Portrait lens for Nikon FM ?

eddym · Dec 28, 2009

I guess you're not considering the 105 f1.8, but here's a portrait from it anyway...

gregmacc · Dec 28, 2009

Thanks Ralph ... Can I ask what the working distance would have been for that lovely shot of Nadine?
I don't see anything scary there in terms of skin texture ... but could that have just as much to do with soft boxes, makeup and beautiful youthful skin? ... Note: I won't be shooting models, just average folks with skin flaws in natural light. I suspect my subjects will very often be photographed in a back yard garden at casual family barbecues or sipping a coffee across the living room. They may often be distracted by noisy conversation and unaware that a shot has been taken (which would often be my intention) . I'm wondering if the working distance for head and shoulders with 85mm would be a little close for that style of shooting.
Cheers

gregmacc · Dec 28, 2009

Eddy ... I would love a 105/1.8 but beyond my budget I'm afraid. Thanks for taking the trouble to post the baby image. It renders quite soft on my monitor which is exactly what I would like to be able to achieve. Can you recall if that is a result of shooting wide open?

JohnArs · Dec 28, 2009

I work with 60mm Micro Nikkor, 85mm f 1,8 but for outside I prefer the f2 135mm DC lens. And I would recomand it for your 8 feet distance.
Its the best lens for what you decribe is the 135mm.

Sooner or later you have to get one, they are not cheap, but its together with the 105mm DC the best lens for outside portaits. You can even use it as a soft focus lens!

Cheers Armin

2F/2F · Dec 28, 2009

Assuming you want head or head and shoulders shots for the most part, one of the cheaper models of 105 or 135 would be my suggestion. I love my 135mm f/3.5 (pre AI). Otherwise, you can't beat a 50 for "general purpose".

RalphLambrecht · Dec 28, 2009

gregmacc said:
Thanks Ralph ... Can I ask what the working distance would have been for that lovely shot of Nadine?...

Sure you can!

gregmacc said:
...I don't see anything scary there in terms of skin texture ... but could that have just as much to do with soft boxes, makeup and beautiful youthful skin?...

All of that, and she is very special!

eddym · Dec 29, 2009

gregmacc said:
Eddy ... I would love a 105/1.8 but beyond my budget I'm afraid. Thanks for taking the trouble to post the baby image. It renders quite soft on my monitor which is exactly what I would like to be able to achieve. Can you recall if that is a result of shooting wide open?

I can relate to budgets! I originally bought the lens for dance and theater shooting, and I needed the extra speed. It has been worth the investment.

The shot was not wide open; I don't recall the exact setting, but I would guess around f5.6. The softness comes from the combination of lighting (24x36 softbox, very close) and the baby's skin, which was velvety soft. Don't know if you can tell from the small jpg, but the eyelashes are razor sharp in the print.

The 105 f2.5 would be a wonderful portrait lens. I just love my f1.8.

narsuitus · Dec 29, 2009

"I want to work at a reasonable distance from my subject (at least 8ft)."

Under normal circumstances, here are the fixed-focal length lenses in my inventory that I might use if I wanted to fill a 35mm frame with a head & shoulders portrait of an adult while holding the camera in the portrait (vertical) position:

1. 85mm f/1.8
2. 105mm f/2.5
3. 105mm f/2.8 macro

The 85mm would give me head and shoulders at a distance of about 4 feet.

Either 105mm lens would give me a head and shoulders at a distance of about 5 ½ feet.

If I owned a 135mm lens, I could use it to get a head and shoulders at a distance of about 6 ½ feet.

However, if I were limited to a subject to camera distance of no closer than 8 feet, none of these lenses would give me the image that I want. Instead, I would have to use my 180mm lens because it would allow me to fill the frame with a head and shoulders portrait of an adult at a distance of 8.8 feet.

Peter Black · Dec 29, 2009

Now this isn't going to be the easiest lens to find, but the Tamron 70-150mm/f2.8 soft focus lens covers pretty much all the bases if you should ever see one for sale. Details are at the link below, and a sample shot is at the link below that one.

http://www.adaptall-2.com/lenses/51A.html

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

dynachrome · Jan 1, 2010

I am not convinced that the Tamron 70-150/2.8 was ever made. I have brochures showing the lens but I also have brochures showing the 35/1.8 and I've never seen one of them either. Eight feet is pretty far away. I would be tempted to use a 200 from that distance. My 85mm Nikkor is an f/2 AI. Some people prefer the earlier 85/1.8. My 85/2 seems pretty good. I have five different 105/2.5s ranging from an early mm lens to the all black P model (larger rear element) to the AI. I don't like using the 85/2 or a 105/2.5 wide open for portraits because I think selective focus can get too selective. Of the focal lengths mentioned I might prefer a 135 at 8 feet. My f/2.8 Nikkors include a Q, a QC and a 'K." The Q has factory AI conversion but needs some service. The QC is in very nice condition and seems to have coating as good as that of the "K." These 135s are sharp and well made. For non-Nikkors I have two 135/2.8 Vivitar Close Focusing lenses in AI mount and a 135/2.3 Vivitar Series 1. The Series 1 lens is fast and sharp and focuses down to 3 feet. You have to be careful about your background with this lens because the bokeh can be odd.

Russ - SVP · Jan 2, 2010

Nothing else will perform as well as the legendary Nikon 105 f/2.5 or the Kiron 70-150.

Kiron Kid

cooltouch · Jan 2, 2010

dynachrome said:
I am not convinced that the Tamron 70-150/2.8 was ever made. I have brochures showing the lens but I also have brochures showing the 35/1.8 and I've never seen one of them either.

The Tamron 70-150/2.8 Soft exists, although it's pretty uncommon:

http://adaptall-2.com/lenses/51A.html

Here's a recent post over at the manual-focus lenses forum where a guy is showing off his Tamron collection, including the 70-150 Soft:

http://forum.mflenses.com/i-struck-gold-tamron-sp-lenses-t23613,highlight,tamron+70150mm.html

There was a later version that was shown at Tokina, but never went into production -- referenced at the end of the above page.

I've owned a Nikkor 85mm f/1.8, and still own a 105mm f/2.5, and I've found both to be excellent portrait lenses. But, you know, I still prefer the Nikkor 135mm f/2.8. I've taken some of my very best portraits with that lens.

Rol_Lei Nut · Jan 2, 2010

Kiron Kid said:
Nothing else will perform as well as the legendary Nikon 105 f/2.5 or the Kiron 70-150.

"Nothing"?

Wow, that is an example of absolute faith in one's convictions, not to mention of universal knowledge!

I could come up with a list of a dozen or so lenses which will clearly outperform the Nikkor 105 (not having used the Kiron), but most won't fit a Nikon...

Mick Fagan · Jan 2, 2010

Greg, if you go to my gallery you will see a few portraits done with both the 84 1.4 and the 105 2.5.

There is one set of two pictures of the same model, one taken with the 85 1.4 and few minutes later to get a different look, I changed to the 105 2.5. I did move distance to get the same (within reason) cropping in camera, but they will show pretty much the difference with regards to out of focus background between the two Nikkor lenses.

Basically I usually stand about 2 metres from my subject with the 105 and crop slightly in the darkroom, this allows for slightly less than perfect framing when hand held, with a tripod I would be slightly closer.

With the 85, I will be about 1.5 to 1.8 metres away to get more or less the same in camera cropping, but with a slightly different look.

I think for what you are wishing to do, the minimum focal length would have to be the 105.

The 105 2.5 Nikkor is the best Nikkor lens for me, it can do landscape very well with a slight hint of compression, then in a moment be doing a portrait with the background blurring you are looking for, but slightly closer than your desired distance.

The 135 would be the better bet for your desired distance, but good ones will be pricey, reasonable ones will be quite good.

After that the 180 2.8 is also brilliant around 2.4 to 2.6 metres from the subject, but for best results, a tripod with this focal length is almost mandatory. The 180 2.8 will be out of your price range I think.

Your call!

Mick.

RalphLambrecht · Jan 2, 2010

Kiron Kid said:
Nothing else will perform as well as the legendary Nikon 105 f/2.5 or the Kiron 70-150.

Kiron Kid

lendendary? I have never heard of a Kiron.

Lee L · Jan 2, 2010

RalphLambrecht said:
lendendary? I have never heard of a Kiron.

Kiron was the US subsidiary of Kino Precision set up in California in the early 1980's. They had previously made lenses for others, including some of the US Vivitar branded lenses, and made some of the Series 1 lenses that were well received. I'd say that a huge percentage of their sales were zooms. By the early 90's they had gone back to providing for others and not marketing their own lenses. So it was a 1980's US brand. Not that surprising that you haven't heard of them.

I sold a lot of them in '82-'83, 99% to amateurs, but never used them, so I can't speak to the fine points of their image quality or the consistency of quality across different models. I never got feedback from a pro customer on their image quality, as pros didn't buy them. They were reasonably well built.

Lee

removed-user-1 · Jan 2, 2010

Don't forget about the 135mm f/3.5 Nikkor - it's slow, sure, but it's a sharp lens and not expensive.

Shawn Rahman · Jan 2, 2010

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

This.

PhotoJim · Jan 2, 2010

Lee L said:
I sold a lot of them in '82-'83, 99% to amateurs, but never used them, so I can't speak to the fine points of their image quality or the consistency of quality across different models. I never got feedback from a pro customer on their image quality, as pros didn't buy them. They were reasonably well built.

Their zooms weren't actually zooms; they were varifocal lenses. Focus changed as you zoomed. This made shooting with them much less convenient, but allowed Kiron an advantage in attaining good optical quality.

I've never used a Kiron varifocal lens, but their reputation is very high.

I did own a 28/2 Kiron in Yashica-Contax mount, and it was a good lens - the light falloff at f/2 was pretty significant but to even have f/2 on a $150 (Cdn) lens (1986 prices) was astounding at that focal length. Stopped down, the results were fine and are not embarrassed by shots I have taken on Nikkors since the mid-'90s.

cooltouch · Jan 2, 2010

Lee's and PhotoJim's accounts of Kiron agree pretty much with my experiences and recollections. Kiron was a popular brand in the US back in the early to mid-80s. Plus, as was mentioned, Kiron also built lenses for others, most notably Vivitar. Any Vivitar lens made from the late 1970s to the early 1990s that has a serial number beginning with 22 is made by Kiron.

Kiron most definitely built zooms, however. Their 70-210s were not varifocal lenses, while their wide-to-short-tele lenses (e.g., 28-85s) were.

Kiron has made a few stand-out optics that have achieved legendary status. They include the 24mm f/2 and the 105mm f/2.8 macro, the latter which probably would make an outstanding portrait lens, especially if you felt it necessary to count the pores on your subject's face.

Russ - SVP · Jan 2, 2010

Rol_Lei Nut said:
"Nothing"?

Wow, that is an example of absolute faith in one's convictions, not to mention of universal knowledge!

I could come up with a list of a dozen or so lenses which will clearly outperform the Nikkor 105 (not having used the Kiron), but most won't fit a Nikon...

So maybe it's just the gospel truth in my mind. However, both of them produce SUPERB results. Kiron lenses are easy to find in Nikon mount. I have an entire herd of Vivitar Series 1 and Kiron's in Nikon mount.

Kiron Kid

Russ - SVP · Jan 2, 2010

cooltouch said:
Lee's and PhotoJim's accounts of Kiron agree pretty much with my experiences and recollections. Kiron was a popular brand in the US back in the early to mid-80s. Plus, as was mentioned, Kiron also built lenses for others, most notably Vivitar. Any Vivitar lens made from the late 1970s to the early 1990s that has a serial number beginning with 22 is made by Kiron.

Kiron most definitely built zooms, however. Their 70-210s were not varifocal lenses, while their wide-to-short-tele lenses (e.g., 28-85s) were.

Kiron has made a few stand-out optics that have achieved legendary status. They include the 24mm f/2 and the 105mm f/2.8 macro, the latter which probably would make an outstanding portrait lens, especially if you felt it necessary to count the pores on your subject's face.

Kiron (Kino Precision Industries) also made quite a few of the Nikon Series "E" lenses for Nikon. That includes the legendary Nikon E 75-150 f/3.5 lens. However, the Kiron 70-150 is every bit as sharp, but MUCH smaller and more compact. It also doesn't develop the horrendous zoom creep that the Nikon version is known for. As for the Kiron 105 f/2.5 macro, it's awesome! Goes 1:1 life size, built VERY well and VERY sharp. When I use on of mine for portrait work, I always slap a Black Softnet filter on it for some added diffusion. I have a fedw Nikon buddies that prefer it over the Nikon 105 macro lens. Just about all of the lenses mentioned in this thread will give them wonderful portrait results.

Kiron 70-150

Kiron 105 (Lester Dine versions) macro's.

Kiron Kid

Rol_Lei Nut · Jan 2, 2010

Kiron Kid said:
So maybe it's just the gospel truth in my mind. However, both of them produce SUPERB results.

I agree that the Nikkor 105 f/2.5 will produce superb results, but that isn't the same as "Nothing else will perform as well"...

Without getting into brand wars (or *issing contests), I can just say that my 105 Nikkor, however lovely its imagery is, is collecting dust because I have several lenses in the 80-85-90-100 FL range which do perform better.*
(*That itself is a too much of a blanket statement, but I'll define it as ""better in at least one parameter and at least as good in the rest"...)

RalphLambrecht · Jan 2, 2010

Kiron Kid said:
So maybe it's just the gospel truth in my mind. However, both of them produce SUPERB results. Kiron lenses are easy to find in Nikon mount. I have an entire herd of Vivitar Series 1 and Kiron's in Nikon mount.

Kiron Kid

Can you post a picture that you took with each of these lenses?

canuhead · Jan 2, 2010

I'll agree with Kiron about the Series 75-150 zoomer. Used it for years in a newspaper environment and it never needed NPS at all. Don't use it much anymore as the 70-200VR is more useful.

Portrait lens for Nikon FM ?

Attachments

removed-user-1

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency