¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

ctrl + shift + ? for shortcuts
© 2025 Groups.io
  1. Nikon-DSLR
  2. Topics

Portrait lens

 

Hello all,
I can ask this question on Facebook groups, but I do not know the people there who will answer me, soo...
I have the Nikkor 85 1.8 (I think D-version) which I use for all my portraits. I am very happy with it as it is incredibly?sharp. The downside is I need to have some distance from my subject. So, I wonder would a 105mm or a 135 mm be an addition, and if yes, why? What are the pros and what are the cons??

TIA
Louis
photo
?
Louis Weyl
??? ??????? ?????????, ????? ???? ?????
0545764945
| lbweyl@...?
?
__tpx__

Virus-free.
 

You mentioned the 105mm. That, and the 85mm, have been the most popular ¡°portrait¡± lenses in terms of the most pleasing results. I¡¯ve also known of people who use the 50mm and some even say they use the 80-200. If, as you say, you ¡°need to have some distance¡± between you and the subject, maybe you should look at the 80-200. But back to the 85 vs 105, when I got mine may years ago, the 105mm f2.5 AI-s was reported to have been one of the sharpest lenses Nikon ever made (up to that time). My personal opinion is to go with the 105, but I¡¯m biased as I already have one and bought it for not just that reason but that it was a more natural field of view for everything else I do.
 

I also mentioned the 135mm... Having said that Mark, I have the?AF Zoom-NIKKOR 80-200mm f/2.8D ED. IMO, the 85 mm is sharper than the 80-200 at 85 mm. Anyone else like to share their opinion??
photo
?
Louis Weyl
??? ??????? ?????????, ????? ???? ?????
0545764945
| lbweyl@...?
?
__tpx__


Virus-free.


On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 1:36?AM Mark Lassman via <kb6kgx=[email protected]> wrote:
You mentioned the 105mm. That, and the 85mm, have been the most popular ¡°portrait¡± lenses in terms of the most pleasing results. I¡¯ve also known of people who use the 50mm and some even say they use the 80-200. If, as you say, you ¡°need to have some distance¡± between you and the subject, maybe you should look at the 80-200. But back to the 85 vs 105, when I got mine may years ago, the 105mm f2.5 AI-s was reported to have been one of the sharpest lenses Nikon ever made (up to that time).? My personal opinion is to go with the 105, but I¡¯m biased as I already have one and bought it for not just that reason but that it was a more natural field of view for everything else I do.




 

¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

I'm a guy who leans toward longer focal lengths for portraits so 85 would be my minimum. I had a bad copy of the 80-200 years ago but have been fortunate to own the 200/2 and that's the best portrait lens I've ever used. When I needed flexibility, I've leaned on the 70-200 and been happy.

Now that I've switched to mirrorless, the Z-mount 70-200 is even sharper than its predecessors so it continues to fill that role. In a recent development, the focusing motor on my 200/2 has finally died and I haven't found anyone with parts to fix it. So it looks like I suddenly have a fantastic manual focus lens which is not something I really want. :-/

I'm currently fighting the temptation to order the 135/1.8 Plena after having a chance to use one at a recent basketball game. It may be able to fill in for the 200/2 for both portraiture and indoor sports, so it's easy to justify. And the images are nothing short of amazing.

Dane

On Jan 15, 2024, at 8:07 AM, Louis Weyl <lbweyl@...> wrote:

I also mentioned the 135mm... Having said that Mark, I have the?AF Zoom-NIKKOR 80-200mm f/2.8D ED. IMO, the 85 mm is sharper than the 80-200 at 85 mm. Anyone else like to share their opinion??
photo
?
Louis Weyl
??? ??????? ?????????, ????? ???? ?????
0545764945
| lbweyl@...?
?
__tpx__


Virus-free.

On Mon, Jan 15, 2024 at 1:36?AM Mark Lassman via <kb6kgx=[email protected]> wrote:
You mentioned the 105mm. That, and the 85mm, have been the most popular ¡°portrait¡± lenses in terms of the most pleasing results. I¡¯ve also known of people who use the 50mm and some even say they use the 80-200. If, as you say, you ¡°need to have some distance¡± between you and the subject, maybe you should look at the 80-200. But back to the 85 vs 105, when I got mine may years ago, the 105mm f2.5 AI-s was reported to have been one of the sharpest lenses Nikon ever made (up to that time).? My personal opinion is to go with the 105, but I¡¯m biased as I already have one and bought it for not just that reason but that it was a more natural field of view for everything else I do.?
 

A few years ago, I rented the 85mm f/1.4G, I wasn¡¯t happy with it. It suffered from pretty bad Chromatic Abberations. Later I rented the 105mm f/1.4E, that¡¯s still a lens I want to own someday. It¡¯s an amazing lens for portraits, with a nice shallow DOF, so shallow in fact that nailing the focus is a real challenge. I¡¯ve also used the Nikkor Ai-S 105mm f/1.8 lens, it¡¯s good as long as you¡¯re not after sharpness when shooting wide open.

I¡¯ve used an old Ai¡¯d 135mm f/2.8 in the past for portraits, and gotten good results. Though I mainly used that lens as a telephoto on my Nikon FM2. I don¡¯t remember if I¡¯ve used it on the D800, or just the D70 or D300.

A note on 85mm lenses. I know jimbo swore by the 85mm f/1.4D, he hadn¡¯t tried the G (and I haven¡¯t tried the D). A little over a year ago, I was lucky enough to pick up a Nikkor Ai-S 85mm f/1.4, and it¡¯s a fantastic lens, though like the Ai-S 105mm f/1.8, it¡¯s a little soft wide open on my D800. Given the opportunity to get a cheap 85mm f/1.4D, I¡¯d probably go for it. I¡¯m actually planning to get a soft focus filter for the Nikkor Ai-S 85mm f/1.4.

For Zoom's, I liked the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR II when I rented it. I now own the 70-200mm f/2.8E VR, and it¡¯s one of the best lenses I own (that includes Leica and Hasselblad). It¡¯s now my primary lens for portraiture. On the 80-200, I can only speak about the manual focus versions, the original of which is garbage, but the last version was quite nice. I know the AF of the 80-200mm is well thought of.

Zane

On Jan 14, 2024, at 10:47 AM, Louis Weyl <lbweyl@...> wrote:

Hello all,
I can ask this question on Facebook groups, but I do not know the people there who will answer me, soo...
I have the Nikkor 85 1.8 (I think D-version) which I use for all my portraits. I am very happy with it as it is incredibly sharp. The downside is I need to have some distance from my subject. So, I wonder would a 105mm or a 135 mm be an addition, and if yes, why? What are the pros and what are the cons?

TIA
Louis
 

¿ªÔÆÌåÓý

I¡¯d never even considered using the 200mm f/2 for a portraiture. ?You¡¯ll need a fair amount of distance from the subject, but that¡¯s got to be some sweet DOF, and really isolate the subject. ?Sorry to hear about the motor, that can¡¯t be an easy lense to get fixed. ?I think I¡¯ve only ever seen one copy for sale.

A further note on the 105mm. ?I¡¯d avoided buying the 105mm f/2.8G VR, as the common wisdom on this list has always been that the 2.8D is the sharper lens. Last year I got a chance to pick one up for almost nothing. ?I¡¯m glad I did. ?That VR is handy.

Zane




On Jan 15, 2024, at 7:22 AM, Dane Robison via groups.io <macdane@...> wrote:

I'm a guy who leans toward longer focal lengths for portraits so 85 would be my minimum. I had a bad copy of the 80-200 years ago but have been fortunate to own the 200/2 and that's the best portrait lens I've ever used. When I needed flexibility, I've leaned on the 70-200 and been happy.

Now that I've switched to mirrorless, the Z-mount 70-200 is even sharper than its predecessors so it continues to fill that role. In a recent development, the focusing motor on my 200/2 has finally died and I haven't found anyone with parts to fix it. So it looks like I suddenly have a fantastic manual focus lens which is not something I really want. :-/

I'm currently fighting the temptation to order the 135/1.8 Plena after having a chance to use one at a recent basketball game. It may be able to fill in for the 200/2 for both portraiture and indoor sports, so it's easy to justify. And the images are nothing short of amazing.

Dane

1 - 6 of 6