Nikkor 55mm 2.8 macro as portraits kit ?

[Ko.Fe.]

I like available light and to handheld camera close to be able to see the face, eyes and catch some expression. I'm fan of RF cameras, but they ain't good for close up portraits. With 50mm prime on SLR I could get group portrait and I could get face only picture from 0.5m distance. I like this versatility of single lens and I don't like longer lenses.

I have good experience with Canon 50L and OM.Zuiko 50 1.4 and 1.8 for group and head and shoulders portraits. But I didn't liked film cameras attached to those lenses. Now I have Kiev-19 and this SLR surprisingly feels just right. It is Nikon Nikkormat copy, if I'm not mistaken, and lens is aslo copy of Nikkor 50mm f2 lens.

The only thing which is not good with this 50mm lens for close portraits is distortion. It isn't big deal, but...
I was thinking about famous Nikkor 55mm f2.8 macro lens. Is it going to give less distortions for the face, head picture taken from 0.5-0.7m distance? Is this lens good for portraits in general? I've had Canon 100L macro lens and gave up on using it for portraits.

 

[RattyMouse]

This lens is VERY sharp, dirt cheap, and easy to focus. I'd give it a try just based on that.

 

[Kirks518]

You will get slightly less distortion with a 55mm over a 50mm, but you will probably still not be happy with the distortion. This is why 85mm and avoe are considered standard portrait lenses - less distortion from typical portrait distances.

 

[Paul Howell]

The Nikon 105 2.8 is a great portrait lens, when I had Nikon gear it was my go to lens for environmental portraits. I never owned a Nikon 85 but I have a Pentax 85 in M42mm that I still use on occasion, either would be more useful than a "normal" lens. Other option is a Vivitir 90mm S1.

 

[cuthbert]

I like available light and to handheld camera close to be able to see the face, eyes and catch some expression. I'm fan of RF cameras, but they ain't good for close up portraits. With 50mm prime on SLR I could get group portrait and I could get face only picture from 0.5m distance. I like this versatility of single lens and I don't like longer lenses.

I have good experience with Canon 50L and OM.Zuiko 50 1.4 and 1.8 for group and head and shoulders portraits. But I didn't liked film cameras attached to those lenses. Now I have Kiev-19 and this SLR surprisingly feels just right. It is Nikon Nikkormat copy, if I'm not mistaken, and lens is aslo copy of Nikkor 50mm f2 lens.

The only thing which is not good with this 50mm lens for close portraits is distortion. It isn't big deal, but...
I was thinking about famous Nikkor 55mm f2.8 macro lens. Is it going to give less distortions for the face, head picture taken from 0.5-0.7m distance? Is this lens good for portraits in general? I've had Canon 100L macro lens and gave up on using it for portraits.

As far as I remember the Kiev 19 is a cheapened version of the 20, that is not based on the Nikkormat but it's somewhat similar. The Helios 81N is not a copy of the Nikkor 50mm and I consider it more pleasant especially for portrait.

IMO the Micro-Nikkor is too harsh for portrait, of course the ideal choice is a Nikon/Pentax/Canon 85mm, but also a fast 50mm (1.4 or 1.2) might work if you control the distance between the subject and camera.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The 55 macro is distortion-free. Very well corrected, super-sharp, easy to focus, contrasty, and every bit as good at infinity. The out-of-focus rendering or bokeh is disappointing like many Nikon lenses. For portraits I prefer the 85/1.4 A1s, which has splendid bokeh and allows a more comfortable distance from the subject, but is a distinctly more expensive lens than the 55.

 

[macfred]

I can really recommend the old Nikon series e 100mm f/2.8 - it performs very well at a reasonable price.http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/emfgfg20/eserieslenses/htmls/100135mm.htm
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/emfgfg20/eserieslenses/htmls/100135mm.htm

 

[Ko.Fe.]

The 55 macro is distortion-free. Very well corrected, super-sharp, easy to focus, contrasty, and every bit as good at infinity. The out-of-focus rendering or bokeh is disappointing like many Nikon lenses.

...
IMO the Micro-Nikkor is too harsh for portrait...

This is what I was asking about. Thanks!

 

[frank]

The 50/55 micro lens will give the same perspective distortion as a non-macro 50/55 lens. Big noses when photographed too close.

Micro/macro lenses have lower curvature of field distortion and lower rectilinear distortion than normal lenses. This is important when photographing coins, stamps, and flat 2D art, but it's the perspective distortion that is important in portraits.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Thank you, Frank!
This is what I was wondering as well. So, same distortions at close distance for portraits. Would 55 micro hold image quality at f22? I just checked my test negatives with 50 f2 on Kiev-19 and at f11 it is barely or not enough to have all face in focus at close distance.

 

[cuthbert]

This is what I was asking about. Thanks!

My choice in Nikon F mount is the 85mm f1.8 "K", very nice lens, unfortunately very big and heavy, it has some barrell distortion but it's pleasant...the bokeh is nice too, a little swirly like the Helios 44m.

The equivalent in Pentax K is the M 85mm f2, but it's much smaller, lighter than the K 50mm f1.4.

Thank you, Frank!
This is what I was wondering as well. So, same distortions at close distance for portraits. Would 55 micro hold image quality at f22? I just checked my test negatives with 50 f2 on Kiev-19 and at f11 it is barely or not enough to have all face in focus at close distance.

All micro and macros are meant to be used at f22 or f32, the image quality will be high because as close as you get the thinner the DOF becomes..however some bokeh in portrait is a quality as it softens and smoothen the skin...this is one of my favourite self portraits and it has been taken at f1.2 with my F-1:

I also like the mild perspective distortion that makes my nose longer than to say in this shot taken at f4:

If you shoot a woman at f4 she might find her portrait "unpleasant" because too sharp...in short you can use a fast lens as a "soft focus".

 

[Ko.Fe.]

This is what I have from tests with 50 f2 on Kiev-19. I asked my wife and she doesn't see much of distortion either.

 

[frank]

I don't mind a little WA lens distortion either. Makes for a more intimate and dynamic portrait.

 

[Jim Jones]

. . . All micro and macros are meant to be used at f22 or f32, the image quality will be high because as close as you get the thinner the DOF becomes..however some bokeh in portrait is a quality as it softens and smoothen the skin. . . .

Diffraction will definitely affect sharply focused photos of many subjects at f/22 or f/32. I try to not stop down more than f/8 on 35mm cameras unless more depth-of-field is essential.

 

[Fixcinater]

If you like the 55mm focal length, why not go to something like:

Helios 44
Minolta 58/1.4
Minolta 58/1.2
Canon FL 58/1.2
Canon FL 55/1.2
Pentax Takumar 55/1.8
Pentax Super Takumar 55/2

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I don't mind a little WA lens distortion either. Makes for a more intimate and dynamic portrait.

Thank you, Frank. This is what I feel, but can't put in writing with my ESL.
Intimate and dynamic, exactly!