkor 105 f2.8 I used with my FE.

 

[mshchem]

I think it depends on how much working distance you have, studio vs environmental ect, lighting and your preface for how tight you want your shots. If you are going to shoot in a studio the 85 is a great lens, if you plan on traveling and shooting outdoors then the 105 2.5 is a stellar lens. Other option, if you want to soften your shots without going to a soft focus lens, then a 2X teleconverter on a 50mm lens or a early zoom in the 35 to 85 mm range. Not as soft as a soft focus lens, but not as sharp as a prime.

I love the 105 2.5, 85mm length too. The idea of a 2X converter is a terrific CHEAP way to get a nice softish portrait lens. I had a Vivitar 2X converter that I used to photograph my high-school girlfriend. She hated having her picture taken. After we broke up she called me and I loaned her the negative (Ektacolor-S) , she used it to print wallets for her friends, preferred it over a lovely professional portrait.
A wonderful girl. Her mom had a college graduate all lined up to take my place.

 

[darkosaric]

The best nikkor portrait lenses that I own are 105mm f2 Defocus Control and 180mm f2.8 ED.

 

[Oldwino]

The best nikkor portrait lenses that I own are 105mm f2 Defocus Control and 180mm f2.8 ED.

That 180 is another legend.