Portrait Lens Advice

[L. Wood]

Hello,
I am new to the "forum" concept, but after reading thread after thread I am absolutely loving it! Anyway, I would greatly appreciate advice concerning my next lens purchase. I have been using a Nikon D200 with a 18-200 VR, which is a great travel lens but very poor for portraits. I have been working on fine-tuning my photography for about 3 years and am still trying to figure out my specialty. Thus, I have waited to purchase more lenses. Portraiture is quickly becoming one of my favorites, and now I would like to purchase a lens of great quality. I have researched for at least 3 months now and have come up with a few possibilities: 85 mm 1.4 and 70-200mm 2.8.
Please let me know what you think of these two options and why one would be better than the other. Also, if you think another lens, not mentioned, would be better please let me know as well. I am willing to spend as much as $1600.
Thankyou for your help!

 

[panocho]

You're willing to spend a lot of money, indeed!
Of those two, I'd prefer the 85mm. First, just because I like fixed focal distances. And that is a very nice one for portraits. Second, because it is faster, and you want fast lenses for portraits (so that you can have minimun DOF or shot with only available light more easily). I don't really think you could benefit on the zoom for portraits.

Also, you can always go for MF older lenses, cheaper and very nice. That way you would save a lot of that money for future adquisitions. With a D200 you will have no problem of compatibility. For example, now comes to my mind a very nice E-series 100mm that would cost you nothing out of $1600.

Anyway, and to sum up, I'd definitely go for a fixed focal distance, fast lens

 

[DSLR noob]

If the best protraiture you can find is what you seek, then fast prime. If you want a tad bit more versatility, a fast telephoto (2.8) is great, even if you cover that zoom range in the 18-200.

 

[sabbath999]

I would get one of these two... not only are the AWSOME portrait lenses, you get the excellent 1:1 tack sharp macro as well...

Nikon 105 VR

or

Nikon 105 2.8 Macro

105 is perfect for portraits, prime focus, FAST lenses, Nikon quality and sharpness... what more could you want to slap onto that D200.

BTW the 105 VR is my next lens, I have used one and love it.

 

[bluerangeriii]

i dont know much about nikon lenses, but speaking on a traditional stand point a good portrait lens is one a little bigger than a normal lens. i dont know how big the sensor on a nikon is but a normal lens for a 35mm is 50mm. figure out your normal lens and find one that is a little more to the telefoto side. and that makes a good traditional portrait lens.

 

[xfloggingkylex]

i dont know much about nikon lenses, but speaking on a traditional stand point a good portrait lens is one a little bigger than a normal lens. i dont know how big the sensor on a nikon is but a normal lens for a 35mm is 50mm. figure out your normal lens and find one that is a little more to the telefoto side. and that makes a good traditional portrait lens.

I've used my 50mm 1.4 for some portraits and felt it worked fine. I'll have to try longer next time.

 

[celeron24]

I've done a few portrait shoots for almost a year now, and I must say that the 85mm 1.4 is a must have in portrait photography. It gives you that lucid "bokeh" while also offering a very crisp sharpness of your subject. It truly is a great investment when you want to delve in portrait shots.




alcoholism treatment

 

[Garbz]

I would get one of these two... not only are the AWSOME portrait lenses, you get the excellent 1:1 tack sharp macro as well...
Nikon 105 2.8 Macro

105 is perfect for portraits, prime focus, FAST lenses, Nikon quality and sharpness... what more could you want to slap onto that D200.

Very nice lens indeed but I really couldn't care about the VR lens I do find when I used this lens and lenses of the same focal length to be a bit hard on a D200. You really need some distance from the subject to use this one. I'd recommend the 85mm, but then you wouldn't get the macro.

celeron24 welcome to TPF

 

[fmw]

It's interesting to see how fashion has changed over the years. When I was a young buck "portrait" lenses were soft focus lenses. It would have been bad manners for a photographer to take crisp sharp image of a person and show all those human imperfections in the skin. The "portrait" lenses were designed with a bunch of chromatic aberration in them to soften the skin. Today we talk about tack sharp lenses for making portraits. 180 degree change in fashion.

I'm not sure I have ever used a "portrait" focal length for a portrait but, in the 35mm days, the 105mm f2.5 Nikkor was considered the ideal focal length for portrait head shots. I tended to use longer lenses and medium format personally in those days but I think the 105 would work well with a DSLR but, as mentioned above, would require the photographer to step back a little.

The idea of using a macro lens is actually pretty good. It is a little like stepping back to the old days. Macro lenses are corrected for close focus and tend to be a little soft when used at the subject distances of regular lenses. Might be the ideal choice. If I ever use the DSLR for a portrait I'll put the 60mm Micro Nikkor on it to try it out.

 

[L. Wood]

I totally understand about the softer lenses for portraits. However, if your image doesn't start with crisp detail, then you can not get it back. Photoshop and noiseware are great for the soft look. Anyway, I also agree with you on the medium format for portraits. Love medium format. My dream camera is a Mamiya with a digital back. I used a pentax med. format film camera for a while and I prefer the 4x5 negative. O.k. now to the point. With the longer lenses like the 85mm and 105mm, how far back are we talking??? 5 ft, 7ft? If it is too far back it makes shooting children more difficult. They require a lot of attention.
Thanks for your input.

 

[DSLR noob]

Haha, 105....... on a cropped DSLR............... I imagine like 20 feet or more. I need to stand about 12 feet away from people when I want a full body shot with my 50mm, but with portraits you DO want a long lens while standing far back.It is all about the angle of view. I say the 85 1.4 is perfect. then do the whole "look at the ducky" thing from 10 to 15 feet away for a facial portrait.

 

[L. Wood]

Thanks for the info on distance. That helps my decision!

 

[fmw]

I totally understand about the softer lenses for portraits. However, if your image doesn't start with crisp detail, then you can not get it back. Photoshop and noiseware are great for the soft look. Anyway, I also agree with you on the medium format for portraits. Love medium format. My dream camera is a Mamiya with a digital back. I used a pentax med. format film camera for a while and I prefer the 4x5 negative. O.k. now to the point. With the longer lenses like the 85mm and 105mm, how far back are we talking??? 5 ft, 7ft? If it is too far back it makes shooting children more difficult. They require a lot of attention.
Thanks for your input.

In those days photoshop and noiseware didn't exist. In fact neither did computers - or ball point pens for that matter. Cameras didn't need batteries either even though they existed at the time.

I would think you might need to be 12 or 15 feet back for a head shot. Remember, perspective results from subject distance, not focal length. The further you are from the subject, the more foreshortening and we usually want some foreshortening with portraits. The focal length just determines how much of the subject we see. Any focal length is fine as long as you can adjust perspective with distance and still get what you want in the frame. You could maintain one subject distance and make a full body portrait or a tight head shot just by changing lenses. The perspective would be the same because the subject distance didn't change. I guess this is all just to say that there aren't any right or wrong answers without understanding the subject and environment.

 

[Don Simon]

However, if your image doesn't start with crisp detail, then you can not get it back

Yes but... generally you wouldn't want that crisp detail for portraits. Lots of detail and sharpness is rarely flattering, and flattery is generally the point of portraiture. By this I mean commercial portraiture, or indeed portraits of family and friends. Obviously portraiture can be more 'honest' but traditionally that is less common.

So if you shoot mostly 'flattering' portraits, wouldn't it be better to have a lens that offers a pleasing softness rather than have one that emphasises all the creases and then go about softening it in software in every shot? Apart from which, some (me included) would say that the softness you get from a soft lens is not going to be the same as the softness you create in software. By the same token surely you could say that it's best to always shoot for maximum DOF and then apply 'bokeh' in PS, because you can 'take away' the in-focus area but not add? There is a reason they still design "soft" lenses for portraits in the digital age - there's even "soft" 28mms. Now if you shoot more than just portraits obviously a "soft" lens is not the best choice, but still I would think it's not a bad thing to have some softness wide-open; I wouldn't want to use a lens that's razor sharp at all apertures for portraits.

Btw I'm not suggesting you're wrong to want a sharp lens, just trying to explain why I take a different view.

 

[DSLR noob]

To hide the "ugly" supersharpness in photoshop...... Filters > Blur > Gaussian Blur > radius 3 pixels

Also yes ANY focal length would work, but with a longer focal length, you have a more shallow depth of field, and with a 1.4 aperture, you have even less. Making beautiful bokeh shots. Hell flip it to manual and focus a centimeter in front of the subject for "soft focus"