Care to discuss portrait lenses?

So I have a Nikon 105mm f/2.8 and was just reading a blog about the 85mm f/2.8 being a pretty killer lens for portraits. How come the 105mm f/2.8 doesn't get considered as a good portrait lens as the 85mm does?

I don't really know why the 85mm made the 105mm into a paperweight. I still use my old Nikkor-p 105mm f2.5 and still love the DOF it offers. However I don't believe in rules about portrait lenses I've shot some decent portraits with my AF 50mm f1.8d as well as my 35-70mm f2.8d. And another great portrait lens is my old Micro-Nikkor55mm f3.5.

It really is about selecting the lens that fits your vision and perception of the situation and the desired effect. Portraits are more about what's in your head than what's in front of the camera, getting your thought into print.

McBeth Photography wrote: I don't really know why the 85mm made the 105mm into a paperweight. I still use my old Nikkor-p 105mm f2.5 and still love the DOF it offers. However I don't believe in rules about portrait lenses I've shot some decent portraits with my AF 50mm f1.8d as well as my 35-70mm f2.8d. And another great prtrait lens is my old Micro-Nikkor55mm f3.5.

It really is about selecting the lens that fits your vision and perception of the situation and the desired effect. Portrait are more about what's in your head than what's in front of the camera, getting your thought into print.

I know! HUH? You hear all this talk about the 85mm for portraits, but the 105mm get's kudo's for being a macro lens more than a portrait light. Matter of fact I've not seen anyone talk about the 105mm as being a portrait lens yet.

For the record, Steve McCurry shot what could be considered the most famous portrait, "Afghan Girl", with a 105mm f2.5 lens.

Good question though. Perhaps 85mm is very sought after these days because it's not such a long focal length that it makes portraits look overly flat or distorted yet you can put a more comfortable distance between you and the subject than a 50mm lens.

Another consideration, 100, 105, and 135mm lenses were very popular as portrait lenses in the days of film. With the cropped sensor sizes in the digitals these days, the 85mm essentially simulates these longer focal lengths.

I've shot portraits with 50, 70, 85, and 135 lenses, and I agree with McBeth, depends on the situation and your desired effect

Yasko wrote: For the record, Steve McCurry shot what could be considered the most famous portrait, "Afghan Girl", with a 105mm f2.5 lens.

Good question though. Perhaps 85mm is very sought after these days because it's not such a long focal length that it makes portraits look overly flat or distorted yet you can put a more comfortable distance between you and the subject than a 50mm lens.

Another consideration, 100, 105, and 135mm lenses were very popular as portrait lenses in the days of film. With the cropped sensor sizes in the digitals these days, the 85mm essentially simulates these longer focal lengths.

I've shot portraits with 50, 70, 85, and 135 lenses, and I agree with McBeth, depends on the situation and your desired effect

But then if you were shooting with a full frame camera, that 105mm would be exactly that.

I have a friend who is a professional photographer, he swears by the 85mm, but I just called him up and asked him about your thread topic. He says he uses both. The 85mm he says does give a tad more "crisp" in his photos as he put it.

Guess which lens I used here....

Its a personal thing I believe, depends entirely what you want to achieve, I have seen superb portraits taken with a 50mm lens

McBeth Photography wrote:

Guess which lens I used here....

105mm??

Looks like 105 but how can you really tell how close you are to your subject ? I have a 100mm lens that works well and I like the perspective it gives but haven't really used it with digital-only film

Steven.Powell wrote: So I have a Nikon 105mm f/2.8 and was just reading a blog about the 85mm f/2.8 being a pretty killer lens for portraits. How come the 105mm f/2.8 doesn't get considered as a good portrait lens as the 85mm does?

Steve,
the 105mm F2.8 is a Micro Nikkor & as such is optimized for macro distances, since that was the intent of the designers , it's only natural that it wouldn't be as good as the 85mm...Bear in mind that Nikon also has the 105mm F 2.5 which as stated above , is an excellent portrait lens, but it won't do macro as it wasn't designed that way...Another point about portrait lenses is that everyone wants a "sharp" lens, but they will show every imperfection on a woman's face & what woman wants that?

Scott said, "Another point about portrait lenses is that everyone wants a "sharp" lens, but they will show every imperfection on a woman's face & what woman wants that? "


It took me about a year to figure that out Scott, which is why I looked for and bought a "Nikon soft 1" filter to fuzz up the sharpness on my AF Nikkor 35-70mm 2.8D which is what I took the pic above with. 70mm focal length on a D70. f5.6 and bounce flash. I also cropped about a third of the pic off to re-frame the shot.

Basically anything between 85 and 200 is OK for portraits.

The most popular being 85 and 135. Canon's 135L is awesome for portraits and Nikon don't have anything to match it yet.

IMHO the best 85mm lens out there is the SIGMA 85 1.4... seriously, Sigma.

The Canon 85 1.2L is special, but it's over priced and slow.

THe Nikon 85 1.4 is probably just as good as the Sigma, but it's more expensive (about double if memory serves me correctly).

Sigma 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 also have really nice bokeh.