Portrait lens for Nikon FM ?

tony lockerbie · Dec 26, 2009

It's all about how much you have to spend. Money no object, then the 85mm 1.4 is a no - brainer, followed close by the 105mm 1.8. If you are on a budget, go for the 105mm 2.5, a truly great lens, especially the older single coated ones. The 123mm 2.8 is also very nice, available cheaply these days as 135 has fallen from favour a bit. The only problem with this lens is the size and weight.

Jesper · Dec 26, 2009

Actually, the 100/2.8E is not a bad lens.
They are perhaps the cheapest of the ones discussed here but not bad at all.

Uncle Bill · Dec 26, 2009

For me it has to be the 105 f2.5 AIS, nothing can touch it.

John_Nikon_F · Dec 27, 2009

Lukas_87 said:
Ai-S Nikkor 85/1.8 doesn't exist.

first one for SLR was Nikkor-H Auto 85mm f/1.8 (symmetrical 6/6 element, subsequently updated to C coated version) - great lens
next was non-Ai Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 (symmetrical 6/4 element, rubber focussing ring, can be found as Ai converted) - great lens too
short run of Ai Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 was made too, with the same optical formula.
then it was updated to Ai-Nikkor 85 mm f/2.0 (5/5 element optics) - rather mediocre performer compared to the older 85's
last update was Ai-S 85mm f/2.0, still 5/5 element optics

current AF-Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 D is a lot better lens than ais 85/2.0, probably on par with original 85/1.8's

however my favorite lens for portraiture is 35mm f/1.4 nikkor

Oh, and btw, the 85f1.8 AI Nikkor was actually a lens that Nikon converted to AI before selling. It doesn't have the modified rear element baffle with the lens speed post. That model was just the left over non-AI lenses that Nikon couldn't sell before they introduced the AI coupling. So, they sold the lenses with the AI conversion kit preinstalled.

The Nikkor-H version can also be seen AI converted. Owned one in '06. Got my current 85f1.8 in 2007. It's the only lens that I've owned prior to 2008 (of my current lens selection, that is). I've owned a few 105f2.5's (and 105 Micros) as well, but prefer the 85f1.8, therefore, it is the lens that remained, even when I got rid of the 105's. Frequently, I'll go out to do some general shooting and will take the 85, even though I'm not doing portrait photography.

-J

Rol_Lei Nut · Dec 27, 2009

The 105 f/2.5 has almost the same performance and drawbacks of the Leica Summicron 90mm, just everything happens about one stop slower:
Wonderfully sharp closed down at least one stop.
Slightly soft wide open (may be desired in portraiture).
Great bokeh!
Big and heavy!

But look at it as a way of getting a slightly slower 'Cron at a bargain price. ;-)

fschifano · Dec 27, 2009

I've got the Nikkor 85 f/2 and the 105 f/2.5, and I even have a Tamron 105 f/2.5 with the adaptall mount. All of them are really fine lenses. The Nikkor 105 f/2.5 is a fantastic lens, but the 85 f/2 is no slouch and doesn't give up anything to the 105 in image quality. It is also almost a stop faster. That said, I use the 85 f/2 more than anything. I'd rather be able to work in close, and to have the option of moving back just a little bit if I don't want the subject so tightly framed. With the 105, and obviously this is even more true for longer focal lengths, you may not have the room to back up enough to frame the subject loosely.

mudman · Dec 27, 2009

I love my 105 f2.5, but I've found (from people's remarks) that it is too sharp for women. i.e. shows too much. I like the look, however some people don't. The 85 f2 I have is much more forgiving in that regard.

PhotoJim · Dec 27, 2009

No lens is too sharp. You can always soften the image (there are lots of tricks to doing this). However, if you take an unsharp image nothing can help. (Even the digital trick of unsharp masking doesn't really sharpen it; it just sharpens the detail that's there. It can't create detail that isn't there.)

Lee L · Dec 27, 2009

mudman said:
I love my 105 f2.5, but I've found (from people's remarks) that it is too sharp for women. i.e. shows too much. I like the look, however some people don't. The 85 f2 I have is much more forgiving in that regard.

If the 105mm f:2.5 Nikkor is too sharp for [photographing] women, that must be the reason this image failed to register with viewers and has disappeared into oblivion.

http://photography.nationalgeograph...es/Content/afghan-girl-portrait-127438-xl.jpg

Lee

fotch · Dec 27, 2009

mudman said:
I love my 105 f2.5, but I've found (from people's remarks) that it is too sharp for women. i.e. shows too much. I like the look, however some people don't. The 85 f2 I have is much more forgiving in that regard.

Then maybe the lighting is wrong. There are different lighting techniques for women, men, young, old, etc. Lens, for the most part, are suppose to be sharp. There are soft focus lens, and filters, and other things that can also be done. Its starts with the light.

JMHO

Pumal · Dec 27, 2009

I prefer the 85mm f/2 to any of the others.

Rol_Lei Nut · Dec 27, 2009

mudman said:
I love my 105 f2.5, but I've found (from people's remarks) that it is too sharp for women. i.e. shows too much. I like the look, however some people don't. The 85 f2 I have is much more forgiving in that regard.

There are lenses which are really harsh and unforgiving for some portraits (i.e. the Zeiss 85mm f/2.8, which is a very compact and wonderful landscape lens), but I wouldn't consider the Nikon 105 f/2.5 as such.
At full aperture it is slightly soft, therefore "forgiving" if that is needed.

Dave Dawson · Dec 27, 2009

Hire the suggested and then tell us your findings.......My bet a 135mm lens (why do people mention f numbers?)

Cheers Dave

Rol_Lei Nut · Dec 27, 2009

Dave Dawson said:
(why do people mention f numbers?)

Cheers Dave

Different lens versions, often having very different signatures.

jgjbowen · Dec 27, 2009

Another vote for the 85 f1.4 I have one permanently attached to one of my Nikon bodies.

RalphLambrecht · Dec 28, 2009

mudman said:
I love my 105 f2.5, but I've found (from people's remarks) that it is too sharp for women. i.e. shows too much. I like the look, however some people don't. The 85 f2 I have is much more forgiving in that regard.

I agree with mudman. There are lenses which are too sharp for portraiture. Yes, you can soften any lens, but the differences are small and often hard to simulate. Even a mild soft filter is much stronger than the difference between a 'normal' lens and a portrait lens.

The famous and fantastic National Geographic image is not relevant as an example here, because it is not a glamor portrait trying to beautify the sitter. The person pictured was not the customer of the photograph. People are very critical about their own pictures. The photographer likes sharp images, the sitter may not.

eddym · Dec 28, 2009

jgjbowen said:
Another vote for the 85 f1.4 I have one permanently attached to one of my Nikon bodies.

Did you weld it on or use epoxy?

removed-user-1 · Dec 28, 2009

Here's a (there was a url link here which no longer exists) taken with an 85mm f/1.8 Nikkor - I love this lens in low light (alas, I sold it years ago).

I was trying to find images taken with the 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor I used to own, but all the (film) portraits I have readily available were taken with the 85mm, if that says anything. Other lenses I used for portraits on FG and FM bodies include both the Tamron 70-210 f/3.5 SP and Nikon Series E 70-210 f/4, and a 105mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor (now THAT lens was too sharp for portraits).

gregmacc · Dec 28, 2009

Thanks all for responses so far ... from what I'm hearing it's between the 85/1.8 and the 105/2.5 (the 85/1.4 is beyond my budget) ... would any folks be able to provide examples to support an argument for either? ... love the examples from Lucas 87, but not head and shoulders (fabulous portraits nonetheless). I guess I should add that this new lens will be a compromise all the way. I definitely have room for only one more lens in my FM kit (which currently consists of one FM body, a Kiron 28mm/f2, and a Nikkor 50mm/f1.8). The new lens will need to be versatile. I have no need for 35mm landscapes (handled by a medium format system), but it will need to be adapted to a variety of applications including portraits and architectural details. For style of shooting and subject matter, think "Ralph Gibson". For quality of shooting, think "nowhere near Ralph Gibson"!
Cheers

RalphLambrecht · Dec 28, 2009

gregmacc said:
Thanks all for responses so far ... from what I'm hearing it's between the 85/1.8 and the 105/2.5 (the 85/1.4 is beyond my budget) ... would any folks be able to provide examples to support an argument for either? ...

shot with 85/1.8

Rol_Lei Nut · Dec 28, 2009

gregmacc said:
... would any folks be able to provide examples to support an argument for either?

Unless a lens is so awful that it shows obvious defects (not the case of the lenses being discussed), posting an example online won't show anything at all.

Maybe a very high-resolution shot taken with two different lenses of the same subject with the same lighting, f-stop, etc. (on a tripod of course) could be meaningful....

jcorll · Dec 28, 2009

For when I shoot portraiture's, (the few times I do) I use either my 55 f/1.2 or a 135 f/2.8. When I'm not happy with fixed focus, I will sometimes give in and use a 80-200 f/2.6. It is my poor mans 95, 100, 105, 115 and anything in between lens!.
There are some cons to this lens. It is pretty heavy and I've had models ask me "How far should I run?" haha

Only my suggestion.
-jcorll

ZugPhoto · Dec 28, 2009

I use an 85/1.8 with my F100 and it's sharp as a tack.

jeffreyg · Dec 28, 2009

I use MF so I don't have a lens suggestion for your Nikon but you could consider a sharp negative and soften as needed when printing. I have used two pieces of 1/4 inch thick glass (polished edges) with baby oil between them move around as needed under the enlarging lens with excellent results. The sharp lens would still be there when sharpness is desired.

keithwms · Dec 28, 2009

Consider the 50/1.2. It's dreaminess is quite nice, usually, and of course it isolates a subject very well. It's not a low-cost lens, it'll run you ~$400-450... but it's worth it. It used to be my 'trick' lens, for very low light only, but recently I am coming to appreciate it more for wide portraiture. For tight portraiture I use the 105/1.8, also a fabulous lens*. I have played with the fast 85 and of course I like it, but the focal length doesn't quite grab me.

*A major virtue of the 105 (and the fast 85) is that it sharpens up very well when stopped down a bit. The 50/1.2 pretty much remains a bit soft into the mid apertures.... which is a good thing or a bad thing depending on your point of view.

Portrait lens for Nikon FM ?

removed-user-1

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency