Nikkor Defocus Control portrait lenses
Jan Werbiński
What do you think about Nikkor 105 and 135 mm DC lenses?
Where can I see pictures taken with normal 105 and 135 next to DC version?
Do you have any experience with this lenses? Are they worth the extra cost?
What is the best portrait lens for Nikon to make portraits of 1-5 people in
studio and outdoors?
TIA
--
Jan Werbiński O0oo....._[:]) bul, bul, bul
Strona domowa http://pa54.zgora.sdi.tpnet.pl/jw/
Nasza sieć http://pa54.zgora.sdi.tpnet.pl/
JR
"Jan Werbiński" <jan...@pa54.zgora.sdi.tpnet.pl> wrote:
Jan,
What body you are going to using? If you are using any body other
than the N(F)55, 65, 80 or D100 then I would not get a Nikkor DC lens, I
would get the manual focus Nikkor 105/2.5 AI or AIS. This is an
excellent lens, some say the best portrait lens for a 35mm camera
period. You can find these in good condition for $200. This will meter
with a body other than those I listed and will perform almost exactly
the same. I doubt you could see a difference from a scan on a monitor.
Now MAYBE a 16x20 enlargement may show very slight differences, but I
doubt it. The DC lenses mainly allow you to blur the background while
keeoing the suvject in focus, something the aperture on any lens does.
This is only helpful in bright light situations and fast film. Like a
very sunny day using 800 speed film and you want a photo where the
person is in focus but the background is blurred. This would be hard to
do without the defocus controls because you would be using a small
aperture like f16 which would give a very large depth of field. You can
put a ND filter on your lens and allow it to open wider, giving you a
more shallow depth of field. From those that have the DC lenses, they
usually say they don't use that feature at all. For 1-5 people
portraits, you might need something wider than 105 and definately wider
than 135 unless you are going to be 50 feet from them. A 85/1.4 AF-D
may be the lens for you. This is a popular length for the "classic"
portrait. You can get the 85/1.4 AF-D and the 105/2.5 AIS for less than
a 105/2 DC...That would be my suggestion. The you have more
photographic possibiliteies and 2 EXCELLENT lenses. Now if you have the
N(F)80, then a 105/2 DC is a better option because that body won't meter
with a manual focus lens without a CPU chip in it. It would be worth it
to sell the N80, then get a F100 and the 105/2.5 AIS. The 105/2 DC is
$919, the F100 is $899 the 105/2.5 AIS is $200. The 85 1.4/AFD used is
about $600.
JR
Jan Werbiński
news:jr-2E6A64.11...@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> Jan,
> What body you are going to using? If you are using any body other
> than the N(F)55, 65, 80 or D100 then I would not get a Nikkor DC lens, I
Thank you.
Currently I have F100 but I plan to buy another body soon and it will be
D100 or Fuji S2.
What about 80-200 2,8 or 70-200 2,8? I had the former and it was very nice
lens for portrait. Zoom is good for my work because I don't have too much
time to come closer etc.
So there is no reason to pay extra money for DC if I have another body with
100 asa film and 5-10 meters space behind a model? That's a very good news
for me. I think I spend saved money for 35-70 or 28-70 2,8 and 70-200 2,8
and maybe 105 you writing about.
Now I have 90 mm macro Sigma and 28-70 2,8 Sigma. The latter sucks because
of huge distortion and poor mechanical construction.
Robert Monaghan
see related notes at http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/bokeh.html and nikon.html
hth bobm
--
* Robert Monaghan POB752182 So. Methodist Univ., Dallas Tx 75275 *
* Third Party 35mm Lenses: http://medfmt.8k.com/third/index.html *
* Medium Format Cameras: http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/index.html *
Jerry L.
the background) which is somewhat difficult to do with any lens. If
you have a variety of lights in the background, the results can be
striking.
You may consider a AF 60mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor for the group shots of 5
persons.
My pair of cents worth of help....
= = =
JR <j...@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:<jr-2E6A64.11...@newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com>...
Mike Benveniste
> Thank you.
> Currently I have F100 but I plan to buy another body soon and it will be
> D100 or Fuji S2.
> What about 80-200 2,8 or 70-200 2,8? I had the former and it was very nice
> lens for portrait. Zoom is good for my work because I don't have too much
> time to come closer etc.
As much as I like an 80-200 2.8, it's about my last choice for
portraits, especially if it's a mix of individuals and groups.
For individuals, you end up lugging a bunch of weight to no
real benefit. For small groups, I often find ye olde 50 mm works
best. A 50 mm lens may be boring out-of-fashion glass, but the
pictures you get from one don't have to be. Fast, sharp and cheap
aren't necessarily bad things.
Without knowing a little more about why you feel you need one,
I wouldn't want to count the number of zooms that could work for
you. There are a dozen or so current offerings from Nikon, at
least that many from third parties, plus almost 40 years of used
stuff. 43~86mm, anyone?
Otherwise, Have you tried your Sigma 90 as a portrait lens? I've
had good luck using similar lenses, but if you have to focus
manually it takes some practice with small adjustments.
--
Michael Benveniste -- m...@clearether.com
Any comments or statements made are not necessarily those of any
employer or client, their subsidiaries, or affiliates.
T. P.
>The Nikon line of DC lenses also let you de-focus the foreground (or
>the background) which is somewhat difficult to do with any lens. If
>you have a variety of lights in the background, the results can be
>striking.
>
>You may consider a AF 60mm f2.8 Micro-Nikkor for the group shots of 5
>persons.
In my view, the 55mm and 60mm Micro-Nikkors are about the last lenses
you should consider using for group portraits.
The f/2.8 maximum aperture does not allow sufficient isolation of the
subject from the background, and the lenses' rendition of out of focus
(OOF) areas of the shot is quite appalling. OOF highlights tend to be
extremely harsh.
brian
> ski2...@netscape.net (Jerry L.) wrote:
>
>
> In my view, the 55mm and 60mm Micro-Nikkors are about the last lenses
> you should consider using for group portraits.
>
> The f/2.8 maximum aperture does not allow sufficient isolation of the
> subject from the background, and the lenses' rendition of out of focus
> (OOF) areas of the shot is quite appalling. OOF highlights tend to be
> extremely harsh.
If you are referring to the 55mm f/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor then I'm
puzzled by your statement. This lens has quite good bokeh - certainly
far better than the 35mm f/1.4 you were recently praising in this
respect. Its completely wrong to call its bokeh "appalling". Would
you care to share some images that illustrate your point?
T. P.
>If you are referring to the 55mm f/2.8 AIS Micro-Nikkor then I'm
>puzzled by your statement.
Why am I not surprised?
I sometimes wonder which planet you inhabit.
Joseph S. Wisniewski
>
> Hello
> What do you think about Nikkor 105 and 135 mm DC lenses?
> Where can I see pictures taken with normal 105 and 135 next to DC version?
I have no idea. But here's my favorite shot with the 135 DC on a D100.
Defocus control turned about two stops farther to the rear than it
should be, producing a nice soft focus effect.
Nudity warning.
http://www.pbase.com/image/5151520
> Do you have any experience with this lenses? Are they worth the extra cost?
To me, they are.
> What is the best portrait lens for Nikon to make portraits of 1-5 people in
> studio and outdoors?
The 45mm f2.8 P.
Lovely bokeh, sharp, easy to control.
I think you would have to be too far back for the 105 with a group of 5
people.
Ciao!
Joe
--
Make flutes, not war!
remove .nospam. to reply
brian
A simple test will reveal that you are wrong about the 55/2.8 MF.
Sometimes I think that you deliberately make strongly worded incorrect
statements just to see who believes you.
T. P.
>A simple test will reveal that you are wrong about the 55/2.8 MF.
>Sometimes I think that you deliberately make strongly worded incorrect
>statements just to see who believes you.
Coming from a designer of cheap plastic lenses who starts with a
preconceived idea, makes an instant "conclusion", looks only for data
to support that "conclusion", rejects any and all evidence pointing to
a whole range of other possible conclusions, and makes strongly worded
incorrect statements based on selective amnesia and the unquestioning
acceptance of spurious data - as long as it supports your initial
"conclusion", of course - I think it's time you looked in a mirror.
You just reminded me why you were the only person in my kill file for
so many months. Back you go.