Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 vr2 or 135mm f2 DC for portraits?

[chuasam]

I'm sold on the lightness. Often the better picture isn't about technical superiority.
My partner shoots mostly with a 50/1.8
She uses almost a zen like approach to the lens; she doesn't even hold to camera to her eye and shoots it like an extension of her arm.

 

[hulk2012]

I'm sold on the lightness. Often the better picture isn't about technical superiority.
My partner shoots mostly with a 50/1.8
She uses almost a zen like approach to the lens; she doesn't even hold to camera to her eye and shoots it like an extension of her arm.

Finally. Thank you. And that's impossible with zooms. Primes let you become more creative. Once you know your focal length you just shoot intuitively. With primes you go and get the shoots. With zooms - the shoots are coming at you sometimes effortless.

 

[jaomul]

I believe an update to the 135 is on the way

 

[tirediron]

I want my images to stand out that's why I use only prime..

HUh? A'splain this to me Lucy!

All the sub-optimally framed shots that the prime lens leads to make the pictures stand out...."Ohhhh, this one I accidentally cut her feet off, but look at the bokeh!!!!!" Yea, it's just a half body shot of the two of them, I had the 135 on and coundn't zoom to get them in all the way, but just LOOK at the pretty background!" "Oh, the green and purple fringes around 3-D objects? Oh, that's the longitudinal color fringing the 135 DC has at f/2....isn't it pretty?"

Somehow people who grew up with no primes seem to think primes somehow magically make photos wonderfully "Better", and seem to think that one, single length of lens leads to "better" photos in some magical way. It's like a mechanic favoring a 12-inch crescent wrench in favor of a full socket set and a vise grip and a set of box-and open-end wrenches. We all KNOW that the best tool is the one-trick crescent wrench!

I'm not so sold on the superiority of a 25 year old prime lens design over that of a modern, high-performance zoom lens.

Moi aussi... I would challenge anyone to distinguish an image shot with a prime from one shot with a zoom at the same focal length under normal circustances. Granted a prime may be lighter and smaller, and in some cases have a larger maximum aperture (but how much shooting is really done wide open?), but then they're also less versatile. I see nothing wrong about being able to adjust my composition by turning a zoom ring instead of walking, or being able to shoot two different sets with one lens. Both zooms and primes have different advantages, but why limit oneself, and HOW does the use a prime lens (except for such things as the .95 Noctilux, or the 200 f2 wide open) make one's images 'stand out'????

 

[D-B-J]

I believe an update to the 135 is on the way

Wouldn't that be nice

 

[Patrice]

I've been taking photographs for 45 years, nearly all that time I only used primes. Why? Zooms were mostly horrible lenses. Fast forward to modern times and as I look in my 'ever ready' bag I see a FX with an excellent 28-70 and an equally good 70-200. Where are all those primes I used to use everyday - in the cupboard of course, aired only when the 'special' guests come visit.

 

[goodguy]

I'm sold on the lightness. Often the better picture isn't about technical superiority.
My partner shoots mostly with a 50/1.8
She uses almost a zen like approach to the lens; she doesn't even hold to camera to her eye and shoots it like an extension of her arm.

What a beautiful statement, equipment is very important but like we all say at the end its the operator that makes the picture.
You can do magic with basic equipment, no need to get too caught up with all the equipment, improving your skills will make so much more impact then a slightly faster or slightly sharper lens.

 

[Derrel]

Focal length and distance to the subject plays a big part in how a face is rendered. For those who want to learn more about this, this is a decent page, and it ties directly to the video: SAME GUY made both the written web-based page, and the video.

The Slanted Lens ? Episode 24 | KesslerU

And here's the video...and if you watch the video, you can see why a 70-200 is a more-versatile tool than ANY prime lens.

the video is entitled How Lens Focal Length Shapes The Face and Controls Perspective



The idea that "Primes let you become more creative," is wildly off-base. No, primes do not "let you become" anything, except LOCKED IN to their one,single rendering characteristic and their one, single focal length. Primes lead to images that ALWAYS look "the same"...same,same,same,same. What a prime lens does is it never varies its angle of view, so it forces the shooter to shoot from the same exact distance every time. Prime lenses allow the shooter to pre-estimate angle of view, and to shoot the same way, over and over, from distances he has come to know through constant repetition and constant use of a one-trick pony. You could say that using a prime lens allows the user to be very efficient, and to do the same thing over and over again, without much need for experimenting. That's not really being creative--that is working within the constraints of a lens that NEVER VARIES, that is always the same thing, year after year. I shot primes mostly for 20+ years. You need a LOT of them to be truly creative: I carried a 24,28,35,50,85,105,135,180mm, and a 200. And two bodies and a couple flashes. Total daily bag weight? 18.5 pounds on the scale with the 180 eliminated and just the light 200mm in the bag--and that was with 1980's SMALL, light compact Nikkor primes. Over 20 pounds with the 180mm/2.8 in the bag. Using prime lenses forces you to either work within their constraints, OR to take sub-optimally framed pictures in fast-moving situations.

Focal length flexibility and versatility is what a zoom brings; a prime brings the same angle of view every time, so you start to work in a rutted, routine sort of way, because--the lens FORCES you to stand X feet away to make Y kind of images. I do not see how that is creative; I see it as efficient, and possibly leading to work that is very much formulaic and or repetitive. I grew up shooting seriously in the 1980's before zooms were anywhere as good as they are now, and with basically a real upper ISO limit of 400, with shadow detail, and with primes that were very much sharper than the zooms of the day. I would not be surprised if the 70-200 VR-II is actually sharper than the 135/2 DC is at say f/3.2 to f/11.

Allow me an analogy: I have a wardrobe consisting of of five pairs of slacks, and five sport coats. I can mix and match.>>> 70-200mm zoom lens.

I have ONE single pair of gray pants and ONE, single gray sport coat. >>> Prime Lens.

Now, I will make the statement: Owning and wearing just the one pair of pants and the one jacket allows me to become more creative with my fashion sense.

 

[robbins.photo]

Ok, well now that most of the bonafide experts have weighed in, my take:

Primes are great if you need fast glass on a budget and want something lightweight when your walking around.

Zooms are great if you want versatility. The best option then? Well depending on what your shooting you can do what I did - and buy two camera bodies. I've got twin D5200's and a Black rapid Yeti dual camera strap.

When I'm shooting an event I generally have the 18-50 mounted on one, and the 85 mm prime on the other - both are lightweight and easy to carry and I have basically the best of both worlds, a nice versatile zoom and a medium length telephoto, I just grab whichever camera will do the job best.

When I'm shooting at zoo, my standard pairing is the 50 mm 1.8 prime on camera, and the 70-200 mm F/2.8 zoom on the other. Again, I have the best of both worlds - I've got a lightweight fast lens on the one camera which works great when I'm shooting indoors at the cat complex where the lighting conditions are generally draconian at best. I've got the 70-200 mm zoom (with a 2x TC that can be mounted as needed) when I need more zoom or a little more versatility and I've got a little bit better lighting conditions.

So now when I buy lenses I think more in terms of combinations rather than just considering a lens by itself. I tend to think of how I would use a lens in combination with what I already have and how useful it would be as part of that set.

Now granted 2 cameras would be overkill for a lot of folks, but for me it is a wonderful thing indeed - I can park at the zoo or the lake, prep both cameras with my selected lenses and I almost never have to change lenses again. When I'm shooting car shows, etc - I've got both a good wide angle and a medium telephoto on tap, all I have to do is grab the one I need and I'm ready to shoot. I don't need to spend any time changing lenses, carrying around other lenses in a bag, etc.

But the point here isn't that you have to have two cameras, it just simply that both primes and zooms have their advantages and disadvantages, and as a result I think your best bet is to have a mixture of both, depending on your individual needs of course.

 

[Derrel]

I just looked it up on the Nikon USA site. Weight wise, the new 70-200 VR-II f/4 AF-S model weighs 1.3 ounces more than the 135/2 AF-D D.C. lens. Price is probably similar on new vs new. I have not kept up on the prices. I seldom shoot people inside of 12 feet at anything wider than f/4.5 or f/4.8, and in fact, greatly prefer f/5.6 to f/7.1 for my portraiture. I prefer f/7.1 for a FULL focus from tip of nose to the back of the head with modern, high-resolution full-frame cameras. I'm way past the novelty and gimmicky appeal of the one-eye-in-focus-but-the-other-eye-out-of-focus look. So to me, the speed of the lens wide-open is irrelevant much of the time on "portraits".

If the camera is FX Nikon, you NEED some depth of field to avoid those amateurish-looking shots where the chin is OOF, or the ears are wayyy OOF, and the face is sort of half-in, half-out. That's pretty novel the first fifty times it's done, but it wears thin after a while. If you want to shoot outdoor,environmental portraits where the subject is actually free to move around, laugh, pose freely, and be animated, then you NEED the DF of f/5.6 or smaller (meaning like f/6.3 or f/7.1 or even f/8) to prevent blown focusing from showing up when you open up those door-sized 24 or 36-MP FX frames. Portraits means different things to different people, so it's possible that if by portraits a person means static, formal, non-moving, subject-nailed-to-the-floor studio headshots, then yes, the 135 DC is okay. But if by portraits you mean things like outdoor sessions, the lack of zoom on the 135 DC makes me leave it at home 90% of the time or more, in favor of the 70-200 or 80-200.

Check the color temperature, color signature of the 135 DC against a modern Nikkor, while you're at it; the 135 DC is a lens designed back in the era before digital, when uncoated studio flashtubes were the norm. My 135 DC is significantly warmer than my newer zooms are, but it looks okay with old, uncoated flashtubes, which I own a lot of.

 

[Designer]

Hmmm... I think I need a second camera.

 

[robbins.photo]

Hmmm... I think I need a second camera.

I love having mine, makes event or zoo shooting a real joy because I don't spend any time swapping out lenses and I've usually got pretty much just what I need without having to carry a big camera bag full of other lenses around. Worst case scenario I can always head back to the car and swap out a lens but for the most part I've never really had too at least so far.

 

[studio460]

I don't have the 135mm DC-Nikkor--instead, I bought the 105mm DC back when I only had DX bodies. I think the 70-200mm is an excellent portrait lens, but I wanted something a bit lighter, so I bought the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 OS, which I now use for 100% of my headshots. Compared with my 105mm DC, the Sigma is sharp and contrasty, and has more neutral color rendering, whereas the 105mm DC tends to be warmer, and lower in contrast (which is part of its charm). I shot some tests a while back which showed these differences more dramatically, but couldn't find them at the moment, so I just shot a couple of new test frames (where, unfortunately, these differences aren't as apparent):

Nikon D3s + AF DC-Nikkor 105mm f/2.0D.

Nikon D3s + Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro OS.

But it's a tough call, since the DC lenses produce a unique image, and with the DC ring in extreme positions, can produce some really nice effects (think 1970s Penthouse layouts). As I said, the 70-200mm and Sigma 150mm are both tack-sharp (with the 150mm being easier to hand-hold). The 135mm DC should provide just enough compression for most headshots on FX bodies, and be a bit easier to hand-hold as well. In the meantime, I'll keep looking for the other comparison shots I mentioned.

 

[greybeard]

Apples and oranges. If portraits are your thing, I think the 135mm will do some pretty neat things.

 

[hulk2012]

Apples and oranges. If portraits are your thing, I think the 135mm will do some pretty neat things.

With 135 f2 you can set Aperture at f8 and rear (back) defocus to f2 and blurr the background nicely still having in focus everything cos of f8 isn't it?
Somehow I'm thinking showing clients variety focal length of the same shoot devalue the images. Am I right?