Reading mode: Light Dark

Macro lens as a Portrait lens

Go to last post
EXDS

EXDS

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
308
Reaction score
5
Location
Redmond, WA, US
I've been thinking of buying a decent prime lens for some good bokeh when shooting portrait style shots. I was looking at the 50mm 1.8G but I just purchased a 35mm 1.8 and think the reach would be too similar. I found the Rokinon 85mm 1.4 and was hoping that I'd be fine shooting with manual focus quality as the lens seems pretty solid for its price. However, I've also been having a lot of fun shooting flowers lately and was considering delaying the portrait prime for a macro lens.

Unfortunately, I won't have the cash to buy two lenses for quite some time so I was wondering how well macro primes work for portraits. I was looking at the Tamron 90mm 2.8 and the Tokina 100mm 2.8. Would those lenses be somewhat comparable to an 85mm portrait prime stopped down a bit? Not sure if those lenses are a bit long for portraits on a DX body too though (I have a D5100). I was also considering one of the 60mm macros. Any input would be great. Thanks!
 
The Micro Nikkor AF-S 60/2.8G would be the perfect choice on your DX body... For my taste everything above 85-90 mm. on DX comes too long for portrait.
 
Thanks for the input. I took a look at the Nikkor 60mm 2.8 and the reviews look really good for its sharpness. However, I also noticed the Tamron 60mm 2.0 and it has a $100 rebate right now at B&H. If this lens has comparable sharpness to the Nikon, I might have found what I am looking for... I just hope I am happy with its length for macro use!
Giorgio_K said:
The Micro Nikkor AF-S 60/2.8G would be the perfect choice on your DX body... For my taste everything above 85-90 mm. on DX comes too long for portrait.
Click to expand...
 
one thing to consider when getting a macro lens is your 'working distance' when shooting flowers or bugs (or people!) ... you'll generally find it easier to get shots of bugs with a longer macro lens 105 for example (you are physically further away for the same macroness). but if it's flowers they don't tend to fly away and do just sit there patiently waiting for you to click away.

some people complain about macro lenses being tooooo sharp for portraits, bit of a non issue since softening an image is a lot easier than sharpening properly.

there is a general understanding that there is no such thing as a bad macro lens, so it just gets down to which one you prefer in hand and in price. I'm a complete Nikkor snob, but I highly regard the Tamron 90 as one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used, some whine about the plastic build.
--
I shoot with prime lenses
http://twitter.com/LensLineup
 
Wow, you are good! The only issue with the 60 F2 has been related to over/under exposure with the Nikon bodies. Not sure if this has been fixed. The lens seems to have better working distance than 60 F2.8 AFS and it is better for portraits due to the F2.
 
Thanks for the info everyone. Fantastic shots you have there Deepak Kaw. I think I am just about decided on the Tamron 60 f2. I just need to convince my wife to let me pull the trigger on it while there's a rebate going on :) I was supposed to wait a couple of months hehe.
 
The 60mm/2.8 micro AF-S is one of the best and sharpest lenses Nikon makes, whether you use it for close-up or for far field. It also has perhaps the lowest distortion figures of any lens Nikon makes, something around 0.2%. On your DX body, it would be a wonderful 90mm equivalent, perfect for portraits as well as for close-ups.
EXDS said:
I've been thinking of buying a decent prime lens for some good bokeh when shooting portrait style shots. I was looking at the 50mm 1.8G but I just purchased a 35mm 1.8 and think the reach would be too similar. I found the Rokinon 85mm 1.4 and was hoping that I'd be fine shooting with manual focus quality as the lens seems pretty solid for its price. However, I've also been having a lot of fun shooting flowers lately and was considering delaying the portrait prime for a macro lens.

Unfortunately, I won't have the cash to buy two lenses for quite some time so I was wondering how well macro primes work for portraits. I was looking at the Tamron 90mm 2.8 and the Tokina 100mm 2.8. Would those lenses be somewhat comparable to an 85mm portrait prime stopped down a bit? Not sure if those lenses are a bit long for portraits on a DX body too though (I have a D5100). I was also considering one of the 60mm macros. Any input would be great. Thanks!
Click to expand...
 
For an important lens like this, I'd get the Nikon 60 over the Tammy without a moment's hesitation.
EXDS said:
Thanks for the info everyone. Fantastic shots you have there Deepak Kaw. I think I am just about decided on the Tamron 60 f2. I just need to convince my wife to let me pull the trigger on it while there's a rebate going on :) I was supposed to wait a couple of months hehe.
Click to expand...
 
EXDS said:
I've been thinking of buying a decent prime lens for some good bokeh when shooting portrait style shots. I was looking at the 50mm 1.8G but I just purchased a 35mm 1.8 and think the reach would be too similar. I found the Rokinon 85mm 1.4 and was hoping that I'd be fine shooting with manual focus quality as the lens seems pretty solid for its price. However, I've also been having a lot of fun shooting flowers lately and was considering delaying the portrait prime for a macro lens.

Unfortunately, I won't have the cash to buy two lenses for quite some time so I was wondering how well macro primes work for portraits. I was looking at the Tamron 90mm 2.8 and the Tokina 100mm 2.8. Would those lenses be somewhat comparable to an 85mm portrait prime stopped down a bit? Not sure if those lenses are a bit long for portraits on a DX body too though (I have a D5100). I was also considering one of the 60mm macros. Any input would be great. Thanks!
Click to expand...
Got the Tamron 60/2 and am quite happy with it, despite the exposure thing. The Nikkor 60G is a great lens, but the 5 cm working distance at 1:1 makes it a better second macro lens than a first one. The Tamron 90 might not be too long for portraits, depends on style. Tokinas are manual focus on the D5100.
 
Before you pull the trigger on anything, I have one question: What sort of lens are you currently using? If you have the kit lens, Nikon's 18-105, I would suggest you experiment first. Take some portraits at 60mm, then take some at 85mm, 90mm, and 100mm. See for yourself what you like. Buying a 60mm lens because someone else does not like 90mm on dx makes little sense. Plenty of people use the Tamron 90mm for portraits and I have seen exceptional work with the Nikon 105 2.8. 60mm is certainly a classic choice, but it is not the only one.

The photozone link provides a pretty scary story. I have always been pleased with Tamron customer service. Maybe the European division needs a good shake-up.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brev00
 
I had the Tamron 90mm and I loved it. One of the sharpest macros out there, and a great portrait lens with good bokeh. I prefer it over the 60mm (except for the plastic). As for the portrait distance, everyone has their own preference. There are many that prefer longer distances, even on DX, such as 85-125mm, since it blurs out the background more. Each to his own, but I do highly recommend the Tamron 90mm.
 
I have the 18-55 and 55-200 kit lenses. I have tried at the 60mm and 90mm ranges and they both feel workable. The 60mm felt a bit more natural but I'm still pretty new to photography and have only owned my DSLR for two weeks. So my shooting style and comfort level at different lengths is still changing as I develop. I won't dismiss the 90mm as it's certainly possible I will enjoy shooting that long eventually. Thanks for the advice.
Brev00 said:
Before you pull the trigger on anything, I have one question: What sort of lens are you currently using? If you have the kit lens, Nikon's 18-105, I would suggest you experiment first. Take some portraits at 60mm, then take some at 85mm, 90mm, and 100mm. See for yourself what you like. Buying a 60mm lens because someone else does not like 90mm on dx makes little sense. Plenty of people use the Tamron 90mm for portraits and I have seen exceptional work with the Nikon 105 2.8. 60mm is certainly a classic choice, but it is not the only one.

The photozone link provides a pretty scary story. I have always been pleased with Tamron customer service. Maybe the European division needs a good shake-up.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brev00
Click to expand...
 
I like the 85~105 range for portrait on DX. In fact now that I have moved to FX I'd like to swap my 105 DC for a 135 DC!

The Tamron 90 is an excellent choice. I believe the Tokina 100 is also, but I have no personal experience.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk
 
Ahh I really wish I had the cash for a Nikon 105mm VR but I do not. I've been trying to read up on and understand the differences between focal length, minimum focusing distance, working distance, and 1:1 ratio. Please excuse my ignorance if I get any of it wrong.

I found that the Nikon 60mm has a working distance of 5cm, the Tamron 60mm has a working distance of 10cm, and the Tamron 90mm has a working distance of appox 12cm. I pulled these numbers from reviews and forum threads so I'm not sure if they are exact (The Tamron 90mm sounded a bit like an estimate).

So if these numbers are close to accurate, I think I could rule out the Nikon as my first macro lens due to the short working distance. But doesn't this also mean that the working distance of the Tamron 60mm and the Tamron 90mm are quite similar? If my understanding is correct, the Tamron 60mm would require the front element of the lens to be 10cm away from the subject to achieve 1:1 versus the Tamron 90mm being approx 12 cm away. So does this mean you would achieve a similarly framed image within 2 centimeters shooting distance between the two lenses?
 
EXDS said:
I found that the Nikon 60mm has a working distance of 5cm, the Tamron 60mm has a working distance of 10cm, and the Tamron 90mm has a working distance of appox 12cm. I pulled these numbers from reviews and forum threads so I'm not sure if they are exact (The Tamron 90mm sounded a bit like an estimate).
Click to expand...
The Tamron 90 has 10 cm from the tip of the lens, but a couple of cm more from the front lens element due to the "hooded" design.
EXDS said:
...But doesn't this also mean that the working distance of the Tamron 60mm and the Tamron 90mm are quite similar? If my understanding is correct, the Tamron 60mm would require the front element of the lens to be 10cm away from the subject to achieve 1:1 versus the Tamron 90mm being approx 12 cm away. So does this mean you would achieve a similarly framed image within 2 centimeters shooting distance between the two lenses?
Click to expand...
The framing at 1:1 at the same working distance is very similar (but not at inf of course). The Tamron 90 extends a lot at 1:1, while the 60 is a non-extending IF design. As much as I understand, the 90 shrinks the focal length considerably at close focus (as most old-style macros), while the 60 does not.
 
The Tokina 90mm f/2.5 is probably the best combination portrait and macro lens. It's an old manual focus lens, if manual focus is a viable option for you.

The Vivitar 90mm f/2.5 Series 1 lens is optically identical. Both are excellent in terms of sharpness.

Todd
--
http://www.ishootshows.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top