Portrait Lens

[tirediron]

...terrific lens for portraiture... as is the 85mm 1.4 (love that one!)

Mehhh... the 'D' version is MUCH cooler! :greenpbl:

Sure Grandpa, whatever you say! ldman:

Hi Kettle, I'm Pot.... you're looking kind of dark today!

 

[KmH]

As mentioned, there are a lot of different portrait types, so you need to have several 'best' lenses.

I had 7 lenses in my portrait lens suite:
24-85 mm f/2.8-4
50 m f/1.4
85 mm f/1.4
105 mm f/2 DC (Defocus Control)
135 mm f/2 DC
80-200 mm f/2.8
200 mm f/2

 

[table1349]

85mm f1.2 is an outstanding portrait lens. But then so is my 400mm f2.8. Working room is a bit differrent but the results are outstanding.

 

[Derrel]

Not sure what your budget is, but in terms of value for dollar spent, the new 70-200 f/4 VR Nikkor is going to be a very good deal. Top grade prime lenses are for the most part, now in the $1400-$1699 price range on things like the 35/1.4 or 85/1.4 or the 105/2 or 135/2 Defocus Control models, so...the f/4 zoom lens gives you all the lengths, from 70mm to 85 to 105 to 135 to 180 to 200mm...all in one, single tube. f/4 is amply fast, aperture wise, and the optics of the new lens are pretty good according to the reports I have seen.

The reason I like the 70-200 is for versatility and speed and continuity. Same color rendering across all focal lengths, since it's one lens and not multiple lenses. No need to change lenses. One filter size, one attachment size, and a nice weight to it--a lot less than a 70-0200 f/2.8. It's good on DX and on FX too. With a 70-200 you can find the right focal length to get the kind of background you want, in almost any situation where 200mm is long enough, and in more cramped places the 70mm end is pretty handy, especially on a DX body. I would not worry about the 70-200 f/4 as opposed to the 2.8, or as opposed to how one specific prime lens might be better at one thing.

 

[amolitor]

Is anyone except Angénieux building actual purpose built portrait lenses any more? That crazy thing they build for large format work makes me excited in all the wrong ways every time I am reminded of it.

 

[Derrel]

Is anyone except Angénieux building actual purpose built portrait lenses any more? That crazy thing they build for large format work makes me excited in all the wrong ways every time I am reminded of it.

Not sure if the Nikkor 105mm f/2 and 135mm f/2 AF-D Defocus Control lenses are still in actual production or not, but they are still in the current product lineup. Most people consider these to be designed as fashion/beauty/portrait lenses. They have an interesting front defocus and rear defocus control switch, with numbered settings and a zero mark in the center. Both lenses are also a bit warmer in color balance than many other Nikkor lenses, which is kind of nice when shooting on film. Nikkor lenses have long been cooler in color rendering than Canon, and much,much cooler than the Yellow-meisters, Sigma lenses. Neither of these lenses have the exceptionally saturated color of the ED-Nikkors, so the skin tones they produce are not so "fakey" as are the lenses from what I call the New Nikkor Line, meaning the new, AF-S G lenses like the new 60 Micro, 85/G, 105VR-G, and so on, which have this ultra-sharp, almost too-sharp, and very saturated color look and which were designed with the new 24- and 36MP digitial sensor models, and beyond, kept in mind.

 

[sarah_19_nz]

O.K a lot to think about before I splurge!... I guess the 70-200 f4 is prob going to be all I need BUT I hope I don't regret getting the 2.8 later down the track. The price difference is $3000 vs $2000. Seems these lenses are pretty versatile/allrounder lenses that will do almost anything from portraits, to wildlife to landscapes the lot! ?? Something I'll want to carry round wherever I go?

 

[Mach0]

O.K a lot to think about before I splurge!... I guess the 70-200 f4 is prob going to be all I need BUT I hope I don't regret getting the 2.8 later down the track. The price difference is $3000 vs $2000. Seems these lenses are pretty versatile/allrounder lenses that will do almost anything from portraits, to wildlife to landscapes the lot! ?? Something I'll want to carry round wherever I go?

If you shoot dx you can go with the 70-200 vr1

 

[table1349]

O.K a lot to think about before I splurge!... I guess the 70-200 f4 is prob going to be all I need BUT I hope I don't regret getting the 2.8 later down the track. The price difference is $3000 vs $2000. Seems these lenses are pretty versatile/allrounder lenses that will do almost anything from portraits, to wildlife to landscapes the lot! ?? Something I'll want to carry round wherever I go?

I am not trying to be a downer here but I will offer some observations re: the 70-200 f4 vs the 70-200 f2.8. Almost everyone I know that bought the 70-200 f4 ended up having buyers remorse later on. Understand the 70-200 f4 is a sharp, excellent piece of glass. All of those people ended up selling their f4 copy to get the added full stop the f2.8 provides. On the upside however, the f4, if taken care of can command a very good price if you go to sell it later on.

I am speaking of the Canon version as I have not used Nikon since my switch to digital so I won't attempt to speak to the quality of their f4 vs f2.8.

 

[sarah_19_nz]

Thanks everyone, gut is telling me to start saving and just get the 2.8... won't be for a while yet anyway. Thanks again. In the meantime my crappy 18-105 3.5 and my nifty 50 will have to suffice.

 

[Mike_E]

Is anyone except Angénieux building actual purpose built portrait lenses any more? That crazy thing they build for large format work makes me excited in all the wrong ways every time I am reminded of it.

I have a Tokina medium-tele designed by Angenieux that is a really nice portrait lens when stopped down to f2.8.

As a matter of fact I really haven't felt the need to get the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 because of it.






BTW, the Nikon 105mm f2.5 is a sweet lens.

 

[Mach0]

Thanks everyone, gut is telling me to start saving and just get the 2.8... won't be for a while yet anyway. Thanks again. In the meantime my crappy 18-105 3.5 and my nifty 50 will have to suffice.

The vr1 runs around $1300 to $1500

 

[sarah_19_nz]

Thanks everyone, gut is telling me to start saving and just get the 2.8... won't be for a while yet anyway. Thanks again. In the meantime my crappy 18-105 3.5 and my nifty 50 will have to suffice.

The vr1 runs around $1300 to $1500

I'm in New Zealand and I can't seem to find any VR1's ... there is one on out Ebay equivalent site for $1800 second hand. I'll keep searching though!

 

[Mach0]

I'm in New Zealand and I can't seem to find any VR1's ... there is one on out Ebay equivalent site for $1800 second hand. I'll keep searching though!

I don't know what shipping will run but try keh.com

 

[EIngerson]

Canon 18-55 kit lens on a 5D MK III. Boom! There it is.