This lens is to sharp for portraits

[jaomul]

What do you think? Is a sharp portrait softened a little in post not as good as a slightly soft portrait due properties of lens?

 

[fjrabon]

I always want to start with as much acuity as possible, it's easier to remove sharpness in post then it is to add sharpness in post

 

[Derrel]

I want a lens that is a "pretty" imager, more so than one that's designed to be uber-sharp. Case in point, the 85/1.4-D versus the 85/1.8 G series...the background bokeh of the older D series is softer, smoother, more appealing and it's a better lens for portraiture. The 1.8 G on the other hand is VERY high-resolution, but the bokeh is not that good...I in fact do not like its rendering on natural stuff like trees and leaves and shrubbery. It's actually kind of an ugly imager on people.

ANother lens that renders UGLY portraits is the 60mm 2.8 AF-D Micro~Nikkor...it's just not a pretty imager...the micro-contrast is high, and so is the color saturation. You see the same thing with a lot of the new G-series, like the 60 G and 105-G Micro~Nikkors...this reallllllllly super-saturated color, which on human skin can look clownish, as if the photog just took the files into software and slide the saturation and vibrance sliders to 75%....which exacerbates color casts, skin imperfections, and skin tone variations. This "new-Nikkor" look is fine for a lot of imaging tasks, but for pure portraiture, I think the way the background is rendered, and the way color is rendered, is more important than sharpness.

"Sharpness" is today, in large part a function of SOFTWARE sharpening, but it also comes from the low-noise, smooth, high-megapixel files we get out of 24 to 36 MP d-slr files; the amount of information in a 24MP files is significantly more than in say, a 10-MP file...the images at native size are approaching the size of a door...there's a LOT of information now, so the files have ample detail. The so-called sharpness of any modern prime made since the 1960's is adequate for portraiture, given the right approach.

There's room for soft, normal, sharp, and extraordinarily sharp lenses. I own some of each. For people pictures, I don't think there's much need to go to the extraordinarily sharp camp...it's a very minor return on investment, often for a lot more money. This is why the Lensbaby line, old Helios lenses, old 60's Nikkor 85 H's, 85 1.4 D's, and old Super-Takumars are all still sought after by certain segments...it's more about how "pretty" the image looks, rather than test chart lines/mm and stuff. Excessively overcorrected spherical aberration can boost sharpness, but makes the backgrounds look like crap...

 

[fjrabon]

I also agree with derrel. My original comment was saying I never look at a lens' output and think "that's too sharp." But I'll often time take nice bokeh and good color, appropriate saturation and contrast over the sharpest image physically possible.

To me there's no such thing as too sharp of a lens, but there are lenses that are ultra sharp but make compromises in other areas, such that I'd chose a less sharp lens over it.

 

[runnah]

I've heard that about that uber pricey ziess 85mm.

I don't think people want to see pores but I do agree with the idea of starting with the max possible and going down.

 

[jaomul]

These nicer rendering lenses seem to be disappearing off the market (except secondhand). I don't think I've read a review on any lens the last few years where ultimately sharpness was of major concern.

To many options, not enough coin

 

[bratkinson]

I've shot a couple of portrait type shots with the Canon EF 135 f2L. When looking at the results on my monitor, I could see the individual pores on their face. Fortunately, I only produced 4x6 prints on a couple of them and they never saw the rest. Knowing that lens isn't quite as sharp wide open (very few are) as stopped down a bit, I usually shoot at or near wide open to eliminate the pores problem. But I still remove pimples here and there when needed.