Portrait Lens?

[pauly99]

Throwing all aside whether Nikkor, Tokina, Sigma, or Tamron makes the best lens/s, can I have some recommendations for a sharp as a tack portrait lens? I currently have a 28-105 3.5-4.5 and the 80-200 2.8 in my arsenal but am thinking along the lines of a prime, show me some pores, bring out the absolute best sharpness in the S2 lens? Suggestions?

[Andre]

I'm pretty happy with my Nikkor 50mm 1.8D lens. Here's a cropped un-resized sample.

[pauly99]

Andre, thanks. That is what I'm talking about. Do you know off-hand what I can expect to pay for this lens? Does Nikkor also make a 1.4 for the 50mm? If so, I'm guessing the price would be very expensive.

[Yefim Kaplan]

Hello Pauly! B&H sells a nikon 50 mm
f 1.8 for $ 99.95. And f 1.4 for $269.95 for USA, and a bit cheeper - $ 89.95 and $229.95 for imported lens. Good luck Yefim.:)

[Sneakyracer]

Sharpest lens i have tried on the S2 is the Nikon 85mm f1.8 AF-D. As sharp of a lens as i have seen. Even compared to leica M glass! The 50mm f1.8 nikon ai-s is also very very sharp and has solid contrast also the nikon 60mm f2.8 AF-D micro. I have a Nikon 300mm f4 AF thats extremely sharp also. Generally the Nikon normal/telephoto lenses are the best lenses made. Their wide angles and some zooms leave some to be desired imho. Good, but not great.

[pauly99]

Sneaky, I'll see if I can find a store out here that will let me do a little test ride between the 50mm and 85mm. I like the aperture of the two lenses. I'm not into wedding photography but I noticed a photographer this past weekend using the lens I have (Nikkor 28-105 3.5-4.5) and he was having trouble focusing at the reception in low light situations. Although the lens worked great for me with the N80 and I do like its slight macro capability, it does not offer the sharpness that I like on the S2.

[Sneakyracer]

Originally posted by pauly99
Sneaky, I'll see if I can find a store out here that will let me do a little test ride between the 50mm and 85mm. I like the aperture of the two lenses. I'm not into wedding photography but I noticed a photographer this past weekend using the lens I have (Nikkor 28-105 3.5-4.5) and he was having trouble focusing at the reception in low light situations. Although the lens worked great for me with the N80 and I do like its slight macro capability, it does not offer the sharpness that I like on the S2.

You really cant compare a prime lens like nikons 50mm or 85mm with a average zoom like the 28-105. The nikon normal-tele lenses abosolutely blow them away in sharpness, contrast and low distortion + they focus a lot faster and more accurately in low light. Even expensive 2.8 zooms are heavy and slower and distorm more tnan the prime lens. The 80-200 f2.8 nikon zooms might be the exception but are still much heavier but convenient specially at the long en, a 80mm f2.8 isnt impresive but a 200mm f2.8 is.

[pauly99]

I'll pop on over to my local store and check the prime's out though.... course attached to the S2. I'm in need of a good portrait lens where if it just so happens to be too sharp (is there such a thing?) then I can soften via photoshop v.s. the current sharpening that I am used to. I'll look at the 50mm and 85mm 1.8's and see if they have a 1.4 as well.

[Sneakyracer]

Originally posted by pauly99
I'll pop on over to my local store and check the prime's out though.... course attached to the S2. I'm in need of a good portrait lens where if it just so happens to be too sharp (is there such a thing?) then I can soften via photoshop v.s. the current sharpening that I am used to. I'll look at the 50mm and 85mm 1.8's and see if they have a 1.4 as well.

The 50mm f1.8 is an outstanding value. I bought the Ai-s version used for about $40 and have sold quite a few images that i took using that lens. It always amazes me.

[Igor]

Pauly,
the 85mm 1.8 is a great lens (I use it), but as far a s I know, the best portrait lens is 85mm 1.4D (About $700 on ebay.com), the second is 105mm f/2 DC (about the same price).
HTH.

[Steve P]

Pauly99,

I to have the 28/105 D 3.5 which I find ok if I'm being careful with. However when I need to take a shot quickly the images always end up slightly out of focus. Perhaps the S2 works better with aperatures lower than f3.5.

I was planning to buy the 50mm f1.8 D just to get the extra low f number. At around £100 it looks good value to me..

If any of you have anything to add about my 28/105 problems I would be greatfull.


Steve

[justinb]

I don't have the most experience with all of the varied Nikkor lenses, but I will throw in another vote for the 85 1.8. Don't get me wrong, the 50 1.8 is plenty sharp (from the little I have played with it in the last week), but the 85 1.8 will have you cloning out nosehairs and clogged skin pores in PS.

Justin

[pauly99]

Justin, Unfortunately I could not make it to the camera shop in time before it closed this evening. I'm leaning towards the Nikkor 85mm 1.8 although a friend is trying to nudge me towards the 85mm 1.4. The 1.4 is just too costly at this point in time... especially considering my amateur status.

Steve... I enjoy the 28-105 and am not planning on getting rid of the lens at this point. I too find that on some pics that the lens is not as sharp as I would like it to be. Even when shooting with a tripod and using manual focus from about 6 feet away I am coming up with some soft pictures. Having said that, it has also given me some great pics along the way. For some unknown reason to me it just seemed sharper on my Nikon N80 than on the S2. That is why I have my eyes on the 85mm at this point.

[justinb]

Pauly,

Your experience with the 28-105 sounds eerily like mine. Sharp with my N80 and S1 - not so sharp all too often with the S2. I have heard a couple of other people express the same sentiment. What a strange little anomoly. Wish I knew why, as the 28-105 was a convenient little lens, but I am willing to give up the flexibility of the zoom for sharper photos.

Justin

[Wichita Wayne]

A half stop is not worth it to me and the 1.8 will probably be up to the task for all your shooting. The S2 preforms really well at ISO 1600 so I believe the 1.8 is more than adequate. I have a 50mm 1.8 that is great and it cost less than $100. I shot with an old 50mm 1.4 for years and the 1.8 is ever bit as good, and I don't really miss the extra half f-stop. The 50mm is like a 75mm lens on a 35mm camera and the 85 is about the same as a 120mm or a 135mm lens. Either one should provide good portrait pictures, so it is really a matter of personal choice.

After saying all that I would also recommend that you also look at the 60mm f-2.8 Micro Nikkor. In my opinion this is the finest lens made for 35mm or digital. I used an old 55mm Micro Nikkor for years and have replaced it with the autofocus 60mm lens. Both are top quality lenses.

[pauly99]

Justin, its a shame (about the 28-105) and is weighing heavily on why I am now looking for a "sharper" portrait lens.

It sounds like Wayne wants me to look at the 50mm as well so as long as I'm at the shop, I may as well.

:D

[pauly99]

Wayne, how would the 60mm act as a portrait lens. And micro, what exactly are we talking here? 1/2, 1/4. I'm always confused by the micro/macro talk but I do enjoy the 28-105 with the extension ring for some closeups. I believe I can close focus the 28-105 to about 6-8 inches from the subject.

[Wichita Wayne]

The Micro Nikkors will focus from 1:1 to Infinity, or something close to that. They were suppose to be tuned to close focusing but they quickly gained a reputation as a standard lens with killer sharpness. They rank right up there with the F-2.8 CZ lenses as one of the best ever produced. The current model is the 60mm f-2.8 D Micro Nikkor. It will not focus as quick as the 50mm 1.8 lens but it is my prime lens of choice for all kinds of shooting. It is also great in tight quarters because it has a close focus distance that is measured in inches. If I only had one lens this would be it, hands down.

[Wichita Wayne]

http://www.photo.net/nikon/60-2.8-macro

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=63&sort=7&thecat=12

It will actually provide the same coverage as a 90mm lens on a 35mm camera, and that is near perfect for portraits. The 105 Micro Nikkor is also great but it pushes the image to the same used by a 150mm lens on 35mm cameras.

[Sneakyracer]

Originally posted by pauly99
Wayne, how would the 60mm act as a portrait lens. And micro, what exactly are we talking here? 1/2, 1/4. I'm always confused by the micro/macro talk but I do enjoy the 28-105 with the extension ring for some closeups. I believe I can close focus the 28-105 to about 6-8 inches from the subject.

I also use the 60mm f2.8 micro as a general lens and portrait lens on my S2. It gives me consistent excellent results. For most of my profesional jobs i use the 60 as much as i can.

[pauly99]

Spoke to the guy at the shop who said that the 60 2.8 is a fine lens but is not what I should be looking at so far as a portrait lens is concerned. Not to aggravate anyone but he said that it fails in sharpness when compared to the 50mm or 85mm.

The store did carry the 60 2.8 and the 85mm 1.8 but not the 50mm. Called around and could not find a 50mm at the moment
(even in a Wolf superstore). The 85mm (now 127mm on the S2) did seem to be a tad too close for living room portraits (6 feet away).

[Sneakyracer]

Originally posted by lumens
Undoubtely true and I know the 1.8 is a great lens with many satisfied users. But there is more than just 2/3 stop difference between the 1.8 and 1.4. There also the bokeh to consider, and the rugged, professional build of the 1.4

Just like it's not only pixels that count on cameras, it's not only stops that count on lenses...

I recently used several Leica M6's with 35mm f1.4 aspherical, 50mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.0 lenses. Bokeh was nice but what impressed me most was color and contrast. Inanely better and more pleasant than most lenses in adverse conditions. On the same set I used the fuji and the lens that produced comparable results was...the 60mm f2.8 micro! and i also used the 85mm f1.8 wich i find great also. But more and more i grab the 60.

[Wichita Wayne]

Originally posted by lumens
Undoubtely true and I know the 1.8 is a great lens with many satisfied users. But there is more than just 2/3 stop difference between the 1.8 and 1.4. There also the bokeh to consider, and the rugged, professional build of the 1.4

Just like it's not only pixels that count on cameras, it's not only stops that count on lenses...

With Nikon lenses you tend to get what you pay for. Which means that you are absolutely correct about the 85 1.4, If you plan to use the lens for a long time the the extra money might be more than worth it. I love my 60 and would ask the man in Pauly's shop to show the tests that back up what he says. My experience has not been the same. I have not put these three lenses side by side but I would bet that there is not too much difference between any of them in performance. But I do not think that lens performance is the real problem here. I think the real question is what does Pauly really want. What focal length, f-stop, and build, will be the best match for Pauly. If you buy less than the one you really want then you will be starting out dissatisfied, and you will constantly see the faults and imperfections in your purchase. Even if those faults and imperfections are not very significant. You should try all three of them, if you can, then buy the one that you love, and I guarantee that you will select the right one.

[pauly99]

Thanks to all and your replies. After careful consideration I purchased the Nikkor 50mm 1.8. The 85mm seemed to be a tad close range for what I was looking for. If I do my living room shots, I would be about 6 feet away from the subject. I decided not to go with the 60mm 2.8 as I like the added brightness of the 50mm 1.8. Maybe I should have looked at the 50mm 1.4 but I saved a few hundred bucks by not doing so and that few hundred will be waiting in the wings for the 70-200VR which haunts my thoughts both day and night.

P.S. I was able to try two different 50mm's (Quantaray and Nikkor 50mm 1.4) on the S2 but there was not a shop within 20 miles that had the Nikkor 50mm 1.8.
I ordered from B&H and it was shipped yesterday.

[Sneakyracer]

Originally posted by pauly99
Thanks to all and your replies. After careful consideration I purchased the Nikkor 50mm 1.8. The 85mm seemed to be a tad close range for what I was looking for. If I do my living room shots, I would be about 6 feet away from the subject. I decided not to go with the 60mm 2.8 as I like the added brightness of the 50mm 1.8. Maybe I should have looked at the 50mm 1.4 but I saved a few hundred bucks by not doing so and that few hundred will be waiting in the wings for the 70-200VR which haunts my thoughts both day and night.

P.S. I was able to try two different 50mm's (Quantaray and Nikkor 50mm 1.4) on the S2 but there was not a shop within 20 miles that had the Nikkor 50mm 1.8.
I ordered from B&H and it was shipped yesterday.

I just got a 50mm f1.4 AF-D lens for $175, used from a friend. Out of focus areas are nice at 1.4! at normal appertures its a lot like the 50 f.1.8. Not much difference. And yes, in tight quarters the 85mm is too much. You can hand hold the 50 at much lower speeds also.

[lightwrangler]

I shoot a lot of portraits on location. Primarily I use the Nikkor 50mm 1.8 and a Tamron 90mm 2.8. Both work well for different purposes. I would say that after a while with the 50mm you'll most likely want something longer.

I used to use a 35 - 135mm Nikkor, but I found it lacking in the close focus department and not as sharp as the primes (althought it isn't bad). Also it was too slow (f3.5-4.5) to handhold. I would reccomend that you consider a longer lens for the future. The 85mm 1.8 Nikon is excellent, but it's expensive, Sigma and Tamron are good options and the Tamron has great macro abilities.

[pauly99]

I came close to purchasing the 85mm 1.8. The scenario that I used was standing approximately 6 feet away in a store at a magazine rack. Whereas the 50mm (75mm on S2) could capture the scene, the 85mm (127mm) seemed to give more of a head and shoulders type of shot. The 85mm is/was affordable to me but the 50mm seems to be a better fit for what I am currently looking at. Yes, I may be purchasing the 85mm or Tamron 90mm in the future but for the time being, I suppose that I could move closer with the 50mm or suck it up and use the tad soft 28-105 that I currently own.

I've heard good reviews on the Tamron 90mm and have seen some great macro's with the Nikkor 105mm. One lens at a time.. or I might be sleeping in the dog house. :eek:

[lightwrangler]

I posted this earlier, it's the 90mm used for head and shoulders portraiture.

http://www.s2pro.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2283

[Wichita Wayne]

Like I said all three were probably top performers. I think you will be pleased with the results you get with the 50. It is also priced so you can save your money for the VR zoom that you really want.

[pauly99]

Lightwrangler, I followed the thread. Excellent picture. I see through EXIF data that the pic was shot at 5.6. Although shooting portraits has been few and far between for me (I shoot sports photography and have taken maybe 2-3 portraits), was wondering if I could achieve the same effect shooting with the 50mm 1.8 (moving closer of course), with White Lightning strobes, umbrella, and reflector? Or would the 50mm limit how close I can get by distorting the nose/face?

[lightwrangler]

Ok, 5.6 it was, I was working from memory (and it isn't what it used to be).

You would encounter distortion using the 50mm and moving closer. The nose would look larger, there would be more depth of field. The 90mm has a flattening effect and shallower depth of field which allows you to throw the focus out easier on the background. You also don't need to be on top of your subject - something that works really well with strangers. I need to comunicate with my subjects but also have them at ease, doing a head and shoulders portrait with a 50mm would put me too close and might cause them to be uneasy.

Umbrellas are great, but for the main light I used a Chimera softbox, around 3 x 4 feet in size. It's the large size that helps give the soft and even look. A large umbrella could do the same. You could also shoot through a large soft diffuser or bounce light off of a large piece of foamcore and achieve similar results. I have been lusting for a large umbrella for some time (5 -7 feet in diameter, the Photoflex OctoDome is nice ) but haven't yet bought one yet since I never seem to run out of things I want to buy! A beautiful portrait light. Although overall the softbox is more useful to me.

Bear in mind that if you are doing a single portrait, you can move your main light in close and get a similar effect that a large light has at a distance (it's somewhat problematic with sillver umbrellas tho'). You can also opt for a shoot-thru umbrella, but I find those a little low in contrast for the style I like to work with.

One last thing; this subject is wearing makeup. A cream foundation and a hint of powder. This can make a huge difference. I will often use powder or foundation on male subjects (even business executives) in order to control shine and smooth the skin. I bring some to the shoot. This is where trust comes in - if they don't trust me, they certainly aren't going to let me put makeup on them. I sometimes hire a female assistant since this makes the makeup application a bit easier. When I am shooting women, this is seldom a problem. Actors, male and female usually have their own makeup.

[Sneakyracer]

If you are shooting a head and shoulders portrait you dont need a large softbox or umbrella to get soft light, just move the softbox/umbrella VERY close to the subject. Has the SAME effect as using a much larger light source. old trick ;)

[pauly99]

I have a large umbrella and large white/silver-gold reflector.
About the only subjects that I've had sit with me for more than one second are my dogs and the lighting has looked very good in my few tries. When I get the 50mm I'll be sure to post a couple of shots so that I can be critiqued. Unfortunately my lovely wife does not care for her picture to be taken... although she slipped up for about one second here and I caught her.

[NZDoug]

altho some would consider this a bit long for portraiture, I prefer my
105 2.8 AF D Micro Nikkor for critical sharpness.

[smunky]

I think thats a great shot of your wife Pauly.
Some might say that she could use a little more light on her face, but I like the mysterious look it gives while she is slightly shadowed.
The framing is great and the sharpness is nice.
Good job!
(Pretty wife too!)

[smunky]

I think thats a great shot of your wife Pauly.
Some might say that she could use a little more light on her face, but I like the mysterious look it gives while she is slightly shadowed.
The framing is great and the sharpness is nice.
Good job!
(Pretty wife too!)

[smunky]

I think thats a great shot of your wife Pauly.
Some might say that she could use a little more light on her face, but I like the mysterious look it gives while she is slightly shadowed.
The framing is great and the sharpness is nice.
Good job!
(Pretty wife too!)

[pauly99]

Thanks Smunky, I'll take credit for the shot but cannot take credit for her being pretty. I also think the shot would have been better with a little more lighting on her face but lo and behold she absolutely will not look at me if she sees the camera pointing her way, so I guess I should count myself lucky for getting the shot.

We were hiking through a place called Starved Rock in Illinois and I didn't want to carry any more than the S2 and a lens. I had another chance of taking a pic and popped the onboard flash only to find out through my stubborness/ habit that I did not have CR123's in the camera.

[Steve P]

Hi Pauly,

I too have just bought the Nikon 50mm f1.8 D and although it's early days I think it's gonna be a tad sharper than my 28/105. I love the way the background stays way out of focus.


Let me know how you get on with yours.


Steve

[pauly99]

Steve, this was my first shot with it. The green on the right hand side is the shirt that this fella was wearing.

[Wichita Wayne]

That is what I see every morning when I get up.

[sandman]

Wayne you ought to borrow some of lightwrangler's make up (lots of it).:D .
Now the weathers closing in here in the U.K. i'm going to try out this new nikon 60mm ,and do a few portraits , never tried them seriously before. proberbly make a right hash of them ,but i'll post some both good and bad for criticism later on .
Paully i think mostly everyone here has problems photographing their wives. Mine has never posed, never stood stil long enough, got dozens of her back ,it's like the've got second sight, you pick up a camera .......they vanish.. strange. You pick up a credit card... they reappear. .... even stranger.

Brian

[Steve P]

Yeah nice one, my wife does that to Brian. What is it with women and photography..



Steve

[S_Leeper]

My wife is the opposite, in that she still loves to get in front of the camera. Indeed she is the reason I went digital several years ago, so as to continue to be able to afford to take the "required" shots of her & the children...

She is also very good at recognizing "photo opportunities" around the house & at family parties, so much so that I & others often refer to her as my art director...

re: the original topic... I often use the 50mmf1.4 for portraits, when possible. Like to use around f2.0 for single person portraits & f3.3-4.0 for 4+. However, many "portraits" are at various family parties & will use f1.7 to use available light.

I've been considering 85f1.4 or either of the DC lenses. I could sort of justify dc if they work well at f2.0, so as to use them for kids basketball also, in addition to outdoor portraits (or larger indoor settings).
While the 85 is legendary, I have the 35-70d which does very well wide open & more readily "fits" for most indoor situations.

[Wichita Wayne]

And so does my young son. It is just about the sharpest thing going this side of the medium format Hasselblads. It is early Friday morning and I just called in to tell them that I would not be in for work today. I think I will BBQ a big chunk of pork for supper and run errands. But before I do that I think I will make a huge English fry-up for breakfast and dream of being in the UK and Ireland. It was just a year ago that we spent three weeks there and we are still going through the pictures. Once again, good luck with the 60mm.

[t.hanz]

of course I'm late on this post but I thought I would give an example of the 85 1.8, great lens for portraits if you have the room, even better in your situation (6 feet) for head and shoulder shots, check ebay for any deals.

Sorry for the tardiness!,
Todd

[Igor]

Great portrait Todd.
However now after I have both 85mm and 50mm (both 1.8) I clearly see the 50mm produces better images.

[brenz45]

Well Ive sold my 18/35 on ebay and my 28/105 is next to go.

Although they are versatile lenses and Ive taken some great shots with both, particularly the 28, the inconsistent soft shots have been annoying,so they are outa here.

I bought a 24mm 2.8D about a week ago and its been very good so far way outshooting the zoom at same settings and I just received a 50mm1.4D today both Nikkors by the way, one of the Chinese made Nikkors and oh boy is that sucker sharp!
I have a shoot next week and Ive got a feeling Im gonna be a happy shooter,I might even have to go into Photoshop and soften a few images up lol.

Hey its a pain in the ass changin lenses all the time coz of the dirty CCD thing and when youre out and about havin a huge zoom draws attention but its worth it for nice clean sharp piccies.

I will be adding to my prime collection all the way up to 80mm for the moment coz Im more than happy with my 80/200 2.8 zoom.

Im still keen on the 17/35 2.8 zoom and I havent seen or heard a bad report but at around $3000.00au for the new models
a.Im gonna save
b.Im gonna do some testing before I buy

Of course it all gets down to what you do and what youre happy with so Im sure a lot of people out there are more than happy with theyre zooms

People like Wayne and others have been singing the praises of primes for quality and sharpness all along and Im hearing it finally

[lightwrangler]

Todd, nice shot and I'd say it looks pretty sharp too. We are hearing a lot about sharpness issues and S2's. I'll agree there is a problem but aside from some clearly defective cameras, I'm more inclined to blame lenses. Your shot illustrates as well as a screen shot can, that the S2 with a good lens produces sharp images. Any chance you can post a crop?

Brenz, I agree with the prime directive and have been moving more in that direction myself. I see a lot of lenses especially in the wide angle zoom range, that simply don't do it for me. I have the 24mm 2.8 and it's really sharp in comparison to zooms I've tested that include that range. Igor and Tom have both shown examples of the Tamron 14mm, which apart from being wide is pretty sharp too. Exceptions seems to be the 12-24mm and 17 -35mm Nikkors, both look quite sharp, but they do carry a price premium and the 12-24mm is pretty slow at f4. Currently I'm considering the 14mm.

I have to say that I have more faith in tele zooms than wide angles or wide to mid zooms and I may go for something in the 70 to 400 range (VR-G perhaps). I don't have as much a need in this range as I do in wide angle to short tele, so I want a bit more flexibility at the expense of lens speed. If it's not quite as sharp as primes, it's in a range that I can live with. Unlike Ron for instance I don't tend to need very long lenses for work.

[pauly99]

Todd, ended up picking up the Nikkor 85mm 1.8 after seeing your image. Although I haven't had the chance to use it as a portrait lens, it has made a great low light sports (basketball) up close and personal action lens.

[chaser of light]

Ill second that Wichita, I have had my nikkor 55 micro for nearly twenty years and it still performs wonders, its light wieght and perfectly sharp even with the S2.....my 105 ai leaves something to be desired in terms of sharpness with the S2, even though it used to be my best portrait lens with film!