portrait lens
Ana
I am looking for an used portrait lens. have you any suggestion for an
85 or 105 mm?
Thanks for your help
Christoph Breitkopf
> Currently I have a N8008s (F801s) with a 28 mm and 50 mm (nikkor) and
> I am looking for an used portrait lens. have you any suggestion for an
> 85 or 105 mm?
Tell us something more, then. Do you need autofocus, or is
manual focus ok? Price range?
Actually, any Nikkor in the focal length range can be recommended,
the are different, but all good. Also very good, and inexpensive
would be the Nikon Series E 2.8/100.
Some third-party macro lenses also have a good reputation as
portrait lenses - the Tamron 2.5/90, for example.
Regards,
Chris
Bruce Murphy
> Currently I have a N8008s (F801s) with a 28 mm and 50 mm (nikkor) and
> I am looking for an used portrait lens. have you any suggestion for an
> 85 or 105 mm?
If you want AF the 85 f/1.8 isn't too expensive and is sharp although
quite a few people don't like its background rendition. The 105 f/2.5
is wonderful, but manual focus. AF you could get the more expensive
105 or 135DC.
B>
Nikon Man
marco lens.
Full review here:
http://www.photo.net/nikon/105-micro/
NM
"Christoph Breitkopf" <ch...@chr-breitkopf.de> wrote in message
news:m37kbq0...@eddie.mignet.magrathea.de...
Eduardo Virmond
The suggestions here presented are very good, and would make a wonderful
choice. But, if I were you I'd go for a Nikkor 105mm f/2.5. An
outstanding lens for both portraiture and general use, is worth seeking
out and new or used a classic Nikkor. It offers a superlative background
blur rendition and provides smooth creamy to-die-for bokeh even in harsh
contrasty light. You will find no better lens, even considering the new
- and excelent - 105mm f/2D AF DC.
Best regards,
Eduardo
Michael Benveniste
>The Nikkor 105mm f:/2.8 is an all around great portrait lens as well as a
>marco lens.
>Full review here:
>http://www.photo.net/nikon/105-micro/
Quoting from that site: "The 105 Micro is not the best portrait
lens." The reason they give, manual focus throw, is still valid
despite AF technology. While it's a bit subjective, another common
criticism of this lens is bad bokeh.
That being said, I used a 105mm Micro for casual portraits for
years. But unless you are also going to use it for Macrophotography,
there are better choices available. In addition to those already
mentioned in the thread, if you can find an AI-S (manual focus)
85mm f/2.0 in good shape for a reasonable price, grab it.
--
Michael Benveniste -- m...@clearether.com
Those that live by the sword, get shot by those who don't.
Eduardo Virmond
>
> Quoting from that site: "The 105 Micro is not the best portrait
> lens." The reason they give, manual focus throw, is still valid
> despite AF technology. While it's a bit subjective, another common
> criticism of this lens is bad bokeh.
>
Ok, Michael,
I appreciate and agree with your point of view, but in fact I was
referring to the 105mm f/2.5, one of the finest portrait optics ever.
Eduardo
Bruce Murphy
> I appreciate and agree with your point of view, but in fact I was
> referring to the 105mm f/2.5, one of the finest portrait optics ever.
And that's why you shoudl only have replied to people who were replying
to your statement, not one from nikon man.
B>
Michael Benveniste
<evir...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Ok, Michael,
>
>I appreciate and agree with your point of view, but in fact I was
>referring to the 105mm f/2.5, one of the finest portrait optics ever.
>
>Eduardo
It may be that your newsreader isn't threading correctly, as my
post wasn't in response to yours.
Over the last 19 years, I've owned 4 short telephoto macro lenses,
two from Nikon, one from Vivitar, and one from Tokina. Before
that I used an 85mm. As a result, my experience with the 105 f/2.5
is, alas, nil.
--
Michael Benveniste -- m...@clearether.com
If you saw a man drowning and you could either save him or
photograph the event...what kind of film would you use? -Anonymous
William E. Graham
"Ana" <upi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:54ad1593.0302...@posting.google.com...
You might consider a 2X doubler with your 50mm....
NickC
As a rule, I use both. Generally, I use the 85mm f1.8 lens for portraits of
adults and teens. I use a 105mm f2.8 for infants. I dislike using sharp
lenses like the 105mm f2.5 macro for portraits because it's much too sharp
and I find it unflattering, except when taking B&W dramatic or impact
portraits. I would definitely not recommend a super sharp lens when
considering taking a close up portrait of a female face.
Nick
Bruce Murphy
> Ana wrote:
> > Currently I have a N8008s (F801s) with a 28 mm and 50 mm (nikkor) and
> > I am looking for an used portrait lens. have you any suggestion for an
> > 85 or 105 mm?
> >
> > Thanks for your help
>
> As a rule, I use both. Generally, I use the 85mm f1.8 lens for portraits of
> adults and teens. I use a 105mm f2.8 for infants. I dislike using sharp
> lenses like the 105mm f2.5 macro
The what lens did you say? f/2.5 macro?
> for portraits because it's much too sharp
> and I find it unflattering, except when taking B&W dramatic or impact
> portraits. I would definitely not recommend a super sharp lens when
> considering taking a close up portrait of a female face.
It's a lot easier to remove sharpness than it is to put it back afterwards...
B>
Eduardo Virmond
Michael Benveniste wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 23:17:57 -0300, Eduardo Virmond
> <evir...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> It may be that your newsreader isn't threading correctly, as my
> post wasn't in response to yours.
>
I appologize. Maybe I was induced to commit a mistake by my newsreader.
Thanks for answering, anyway.
Best regards,
Eduardo
NickC
Bruce Murphy wrote:
> NickC <n-c...@attbi.com> writes:
>
>
>>Ana wrote:
>>
>>>Currently I have a N8008s (F801s) with a 28 mm and 50 mm (nikkor) and
>>>I am looking for an used portrait lens. have you any suggestion for an
>>>85 or 105 mm?
>>>
>>>Thanks for your help
>>
>>As a rule, I use both. Generally, I use the 85mm f1.8 lens for portraits of
>>adults and teens. I use a 105mm f2.8 for infants. I dislike using sharp
>>lenses like the 105mm f2.5 macro
>
>
> The what lens did you say? f/2.5 macro?
:), Unfortunately I did. Hastiness does not often accompany correctness.
But then again (ahem) you already know that.
>
>
>>for portraits because it's much too sharp
>>and I find it unflattering, except when taking B&W dramatic or impact
>>portraits. I would definitely not recommend a super sharp lens when
>>considering taking a close up portrait of a female face.
>
>
> It's a lot easier to remove sharpness than it is to put it back afterwards...
True. However, since I don't want it when photographing a close-up of a
women's face, I don't regret not having it. Especially, since women have
often voiced objections.
Nick
>
> B>
Bruce Murphy
> Bruce Murphy wrote:
> >
> > The what lens did you say? f/2.5 macro?
>
> :), Unfortunately I did. Hastiness does not often accompany correctness.
> But then again (ahem) you already know that.
:) quite.
> >>for portraits because it's much too sharp
> >>and I find it unflattering, except when taking B&W dramatic or impact
> >>portraits. I would definitely not recommend a super sharp lens when
> >>considering taking a close up portrait of a female face.
> > It's a lot easier to remove sharpness than it is to put it back afterwards...
> True. However, since I don't want it when photographing a close-up of a
> women's face, I don't regret not having it. Especially, since women have
> often voiced objections.
Let's ignore the various reports of the 105 f/2.8 micro lens having
unfortunate background blur (when compared to the 105 f/2.5 manual
lens). Certainly, this would suggest a move away from this lens,
without considering sharpness.
There's a school of thought that suggests having a specific lens for
'fuzzy portraits' isn't a very sustainable practice. I would
personally suggest a lens that you can use for /anything/ (And this is
a sharp lens) that if necessary was modified via a softar, or other
means (stocking?) to provide the requiste level of softness when
sensitive females were in the offing.
In addition, there's always post-processing. Another place where it's
impossible to put back sharpness.
B>
Daniel ROCHA
> Currently I have a N8008s (F801s) with a 28 mm and 50 mm (nikkor) and
> I am looking for an used portrait lens. have you any suggestion for an
> 85 or 105 mm?
Hello Ana,
Frist of all you can already making portraits with your actual gear.
I use my 50mm for many subjects and also for portraiture.
Take a look here :
http://www.monochromatique.com/portrait/daniella_198.html
http://www.monochromatique.com/portrait/daniella_113.html
http://www.monochromatique.com/portrait/daniella_121.html
After that ask yourself why using another lens, if it's for making
close-up, you can choose a Macro lens. I use a 105/2,8 wich
give me the pictures that I want in close-up portrait photography.
See that links :
http://www.monochromatique.com/portrait/daniella_075.html
http://www.monochromatique.com/portrait/daniella_067.html
A 105/2,8 Macro lens is great if you want to make close up
portraits, but the 85/1,8 is faster. Despite the aperture, a
85/1,8 is not the perfect portrait lens due to the smaller
focusing distance is a quite far, for framing in the same way
that with a macro lens.
If anybody wants to see the complete set of portraits,
just click here : http://www.monochromatique.com/portrait/
Regards :)
--
<+> WEb ~ hTML ~ PhOTo <+>
<http://www.monochromatique.com>
Association de Photographes - <http://ecpa.eu.org>
<http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/group/canoneos_fr>
Daniel ROCHA
> You might consider a 2X doubler with your 50mm....
Without it's good, watch that :
http://www.monochromatique.com/portrait/
;)
NickC
Bruce Murphy wrote:
> NickC <n-c...@attbi.com> writes:
>
>
>>Bruce Murphy wrote:
>>
>>>The what lens did you say? f/2.5 macro?
>>
>>:), Unfortunately I did. Hastiness does not often accompany correctness.
>>But then again (ahem) you already know that.
>
>
> :) quite.
>
>
>>>>for portraits because it's much too sharp
>>>>and I find it unflattering, except when taking B&W dramatic or impact
>>>>portraits. I would definitely not recommend a super sharp lens when
>>>>considering taking a close up portrait of a female face.
>>>
>>>It's a lot easier to remove sharpness than it is to put it back afterwards...
>>
>>True. However, since I don't want it when photographing a close-up of a
>>women's face, I don't regret not having it. Especially, since women have
>>often voiced objections.
>
>
> Let's ignore the various reports of the 105 f/2.8 micro lens having
> unfortunate background blur (when compared to the 105 f/2.5 manual
> lens). Certainly, this would suggest a move away from this lens,
> without considering sharpness.
If you're suggesting that the 105 f-2.8 micro lens be relegated to micro
use and not be considered as a lens that could be used for portraits, I
can't concur with that thought. Yet, I can't dismiss the thought that there
would be portrait situations where the use of this lens may not be the
wisest choice to make.
Prior to my response, I thought I could readily seek and post a portrait of
a child that I had taken with the 105 f-2.8 lens, presented as a means to
validate sharpness, but it seems that the portrait I had in mind to show
was taken with the 85mm f-1.8 lens. Therefore, I'm at a loss (at present)
to illustrate an example of what I was referring to.
>
> There's a school of thought that suggests having a specific lens for
> 'fuzzy portraits' isn't a very sustainable practice.
I have heard opinions expressed in this regard. I have not taken a firm pro
or con position because I recall the times when I was using 4x5 sheet film
for B&W portraits and spent hours retouching negatives to remove bags under
the eyes, acne spots, etc.. Yet, I would think we both would agree that the
norm would be eyes should always be as sharp as possible. With this in
mind, I can see merit in deferring to lens sharpness concerns. But I can't
shake the thoughts that would encompass conventional (non dramatic B&W)
close up portraits of elderly people (as an example). Finite or acute
sharpness would not be complimentary.
I recall an old trick used by labs when enlarging a portrait. During the
exposure time, a very slight tap on the enlarger would be sufficient to
soften a portrait.
Sorry Bruce, if I have given you the impression that I'm flip-flopping
between two modes of producing a portrait; initially using an acutely sharp
lens as opposed not not using as sharp a lens as possible for portraits.
It's because I see merit in both practices.
>I would
> personally suggest a lens that you can use for /anything/ (And this is
> a sharp lens) that if necessary was modified via a softar, or other
> means (stocking?) to provide the requiste level of softness when
> sensitive females were in the offing.
Again, there is merit in you're view of this situation. But I still harbor
reservations. See below.
>
> In addition, there's always post-processing. Another place where it's
> impossible to put back sharpness.
It's not that I have never used the 105mm f-2.5 manual focus lens for
portraits and therefor base my recommendation upon a narrow point of view.
I have used this lens and other sharp lenses for portraits and when
involved with B&W portraits (male or female) where I intend the dramatic
effect, I would prefer using such lenses. However, when dealing with the
female face up close, I have encountered too often the ability of an
acutely sharp lens to capture facial hairs, nose pores, and/or heavy makeup
that do not lend themselves to be viewed in a complimentary manner. Under
this circumstance, I would not be concerned with a thought to put back
sharpness in pictures where I do not want such sharpness to exist and would
take careful measures to avoid.
Now the suggestion that you present that there are alternatives (filters,
stocking tricks - which is what I often use) are indeed useful in obtaining
an offsetting effect when unpleasant sharpness is being captured, is valid.
But if I have to defer to using such methods to initially soften the effect
of an acutely sharp lens upon a female face, then I may as well use a lens
that does not present such acute sharpness as to mandatory require iffy
alternatives be used.
The problem I see with your theory is the need to defer to alternative
means which isn't an assured method to offset sharp picture anomalies,
without quite a bit of practice on the part of the photographer. The theory
calls for ancillary equipment be carried along with the acquired associated
knowledge, assuming portraits are not exclusively done in a studio. Then
too, the need to procure an acutely sharp 105mm f-2.5 lens as a do anything
lens is not warranted. The 85mm f-1.8 lens is very sharp in itself and I do
have pictures posted to verify its sharpness. I have also used the 80-200mm
f-2.8 lens (at about 85mm to 135mm range) for portraits. At times, I have
even used a 180mm f-2.8 lens for portraits, not involving front face
positions or up close positioning. Having to hunt down and acquire an
acutely sharp 105mm f-2.5 manual lens when 105mm f-2.8 lenses are readily
available and can be used in auto or manual mode, is jut not warranted. The
105 f-2.8 is not by any means to be considered as being a dog; it's a darn
good lens in its own right. It's just not as acutely sharp as a 105 f-2.5
manual lens.
The position I'm presenting is questioning the need to be concerned with
using, or having to use a given lens. Yes I concur, the 105mm f-2.5 lens is
indeed sharp but considering its asset along with its liabilities, I can't
take the position that one would be better off just having this lens as a
do anything lens. Besides Bruce, the 105mm f-2.5 lens in the hands of a
tyros and I've often seen even in the hands of some intermediate
photographers, can be misapplied if it's the only lens at hand. One can
become too dependent upon the thinking that sharpness is, or should be, the
primary requisite of any artistic photograph.
No doubt you have seen B&W portraits of old time movie stars that were
taken back in the 40's through 50's. Those glamor pictures were not taken
with acutely sharp lenses and though they were not taken with such lenses,
the sheet negatives were also subjected to conventional retouching
practices. Note also, that you have never found such a studio taken picture
that was not printed on glossy paper that lent itself to gradual gray
tones. It was the practice of the times to use such glossy paper to retain
a degree of overall picture sharpness, after taking care to offset actual
subject sharpness.
Its been said, there is a time and place for everything. I guess that would
also extend to appropiate use of lenses.
Nick
PS. I seem to recall that you have, and use, an F4 camera. I hope you are
as enthusiastic about using that camera as I am about using mine. With this
camera in mind, I can understand your view about having the 105mm f-2.5
lens. The F4 along with its many atributes, does ideally lend itself to
maunal focusing.
>
> B>