Reading mode: Light Dark

Portrait lenses (and a late-night rant)

Go to last post
D

David Whysong

Leading Member
Messages
585
Reaction score
47
Location
US
I'm going to replace my old D2h with a D800. I need to reconsider my lens selection so I thought I'd post to ask for advice. These days I'm mostly taking ad-hoc / candid portraits of an active (and uncooperative) 2-year-old. But I occasionally do landscapes and non-human wildlife too.

I have an 85/1.4D which is on my camera about 95% of the time. But I suspect I'll want something a bit longer and sharper on a D800.

I'm not completely pleased with the quality of Nikon's portrait lenses (85s and the DC lenses) primarily because of the significant chromatic aberrations, but I'm also not sure that there are significantly better choices. I really don't understand why Nikon didn't bother to put some ED glass in the new 85G lenses; I'd certainly expect it in a lens that costs as much as the 1.4G.

A 70-200 VRII would be ideal, but it's out of my budget for the near future. I have an old Sigma 70-200 EX HSM (pre-DG even) which is okay in some circumstances on my D2h but probably not as good on a D700 or especially a D800.

So, I'm thinking about either the Nikon 105/2.8 or Sigma 150/2.8 macros, for portrait use. Optically they are far superior to any of the standard portrait lenses, and the VR would be useful. The only disadvantage is focus speed, which is a consideration.

Am I missing any other good options?

--
David
http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=587727
 
I think the Sigma 150 has much nicer IQ for portrait than the Nikon 105 VR, and if you get the newer OS version of the Sigma it has much faster focussing too. Excellent choice. In fact I think I may sell my Nikon 135mm DC through lack of use even though I think it is a fine lens.
--
http://www.andrewsandersphotography.co.uk
 
David Whysong said:
I'm not completely pleased with the quality of Nikon's portrait lenses (85s and the DC lenses) primarily because of the significant chromatic aberrations, but I'm also not sure that there are significantly better choices. I really don't understand why Nikon didn't bother to put some ED glass in the new 85G lenses; I'd certainly expect it in a lens that costs as much as the 1.4G.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing that if Nikon did change the optical formula of the new 85s, they wouldn't do what they can do now. Which in the case of the 85/1.4G is to produce stunning sharpness across the frame while retaining the smooth background blur of the 85/1.4D.
 
David Whysong said:
I'm going to replace my old D2h with a D800. I need to reconsider my lens selection so I thought I'd post to ask for advice. These days I'm mostly taking ad-hoc / candid portraits of an active (and uncooperative) 2-year-old. But I occasionally do landscapes and non-human wildlife too.

I have an 85/1.4D which is on my camera about 95% of the time. But I suspect I'll want something a bit longer and sharper on a D800.

I'm not completely pleased with the quality of Nikon's portrait lenses (85s and the DC lenses) primarily because of the significant chromatic aberrations, but I'm also not sure that there are significantly better choices. I really don't understand why Nikon didn't bother to put some ED glass in the new 85G lenses; I'd certainly expect it in a lens that costs as much as the 1.4G.

A 70-200 VRII would be ideal, but it's out of my budget for the near future. I have an old Sigma 70-200 EX HSM (pre-DG even) which is okay in some circumstances on my D2h but probably not as good on a D700 or especially a D800.

So, I'm thinking about either the Nikon 105/2.8 or Sigma 150/2.8 macros, for portrait use. Optically they are far superior to any of the standard portrait lenses, and the VR would be useful. The only disadvantage is focus speed, which is a consideration.

Am I missing any other good options?

--
David
http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=587727
Click to expand...
How about the http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/06/Nikon_Nikkor_AFS85mm

85 f1.8
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/606-nikkorafs8514ff?start=2

Sigma 150
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/624-sigma15028ff?start=2
 
joejack951 said:
David Whysong said:
I'm not completely pleased with the quality of Nikon's portrait lenses (85s and the DC lenses) primarily because of the significant chromatic aberrations, but I'm also not sure that there are significantly better choices. I really don't understand why Nikon didn't bother to put some ED glass in the new 85G lenses; I'd certainly expect it in a lens that costs as much as the 1.4G.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing that if Nikon did change the optical formula of the new 85s, they wouldn't do what they can do now. Which in the case of the 85/1.4G is to produce stunning sharpness across the frame while retaining the smooth background blur of the 85/1.4D.
Click to expand...
In optimization, you don't obtain a better result by excluding a class of parameters, especially when those excluded parameters are the only means of correcting an aberration.

I'm guessing that Nikon hopes people will ignore the longitudinal error while correcting the lateral error in software (or in-camera). More profit this way too, since they can sell cheaper lenses for the price of expensive optics. ED glass is expensive.

--
David
http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=587727
 
David Whysong said:
joejack951 said:
David Whysong said:
I'm not completely pleased with the quality of Nikon's portrait lenses (85s and the DC lenses) primarily because of the significant chromatic aberrations, but I'm also not sure that there are significantly better choices. I really don't understand why Nikon didn't bother to put some ED glass in the new 85G lenses; I'd certainly expect it in a lens that costs as much as the 1.4G.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing that if Nikon did change the optical formula of the new 85s, they wouldn't do what they can do now. Which in the case of the 85/1.4G is to produce stunning sharpness across the frame while retaining the smooth background blur of the 85/1.4D.
Click to expand...
In optimization, you don't obtain a better result by excluding a class of parameters, especially when those excluded parameters are the only means of correcting an aberration.

I'm guessing that Nikon hopes people will ignore the longitudinal error while correcting the lateral error in software (or in-camera). More profit this way too, since they can sell cheaper lenses for the price of expensive optics. ED glass is expensive.
Click to expand...
Every design decision has tradeoffs. Nikon apparently chose to accept certain aberrations for a gain somewhere else. You think it's solely price, while I would tend to disagree. Note that Nikon uses ED glass in it's 18-55 kit lens. If ED glass was the cure-all, zero-tradeoff (aside from cost) solution that you believe it is, I don't think Nikon would have hesitated to add up to $100 (the retail price of an 18-55 kit lens) to the cost of their 85mm primes.
 
the 70-200 VR , hands down. Any other lens will be just money spent to keep the zoom away.

I like the 180 2.8 on FX , or the good old 80-200 but the real lens to get is the 70-200 VR (I or II)

sorry

now about the VRII there is one thing (that you probably already know): is that breathing that takes all the fun away in some circumstances. But you get a better MFD compared to the old VR so be it.
 
Hold on to your 85/1.4D until you've tried it on the D800. It may be fine for portrait sharpness esp in central area by f/2 or so.
Oh and in what kind of portrait lighting do you see such an issue with CA?

--
John
 
IMO, if you are using the 85mm 1.4 (d or g) on a modern full-frame Nikon, and you are not satisfied with the results, then either there is some user error involved or else you may never be satisfied. Your asking for a "significantly better choice" is kinda like driving a Ferrari and then saying "yeah, it's fine, but I really want a luxury car." In other words, my reaction is kinda "geez, what is it going to take to satisfy this guy?"
 
trickortreat said:
Hold on to your 85/1.4D until you've tried it on the D800. It may be fine for portrait sharpness esp in central area by f/2 or so.
Oh and in what kind of portrait lighting do you see such an issue with CA?
Click to expand...
Thanks John, I'll certainly be using the 1.4D for a while longer. I do use a flash indoors but my lighting is not well-controlled, and sometimes I'm shooting in bright sunlight.

CA can be an issue in any light, though. Lateral CA is certainly more obvious in high contrast or overexposure situations (the classic example being a bright sky seen through tree leaves) but longitudinal CA is often visible in ordinary light. I've seen it in photos from all of the 85s plus the 105DC and 135DC.

I just noticed, in the press release for the 85/1.8G Nikon claims that their coatings reduce chromatic aberration. Ridiculous.

--
David
http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=587727
 
SJShooter said:
IMO, if you are using the 85mm 1.4 (d or g) on a modern full-frame Nikon, and you are not satisfied with the results, then either there is some user error involved or else you may never be satisfied. Your asking for a "significantly better choice" is kinda like driving a Ferrari and then saying "yeah, it's fine, but I really want a luxury car." In other words, my reaction is kinda "geez, what is it going to take to satisfy this guy?"
Click to expand...
I'm not using it on a full-frame camera, yet.

I've been disappointed with the 85/1.4D ever since I bought it several years ago. In fact, I started a thread around that time and posted some pictures showing very harsh bokeh from this lens. Yes, I've taken some great portraits with it, but it is by no means a Ferrari of a lens. It suffers from significant aberrations (chromatic and otherwise) and the autofocus is not particularly accurate on my D2H.

What's special about this lens is the size of the front element, and it isn't made out of plastic.

My old Sigma 105/2.8 macro has better image quality. Yes, partly because it's slower, but it also has ED glass elements. In fact, the Sigma 85/1.4 uses ED glass and as a result it has significantly reduced chromatic aberrations, though perhaps the designer should have paid more attention to coma.

--
David
http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=587727
 
David Whysong said:
I've been disappointed with the 85/1.4D ever since I bought it several years ago. In fact, I started a thread around that time and posted some pictures showing very harsh bokeh from this lens. Yes, I've taken some great portraits with it, but it is by no means a Ferrari of a lens. It suffers from significant aberrations (chromatic and otherwise) and the autofocus is not particularly accurate on my D2H.

What's special about this lens is the size of the front element, and it isn't made out of plastic.

My old Sigma 105/2.8 macro has better image quality. Yes, partly because it's slower, but it also has ED glass elements. In fact, the Sigma 85/1.4 uses ED glass and as a result it has significantly reduced chromatic aberrations, though perhaps the designer should have paid more attention to coma.
Click to expand...
I'd suggest you sell the 85d, David. Put your money into a lens you'll enjoy, and, at the same time, let someone else enjoy your 85d. I used mine today for the first time in a month, and reminded myself why I like it.



But it's quirky and draws with an old fashioned brush. Definitely not the right lens for everyone.

--
Warm regards, Frank

Galleries at fdrphoto.smugmug.com
 
David Whysong said:
SJShooter said:
IMO, if you are using the 85mm 1.4 (d or g) on a modern full-frame Nikon, and you are not satisfied with the results, then either there is some user error involved or else you may never be satisfied. Your asking for a "significantly better choice" is kinda like driving a Ferrari and then saying "yeah, it's fine, but I really want a luxury car." In other words, my reaction is kinda "geez, what is it going to take to satisfy this guy?"
Click to expand...
I'm not using it on a full-frame camera, yet.

I've been disappointed with the 85/1.4D ever since I bought it several years ago. In fact, I started a thread around that time and posted some pictures showing very harsh bokeh from this lens. Yes, I've taken some great portraits with it, but it is by no means a Ferrari of a lens. It suffers from significant aberrations (chromatic and otherwise) and the autofocus is not particularly accurate on my D2H.

What's special about this lens is the size of the front element, and it isn't made out of plastic.

My old Sigma 105/2.8 macro has better image quality. Yes, partly because it's slower, but it also has ED glass elements. In fact, the Sigma 85/1.4 uses ED glass and as a result it has significantly reduced chromatic aberrations, though perhaps the designer should have paid more attention to coma.

--
David
http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=587727
Click to expand...
I second the 70-200 VR II as the better pro choice, I use a Canon 85LII which I love but as a working pro I would suggest the zooms be money better spent. Nikon lenses are not as flat as other brands like Leica, Canon or Hasselblad but the Nikon D800 with high reso, good low ISO DR is a significant +. Nikon concentrates on producing good zooms over good primes which suit pro use. 14-24, 24-70, 70-200 VRII you really can't do much better.
 
If you get the D800 make sure the lens has the resolving power to go on the camera. Without knowing your budget it's hard to suggest any lens because you will just post back it's to expensive or it's junk. Then you post or leave the impression that you will do landscapes and wildlife. In one lens or two? But if $2399, the cost of the 70-200 VRII, is to high then what? The 105mm f/2.8 is a great lens slow to auto focus and that's because it is a micro. I won't bother to comment on the Sigma except to say it's a macro and DC lens, Nixon's nomenclature is DX. You need an FX lens or lenses to get the full 36MP out of the D800. If your hell bent on buying the D800 you do have the "cream machine". Or sell the lens and D2h with the 85D i'd bet you could get 2k easy privately. I hope I didn't offend you.

--
(i)lmtfa added to amino acid for molecular biological studies
 
David Whysong said:
I'm not completely pleased with the quality of Nikon's portrait lenses (85s and the DC lenses) primarily because of the significant chromatic aberrations, but I'm also not sure that there are significantly better choices. I really don't understand why Nikon didn't bother to put some ED glass in the new 85G lenses; I'd certainly expect it in a lens that costs as much as the 1.4G.
Click to expand...
The 85/1.4G AF-S has much less CA than the f/1.4 D AF Nikkor and it's considerably sharper at f/1.4, plus its autofocus is much more precise. The f/1.4G is an extremely good lens for this application as well as for general photography.
David Whysong said:
A 70-200 VRII would be ideal, but it's out of my budget for the near future.
Click to expand...
It's too harsh in its rendering for portraits IMO and doesn't focus as close at 85mm.
Bokeh at longer distances (i.e. whole body portrait and longer) is busy.
David Whysong said:
So, I'm thinking about either the Nikon 105/2.8 or Sigma 150/2.8 macros, for portrait use. Optically they are far superior to any of the standard portrait lenses,
Click to expand...
This isn't true at least not for the 105 VR. It's a "ok, not great" lens IMO. It ignettes significantly at portrait distances, the rendering is saturated and contrasty, with biting exaggeration of skin blemishes IMO not good for a portrait. This is my personal experience - I know some use it for portraits in the studio where its rendition (as well as that of the 70-200II) can be managed with lighting.

I would recommend the 85/1.4 AF-S. A lens doesn't really get any better than this IMO.
 
jackpro said:
Nikon concentrates on producing good zooms over good primes which suit pro use.
Click to expand...
So the 24/1.4G, 35/1.4G, 85/1.4G and 200/2G are no good in your opinion?
 
lmtfa said:
lmtfa wrote:

I won't bother to comment on the Sigma except to say it's a macro and DC lens, Nixon's nomenclature is DX.

--
Click to expand...
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/150mm-f28-ex-dg-os-hsm-apo-macro-sigma

The sigma is an FX, not DX lens in Nikon's nomenclature. I'm not sure what Nixon used (grins). In either case, I hope the OP has very large rooms as shooting portraits with a 150mm lens on FX yields a field of view even smaller than the 85mm on his D2H.

150mm on FX at 10 feet - 2.4 x 1.5 feet.
85mm on DX at 10 feet - 2.7 x 1.8 feet.

-----------------------------
Mothman13
http://www.texasmothman.com
 
David Whysong said:
I've been disappointed with the 85/1.4D ever since I bought it several years ago. In fact, I started a thread around that time and posted some pictures showing very harsh bokeh from this lens. Yes, I've taken some great portraits with it, but it is by no means a Ferrari of a lens.
Click to expand...
I would humbly suggest you got a bad copy of the lens. The 85 1.4 is definitely a Ferrari, and if you are not getting top notch performance out of it, then it is either user error or in this case a bad copy of the lens. The 1.4D earned the nickname "The Cream Machine" for a reason, and if you're getting harsh bokeh from it, something is definitely wrong.
 
David Whysong said:
I have an 85/1.4D which is on my camera about 95% of the time. But I suspect I'll want something a bit longer and sharper on a D800.
Click to expand...
For portrait use, you may wait for the patented AF-S 135/1.8G VR, then. Or use a zoom.
David Whysong said:
I'm not completely pleased with the quality of Nikon's portrait lenses (85s and the DC lenses) primarily because of the significant chromatic aberrations, but I'm also not sure that there are significantly better choices. I really don't understand why Nikon didn't bother to put some ED glass in the new 85G lenses; I'd certainly expect it in a lens that costs as much as the 1.4G.
Click to expand...
You have clearly not tested the new 85/1.8G, and I suspect not a good copy of the old 85/1.8 AF-D either. CAs are small. But the bokeh and the general rendering may not be to your taste. Doubt if more ED glass would help for that, though.
David Whysong said:
So, I'm thinking about either the Nikon 105/2.8 or Sigma 150/2.8 macros, for portrait use. Optically they are far superior to any of the standard portrait lenses, and the VR would be useful. The only disadvantage is focus speed, which is a consideration.
Click to expand...
The Bugma (150/2.8 macro) is a great lens for portraiting spiders etc. IMO it's a bit to "clinical" for normal human portraiture use, that may have to do with the transmission characteristics too.
David Whysong said:
Am I missing any other good options?
Click to expand...
You might try out old AI-S lenses, like the 85/1.4, 105/1.8, 105/2.5. Personally, I like the 105/1.8 a lot, just a pity that it's not very good fully open.

For dual use as macro lenses, you might try out the Nikkor AF-S 60/2.8G and the Tamron 90/2.8. Myself, I would have tried out the DC lenses, but I understand that you don't like them. The best, inexpensive all-round alternative today, I think is the new 85/1.8G. Not the simplest to handle for portraiture, but it can give very good results.
 
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