Recommendations for a Budger Priced Nikon Mount Portrait Lens

[gone]

I bought a Q 135 2.8 Nikkor lens to try using for a portrait lens on my Nikkormat FTn. Man I don't like the IQ on this thing at all. Anyone else have any ideas? This is Tri-X in D76 (which was a little old and the PH had risen, so that's why there's all that grain). This is the best one, which is not going to cut it. I might have to go back to another R 90 Elmarit w/ a Nikon adapter (but expensive!), because every budget priced Nikon lens I've tried for portraits is pretty bad (to me). The 85 1.8 is OK, but not cheap, and gives strange bokeh highlights. The 85 2 is OK, but again, not cheap.

On the other hand, the Canon FD 135 2.5 is cheap and a killer, so I may have to go back to a Canon camera if something doesn't show up for the Nikon.

 

[snapguy]

eye queue

Hard to get good quality out of a shot that is out of focus and probably has some camera movement, too. Don't think shooting with a bigger Canon is gonna make a bigger hole in your target. Just a thought.

 

[Robert Ley]

Have you thought of the 105mm f:2.5 nikkor. It is a legendary portrait lens and can be had for a very reasonable price. If you are using the Nikkormat Ftn then you should be able to get a pre-Ai version that would be single coated and much better for portraits with B&W film. I have had one for over 30 years and really like that focal length for portraits and it has wonderful boka as a bonus.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[benjiboy]

I once had a Nikkor Q 135 lens and it was as sharp as a tack, indeed I thought it too sharp for female portraits, I agree with Snap guy your picture is out of focus the point the lens is focused on is too far towards the camera. For portraits you should always focus on the sitters the nearest eye

 

[jimjm]

105/2.5 Nikkor, any version.
I've got the RF version in Contax mount, the F-mount pre-AI and AIS versions.
There's a reason it's one of Nikon's best lenses.

I agree with the above posters about your focus being off, and the grain is not pleasing at all.
Also, your lighting in the shot is flat and the subject looks very unhappy to be there.

The lens isn't the weak link here - your processing, posing and lighting will result in a much better portrait than the most expensive lens ever will.

 

[gone]

But it's not out of focus, and w/ the shutter speed at 1/1000, what camera movement? How could it be camera movement and that shirt over there be so sharp? That's exactly what I thought too, because it looks like that, but that's not the problem. Her head is actually about where that sharp shoulder is on the one side, but it's a DOF thing. Look closely and you'll see that some things are sharp, others are not, because w/ a 135 lens wide open you need a good one to get it right. Or, don't look closely. Just assume that I know what I'm after, and this ain't it. Look, I've been shooting this woman for 20 years. I see her pretty much every day of my life. Everything went just the way it should have, but when using less than stellar equipment (and I do not mean expensive) this is what you get. It's this crummy lens, which IS sharp as heck stopped down a little, but who wants sharp for portraits? The other shots of birds and stuff look OK, I guess, but the lens just does not do what I want it to do. If the focus were the problem, well that's easy enough to fix (not being happy about being dragged off to suddenly do a trial portrait, well, that is a little harder to address, but it's doable, which is why we're still together 20 years later). Anyway, back on track here. Sorry my example, which I cannot abide, threw people off. Let me try again, and we'll just pretend that there is no photo up there. Ahem.

I have this lens that I tried for portraits, and I don't like it. Can someone recommend something, preferably a non Nikkor lens w/ an adapter, or something, anything, that might be better? Something softish, and not sharp, and not a king's ransom like the Leica? That is my problem w/ the 105 2.5 lenses too, although thank you for the recommendation. I may be the only person on the planet that doesn't like those, but none the less, I don't. My trouble would be over if I did, because they are great bargains and sharp as the dickens. I have owned a lot of them, and have never, ever, been able to get a decent portrait out of them. It's me maybe, that's fine, but I still don't like them, so something else. If nothing comes to mind, I'll just sell the Nikkormat and get another FTb w/ a 135 2.5 and be happy, but since I really like the FTn, and love the H 50 2 lens that I have for it, I would like to keep it, if possible.

Now for my red wine and cheese medication. Maybe if I take enough of that, it will begin to look fine.

 

[ciniframe]

Well, Canon has as good a rep as Nikon for sharp glass so..... if the Nikkor is too sharp then I would think the Canon would be to. But, some lenses, the way they separate the in focus from the out of focus provide a more rounded, 3D look. Maybe that quality is what you are looking for?

For my self, I just stick a series 5, +10 (100mm) close up lens in a focusing mount and blaze away, now that is soft!

 

[narsuitus]

I use the following Nikon telephoto lenses for portraits on a 35mm camera (listed left to right in the photo):

105mm f/2.8 micro
85mm f/1.8
180mm f/2.8
105mm f/2.5
80-200mm f/2.8
75-150mm f/3.5 Series E

All are excellent portrait lenses. The optical differences between them are very subtle.

My personal favorite is the 105mm micro because in addition to portraits, it is also great for jewelry and close-ups of body parts.

The 85mm is great for half-length and head & shoulder shots.

The 180mm is great for headshots and face shots. For face shots, I must use an extension tube for close focusing.

The 105mm f/2.5 is great for head & shoulder shots and headshots.

The 80-200mm is the lens I choose when I shoot candid portraits of performers on stage.

The 75-150mm is my recommendation for a budget priced Nikon portrait lens.


https://flic.kr/p/am5qaX

 

[FM2N]

Rokinon 85mm 1.4 manual focus lens. Amazing sharp lens with great bokeh

 

[chip j]

Maybe a Tamron 90mm SP?

 

[darinwc]

perhaps its a problem with your camera or film rather than your lens. 1) few vintage cameras actually reach 1/1000 anymore. 2)the metering may be off.
3) that image you posted looks reticulated or something. That doesnt look like grain. Was the film expired or stored in a hot area?

 

[Zathras]

perhaps its a problem with your camera or film rather than your lens. 1) few vintage cameras actually reach 1/1000 anymore. 2)the metering may be off.
3) that image you posted looks reticulated or something. That doesnt look like grain. Was the film expired or stored in a hot area?

I agree that it looks like reticulation. I wonder what would happen if you shot another roll with the same lens and fresh Tri-X, but used a developer whose pH doesn't rise as it ages. I would suggest something like fresh D23 or some other developer that does not contain borax. If that solves the "grain" problem, you might like the image quality better.

If you really dislike the the portraits from the Nikkors that much, why not just stick with tried and true the Canon 135 for portraits, and be done with it.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

You could try a Series E 100mm f/2.8. Sharp where it needs to be. A good portrait lens.

 

[Xmas]

I agree that it looks like reticulation. I wonder what would happen if you shot another roll with the same lens and fresh Tri-X, but used a developer whose pH doesn't rise as it ages. I would suggest something like fresh D23 or some other developer that does not contain borax. If that solves the "grain" problem, you might like the image quality better.

If you really dislike the the portraits from the Nikkors that much, why not just stick with tried and true the Canon 135 for portraits, and be done with it.

It is not the borax that causes the pH drift eg kodak published two D76 recipes early - one for replenishment one for stock bottle use. The big yellow plastic bag has the stock recipe and won't drift. If you scratch mix you need to use the correct recipe.

 

[macfred]

You could try a Series E 100mm f/2.8. Sharp where it needs to be. A good portrait lens.

+1 !
I really like this lens !
---

Another vote for the Nikon Series E 75-150mm f/3.5 ​.

 

[Xmas]

Any of the Nikon medium to long focus SLR lenses will be ok for Portraits. Nikon were a lens house a long time ago. Even their rangefinder lenses are ok today.

The series E will be cheaper...

If you use PanF+ off a steady tripod, a lens might be on its limits, but you will be photographing skin defects as well.

 

[bdial]

I don't think the series E lenses have the metering fork that an Nikormat FTn would need.

To me it looks like the focus point is at the sitter's left cheek, and the eyes look slightly soft, as mentioned. Adjusting so that the eyes are sharp might make the portrait more pleasing. But, I don't think it would change the overall look that much. The often mentioned 105 is the classic Nikon portrait lens and has a well deserved reputation. If you have a desire to stick with Nikon, give it a try, if you don't like it, you could most likely sell it for the same money you buy it for. Since you have a non-AI body, a non-AI 105 is probably quite cheap now.

Also, FWIW, if this is a negative scan, some of the grain may be a scanning artifact, especially if any sharpening was used.

 

[mdarnton]

Focus looks good enough to me, though about 1/4" ahead of where the "rules" say it should be. That's not the problem. What I notice is that I have a few lenses, good ones, that don't handle red too well, and no matter how sharp red things--skin tones-- are, they never look quite right, in the way this lens is looking. However, this could also be the scan--flatbed scans look the same to me, having the same problem, a subtle smeared look of even things that are in focus. The best lens in 35mm format lenses for what you want to do has already been mentioned, the 105mm f2.5

The 100/2.8 E lens is an OK lens, but it's just a normal OK lens, of normal sharpness, but nothing special. The 2.5 is pretty universally acknowledged as something special. I have both, and the 2.8 goes in the bag only when I'm going somewhere where I might not come back with my equipment.

If it's a money problem, wait until you can afford a good lens; don't waste your time and cash on a series of OK lenses that end up costing more than if you'd done the right thing in the first place!

 

[Xmas]

I don't think the series E lenses have the metering fork that an Nikormat FTn would need.

Your text
'
I don't think the series E lenses have the metering fork that an Nikormat FTn would need.
'
Should have read
'
I don't think the series E lenses have the metering fork that an Nikormat FTn would need, (sic for full aperture metering).
'
The forks are still available (new or recycled) and can be fitted to some/many E series lenses relatively easily.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

I bought a Q 135 2.8 Nikkor lens to try using for a portrait lens on my Nikkormat FTn. Man I don't like the IQ on this thing at all. Anyone else have any ideas? This is Tri-X in D76 (which was a little old and the PH had risen, so that's why there's all that grain). This is the best one, which is not going to cut it. I might have to go back to another R 90 Elmarit w/ a Nikon adapter (but expensive!), because every budget priced Nikon lens I've tried for portraits is pretty bad (to me). The 85 1.8 is OK, but not cheap, and gives strange bokeh highlights. The 85 2 is OK, but again, not cheap.

On the other hand, the Canon FD 135 2.5 is cheap and a killer, so I may have to go back to a Canon camera if something doesn't show up for the Nikon.

View attachment 102144

I don't mind the grain, actually, it seems to fit the portrait in this case;plus I don't see why that would be a lens issue. I use the Nikkor 85f/2 and was never disappointed by it.I still use an old version from the 1970s. They can't be that expensive;are they?

 

[dynachrome]

A portrait with shallow depth of field is one type. It isn't the only type. I think it's overdone. Any lens which is going to be used at or near wide open needs to be focused very carefully. In some cases a camera's viewfinder can be slightly off but in most cases it's user error. If I am trying to take a portrait with shallow depth of field I would rather use a camera which will allow me to put in a plain matte or grid type focusing screen. I find the focusing aids in a situation like this distracting. I have shot portraits with Nikkormats but I would rather use an FE/FE2/F2/N90S etc. Even an N2020 with its standard screen and used with manual focusing is good. I would rather shoot at f/5.6 or f/8 with any of the lenses mentioned. Of course, using a different lens will not affect the grain and scanning either the negative or a print can result in aliasing. Another issue with Nikon's 135/2.8 lenses is that they do not offer very close focusing. If you want a tightly cropped photo you will wind up enlarging more to get the sane result. One of my favorite 135s is the Vivitar 135/2.8 Close Focusing. It gets all the way down to 1:2. You don't need 1:2 for portraits but even a tightly cropped portrait of a young child is no problem.

 

[dynachrome]

I agree with Ralph that the 85/2 Nikkor is excellent for portraits.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I agree with Ralph that the 85/2 Nikkor is excellent for portraits.

+1

 

[BrianShaw]

+1

x2

 

[blockend]

The lens isn't the problem. The issue is elsewhere in my opinion, but hard to say where because it could be a combination of factors. I'd bet on poorly kept film plus exhausted developer. Before jumping on an expensive lens I'd put the camera on a tripod with fresh film and dev and shoot a portrait wide open and up to two stops down. Also check front and especially rear elements are scrupulously clean and there's no internal fogging. If there's still a problem, swap lenses. The alternative is the cost of a new lens still shooting through old film and dev. Almost no lenses are at their best wide open, and some improve greatly as little as half to one stop down.

With these problems always remove one factor at a time, or you're shooting in the dark!