Portraiture Lenses
Anders Svensson
> "andrew" <laug...@kiva.net> wrote in message
> news:38E4F2E0...@kiva.net...
> >
> > I've read that most portraits are taken with an f-stop between 2 and
> > 2.8,
>
> Wherever you read that, they were wrong. It also depends on what you're
> after.
This might be after a discussion about depth of field and background blurring.
Lenses with large aperatures can do this better (blur better, that is) and to
blur well, a 100 mm may need 2.8 or larger.
BTW: not lager at a temperature and better burping this time, but larger
aperture and better blurring... :-)
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anders Svensson
Anders.-.Ei...@swipnet.se
-----------------------------------------------------------
Anders Svensson
> I've read that most portraits are taken with an f-stop between 2 and
> 2.8, but all the good lenses in the 80-150mm range seem to have a
> fastest aperture of 2.8 -- can anyone recommend a good Nikon compatible
> lense that is good for portraiture, and that may go better than 2.8?
>
> thanks,
> andrew
You may be able to find a used Nikkor 100 mm f/2.5. I just took possession
of such a lens for the princely sum of about 55 dollars, and (knowing this
lens potential from older, perhaps better times) I feel that it will be hard
to beat in value-for-money terms.
TED SMITH
> 2.8, but all the good lenses in the 80-150mm range seem to have a
> fastest aperture of 2.8 -- can anyone recommend a good Nikon compatible
> lense that is good for portraiture, and that may go better than 2.8?
>
> thanks,
> andrew
>
.
Nikon has a 135 AF lens that is designed as a soft focus portrait lens ...
although I personally find 135 a bit long for close portraits. I think
there is a 105 now of the same design. If you're looking for manual focus
lens, there should be a lot of used Nikkor 105 2.8 's out there. Nikkor also
has a fantastic 85 f2 lens.. ... it's rarer, but snap one up if you see it.
Tamaron has an excelent 90 mm macro that is worth looking for in the used
showcases. (I've retailed cameras since 1971 and have owned two camera
stores ... I always always buy used equipment for personal use whenever
possible ... it's been my experience that most camera buffs barely have
their equipment "broken in" before they're off switching systems ... so good
used stuff is always out there.)
As far as focal length goes, traditional 35mm users would opt for a lens in
the 85 mm to 105 mm for casual portraits ...depending of course upon the
flavour of camera being used.
Over the last 30 years I have used a Pentax 105 F2.8, a Leica Tele-Elmarit
90 f2.8, a Zeiss Sonar 85 f1.8, a Nikkor 85 f 2, a Canon 100 f2.8 (?) and a
Pentax 85 f2.2 soft focus for my casual portrait work. Although it is a bit
heavy, I have also used my Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 AF lenses for some striking
casual portraits and model portfolio shots. I've used the Tamaron 90 mm
macro, which I believe is an f2.5. I've also done some interesting
portraits using a Tamron 300 f 5.6 with an extension tube in place to allow
closer focus.
Now ... as far as aperature ... the Zeiss at f1.8 is just an amazing hunk of
glass to look through ... but I doubt if it out-performs the other lenses in
any practical way.
I don't know if shooting wide open is desirable in all portraits. For
studio work I normally shoot at f5.6 on my medium format lens ... (over the
years I've use Pentax, Mamiya, Bronica and Hassleblad ... as far as I'm
concerned they all perform far better than I do) Your choice of aperature
will be governed by light source and camera to subject distance. If you are
using a 105 lens to do a chin to hairline shot ... the closeness of the
subject can mean that the tip of the nose is out of focus while the eyes are
sharp ... if you shoot wide open. When using depth of field to blur
backgrounds in outdoor shots, camera to subject and subect to background
distances will help determine the working f-stop.
The only hard and fast rule I know about photography is that there are no
hard and fast rules ... if you want to see the effect of shooting wide open
... go ahead ... what's a frame of film worth? BUT ... shoot the same pose
at f-4 or f 5.6 ... see which one you like best ... and which one your
subject likes. (Okay ... that's another hard and fast rule ... while you may
freak out over some special effect/soft-focus artsy-fartsy photo magazine
shot ... your client will probable be more impressed by photos were
everything looks "sharp" ... as in ... " Boy ... I REALLY like this one ...
too bad it's out of focus.")
Okay ... I just remembered a third rule ... drive your local camera store
guy nuts by checking the sharpness of every lense you're interested in
...asking his opinion ...quoting magazine articles and newsgroup postings
... and when you FINALLY decide which is the all-time, bestest,
no-one's-ever-made-one-better, sharpest lens out there ...a lens that is SO
sharp you slice the Christmas turkey with it .... buy it ... and just
before your camera guy rings up the sale ...look in straight in the eye and
say,
"Oh yeh ... guess I'll need a really good soft focus filter for that."
I personally use nothing but B+W brass mounted, laser cut SHOTTS glass
concentric circle soft focus filters on my ultra sharp portrait lens ... if
you're going to completley degrade the image ... ya gotta do it with class.
Hope my ramblings give you some ideas.
Best luck
Ted
Mac Breck
news:38E4F2E0...@kiva.net...
>
> I've read that most portraits are taken with an f-stop between 2 and
> 2.8,
Wherever you read that, they were wrong. It also depends on what you're
after. I usually use my 85 f/1.4 AIS or 105 f/2.5 AI stopped down to f/4 or
f/5.6 (optimum f/stop of a lens is usually 2 to 3 stops down from wide
open). I like to have both eyes, and usually the nose in sharp focus. The
105 f/2.5 AI, used wide open at 6 to 8 feet, has very little depth of field.
At f/5.6 you can have both eyes in sharp focus even if the person isn't
facing straight toward the camera.
> but all the good lenses in the 80-150mm range seem to have a
> fastest aperture of 2.8 -- can anyone recommend a good Nikon compatible
> lense that is good for portraiture, and that may go better than 2.8?
I suspect almost anybody who has a pulse, and has been using Nikons for a
few years, knows that a 105 f/2.5 AI or AIS is an excellent lens for this
application, and not terribly expensive. Alternates would be a 85 f/1.4 AIS
Nikkor or AF-D Nikkor, 105 f/2.0 DC AF-D Nikkor, and 105 f/1.8 AIS Nikkor,
all for more $$$.
Mac
Darrell A. Larose
> I've read that most portraits are taken with an f-stop between 2 and
> fastest aperture of 2.8 -- can anyone recommend a good Nikon compatible
> lense that is good for portraiture, and that may go better than 2.8?
>
manual focus glass. Unless you are shooting in "available darkness" you
wouldn't need a high speed lens. Nikon makes an excellent 85mm f:1.4,
however this is a fairly expensive slab of glass! Nikkor had a very good
85mm f:2, and their reknowned 105mm f:2.5. The Nikon Series-E 100mm f:2.8,
is an inexpensive gem, not as robust as it's Nikkor brother, but optically
very good they sell used for about $130-156 USD. A 90mm f:2.5/2.8 Tamron
or Tokina Macro lens works well, a would the Nikon Series-E 75~150mm f:4
zoom. I use 2 small 150 WS studio flashes, and I still get f:5.6-11 on
ISO 100 film. Almost all modern lenses are too sharp for portraiture, so
I have a case full of soft-focus filters, the one I use the most is the
B+W WZ-1 soft-focus (not the Soft Image!)
Darrell Larose
Ottawa, Canada
ReferenceCount
Anders Svensson wrote in message <38E4FF4F...@swipnet.se>...
>You may be able to find a used Nikkor 100 mm f/2.5. I just took possession
>of such a lens for the princely sum of about 55 dollars,
Ya done beat me, Anders. I paid $62 and thought I did well.
The bargains are in the NON-AI versions of this lens however.
rc
ReferenceCount
Mac Breck wrote in message ...
>Alternates would be a 85 f/1.4 AIS
>Nikkor or AF-D Nikkor, 105 f/2.0 DC AF-D Nikkor, and 105 f/1.8 AIS Nikkor,
>all for more $$$.
The bargain in this crowd is the 105/1.8.
This lens sells for around $350 and, having tried both a lot,
is a lot more usable wide open than the 85/1.4. The rest of
those lenses (and add in the 135/2 DC) all cost around
twice as much as the 105/1.8.
rc
John G. Silver
> 2.8, but all the good lenses in the 80-150mm range seem to have a
> fastest aperture of 2.8 -- can anyone recommend a good Nikon compatible
> lense that is good for portraiture, and that may go better than 2.8?
>
I would be very surprised if Nikon does not make a F1.5 85mm lens, but be
prepared to pay for it.
However if you look at the great portrait photographers of the past, such as
Karsh, Halsman and zillions of others you will find that most of them used
any old camera they had and never were addicted to any one tool to the
exclusion of all others. Well, maybe not karsh.
However the point is that if you want good portraits, you need to develop
your people skills. You need to relate to people in such a way that the
response you get is the response you planned to get.
A good general education is the best way to start.
JS
Joseph Meehan
First everyone is right, or at least they are not wrong.
Second I suggest you start working with what you have. Then as you work
come back and ask us what you don't like about the results you get. Try to
get a feel for what your equipment is doing. For now save the cost of a new
lens.
Personally I'll bet you can do more by spending half as much in
lighting. In my opinion lighting is much more important than the lens. Yes
even if you are going to be doing all your work outside, you can still spend
money wisely on lighting as in fill and reflectors.
An even better way to spend you money is in materials. Take lots of
photos and look at them, then take lots more.
Good Luck
--
Joe M
26 + 6 = 1
It's Irish math
Gene Windell
>
>I've read that most portraits are taken with an f-stop between 2 and
>2.8, but all the good lenses in the 80-150mm range seem to have a
>fastest aperture of 2.8 -- can anyone recommend a good Nikon compatible
>lense that is good for portraiture, and that may go better than 2.8?
Nice portraits can be shot with a lens of any focal length, and at any
aperture - though I don't see much point in going wider than 21mm or
longer than 300mm. It just depends on what you are trying to
accomplish. The lens aperture will be determined by the brightness of
the lighting, the film speed in use, and how much depth of field the
image requires.
Any scene where the main subject is intended to be a person or group
of people can be called a portrait. One of the main determining
factors of what focal length lens to use is how wide you want to
render the background. The shorter the focal length, the wider the
background behind the subject becomes.
When shooting studio-type portraits with a fabric or paper backdrop, a
relatively longer focal length will keep the background of the scene
from extending beyond the edges of the backdrop. Alternatively, you
could move both the subject and the camera position closer to the
backdrop - but this makes it more difficult to keep the backdrop out
of focus. The ideal focal length for studio work will depend on the
length of your working space. For a head and shoulders portrait of a
single person, a 100 or 105mm focal length will work well with
backdrops at least 4 1/2 or 5 feet wide. For a full length body shot,
or a head and shoulders portrait of a couple - you need to either get
a wider background or go to a longer focal length lens. With a 105mm
lens and the subject positioned 5 or 6 feet in front of the backdrop,
shooting at apertures of f/4 or f/5.6 will render the backdrop nicely
out of focus. If you are shooting groups of people and must use a
higher f/stop to keep all of the faces in focus, it is best to use a
backdrop that is fuzzy or lacking detail to begin with.
When shooting portraits outdoors, it is possible and sometimes
desirable to combine portraiture with landscape photography. If
circumstances permit, select an outdoor background on the basis of its
scenic beauty. In other words, any outdoor scene which would make a
nice landscape photo in its own right will probably also make a nice
portrait background. Separation between the subject and the
background is achieved by a combination of lighting effects, selective
focus and depth of field. If the outdoor background is scenic, it
need be rendered only slightly out of focus. The f/stop you use may
be limited by the flash sync shutter speed of the camera, and will be
largely determined by the light intensity and the film speed you are
using. The point is, if you must shoot outdoor portraits in bright
sunlight - select a scenic background first, select the lens focal
length second, and pose the subject third.
Coincidently, a 105mm focal length works quite well outdoors also.
But if the background landscape can accommodate it, you can use as
wide a focal length as you want. With super wide lenses, keep the
subject near the center of the frame, with limbs drawn in near the
body. With wide lenses, you will need to rely more on lighting than
depth of field to create the separation between the subject and the
background.
If you need to shoot an outdoor portrait and the background is
cluttered, ugly or otherwise distracting - this is the time to use
small f/stops and shallow depth of field to completely obscure the
background. Forget about the wide angle and normal focal length
lenses - a telephoto is a must, using the smallest f/stop the lighting
conditions will permit. Reducing the lens-to-subject distance will
render the background more out of focus.
In summary the 105mm focal length is probably the best all-around lens
for portraiture, though about any other focal length can be used as
well - depending on how wide you want the background to be. Use the
f/stop that will render the subject in focus, and the background out
of focus to the degree you want - depending on how beautiful or ugly
it (the background) is.
Gene Windell
Anders Svensson
> Anders Svensson wrote in message <38E4FF4F...@swipnet.se>...
> >You may be able to find a used Nikkor 100 mm f/2.5. I just took possession
> >of such a lens for the princely sum of about 55 dollars,
>
> Ya done beat me, Anders. I paid $62 and thought I did well.
We don't know until we compared scars... ;-)
John or Jenn
>I've read that most portraits are taken with an f-stop between 2 and
>2.8, but all the good lenses in the 80-150mm range seem to have a
>fastest aperture of 2.8 -- can anyone recommend a good Nikon compatible
>lense that is good for portraiture, and that may go better than 2.8?
The 85mm f1.4 (MF) or 85mm f1.8 (AF) are both very nice for portrait work.
The 105 f2.5 (old MF) is also dynamite.
David Rozen
: I've read that most portraits are taken with an f-stop between 2 and
: 2.8, but all the good lenses in the 80-150mm range seem to have a
: fastest aperture of 2.8 -- can anyone recommend a good Nikon compatible
: lense that is good for portraiture, and that may go better than 2.8?
Focal lengths of 50, 85, 105,
and 135 are available at f:2
or even faster, from Nikon.
For casual portraiture, the
85:1.8 or 105:1.8 can do 1/2
length and head shots all at
compact distances.
Regards, - dr
Mac Breck
news:38e5...@dnews.tpgi.com.au...
> > I've read that most portraits are taken with an f-stop between 2 and
> > 2.8, but all the good lenses in the 80-150mm range seem to have a
> > fastest aperture of 2.8 -- can anyone recommend a good Nikon compatible
> > lense that is good for portraiture, and that may go better than 2.8?
> >
>
> prepared to pay for it.
85 f/1.5 ??? They already make two 85 f/1.4's.
Mac
Daniel Cunningham
take portraits of one person where the head and possibly top of shoulders
fills the frame, you will have to get closer the shorter the focal length.
This can cause your subject to be uncomfortable. Also, the shorter the
focal length, the more perspective distortion you get (look at wide angle
lenses for an exaggerated example). In practice, this results in a person's
nose (really) looking proportionately larger when using shorter focal length
lenses (such as 50 mm). This effect is reduced as you use a longer lens,
from about 90-120 mm often seems most flattering. If you go much longer,
you get the compression and flattening from telephoto lenses. The best
length depends on your goal. Some people like the distortion, and you can
make some interesting (and comical) portraits with a wide angle up close.
My $0.02, no charge.