As many around, need to decide on the best portrait lens

I have 135DC, considering your other lenses you may find it a bit dated. But if you are fine with a few short comings like fringing, haze and loss of contrast against sun, and possibly not being quite as sharp wide open as modern lenses, then you'll have a great lens for portraiture. It's character is quite different to modern Sigma's, but I myself love it and I use it with Nikkor and Sigma ART primes.

I don't see the DC is necessary to use for sharpness, it's in my experience either for fine tuning bokeh or for special fx. It's nice to have for sure.

For a more modern 135, I had Samyang 135/2 (manual focus) for a few weeks, but quite quickly exchanged it to 135DC, because I like the old school rendering and needed AF.

What about the new Nikkor 105mm f/1.4? It is expensive (I don't know what your budget is) but it seems to be excellent for portraits.

Well,

that is way out of my budget.

These are the prices I see on the (gray) market now:

Nikon 135 f2: 1.000 €
Sigma 85 f1.4 art: 1.150 €
Nikon 85 f1.4: 1.450 €
Nikon 105 f1.4: 2.000 €

Any of these would represent a strecth for my wallet anyway, but the 105 is not an option at the moment...

Curious also to see if the extra 300€ for the Nikon vs the Sigma are worth it or not...

girello said:

Well,

that is way out of my budget.

These are the prices I see on the (gray) market now:

Nikon 135 f2: 1.000 €
Sigma 85 f1.4 art: 1.150 €
Nikon 85 f1.4: 1.450 €
Nikon 105 f1.4: 2.000 €

Any of these would represent a strecth for my wallet anyway, but the 105 is not an option at the moment...

Curious also to see if the extra 300€ for the Nikon vs the Sigma are worth it or not...

--
Girello
https://www.facebook.com/Giorgio.Fontana.Photography

Click to expand...

I have the Nikkor 85 mm f/1.4D and I am very pleased with it. AF is fast and precise. They can be found new for +/-1000 €.

The 85mm f/1.8 G costs less than 500 € and seems to be excellent. If I had to buy a 85mm now that would be the one I would get. You've got that one already. Do you feel the need for f/1.4?

I have no experience with the Sigma but it is highly regarded.

--
Hans

girello said:

So, some questions to you:

1) Would such an upgrade provide tangible benefits in terms of quality in my pics?

Click to expand...

Possibly. It depends in part on your definition of quality. Compared to your 70-200mm f/2.8, these lenses will allow you more control over depth of field. In the case of the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art, at f/2.8 to about f/4 or so, you also see slightly higher so-called "IQ." I'm not one of those people who believes a portrait lens can be "too sharp," but past a certain point I feel that so-called "IQ" adds little to the quality of a portrait. Unless you have a specific look in mind which requires f/1.4, I feel the low-hanging fruit in portraiture comes from improving lighting, posing, focus skills, and (yes) make-up rather than optics.

As for the 135mm DC? I'm not going to sugar coat things. By today's standards, it's an "old school" lens. While the Defocus Control feature can still come in handy for environmental portraits, the relatively high levels of Longitudinal Chromatic Aberration (aka LoCA or Bokeh Fringing) with this lens can really spoil a "pixel peeper's" day. If comments from random internet posters are to be believed, then this lens model seems to prone to issues with calibration and adjustment as well. While mine seems okay in this regard, remember I'm just another random internet poster. People can and do create stunning portraits with it (see above) but technically it's showing its age significantly more than Canon's 135mm f/2L.

I dislike using an xx-200mm f/2.8 for portraiture for a couple of size-related reasons. First, it's a bit less comfortable for me to use than a prime. I even fit it a bit awkward on a tripod. Second, some children (and even the odd adult) find it intimidating. On more than one occasion this has resulted in an unnaturally stiff look to the final shot.

girello said:

2) Do you have links to great galleries made with the 135 f2 DC and Sigma 85 art?

Click to expand...

Most of my portrait "stuff" with the 135mm DC predates modern dSLR's. While I own an 85mm f/1.4 Sigma, it's the pre-Art version. Benjamin Kanarek has posted some great stuff here from the 135mm DC as well as from the 85mm f/1.8G.

girello said:

3) Are there great reviews/comparison you could share, to help me taking this decision?

Click to expand...

First, decide whether you want a 135mm lens, a different 85mm lens, or both. Your experience with your 70-200mm is your best guide here. If you decide you want a 135mm lens, in my opinion there are three legitimate alternatives to the 135mm f/2 DC.

• Continue using your 70-200mm while waiting for a modern AF alternative. Now that Nikon's delivered the 105mm f/1.4 and with both Tamron and Sigma producing high quality 85mm portrait primes I think this more than just wishful thinking.
• Buy the Samyang 135mm f/2. This is a "dumb" manual focus lens, but offers great optical performance for the money.
• Buy the Zeiss 135mm f/2 in either ZF.2 or Milvus guise. This is a "buy once/cry once" purchase for someone who expects to shoot dozens of studio-style portrait sessions a year with it.

105mm f2.5, shot at optimum f4 aperture f4, any AI or later AF version of this legendary lens.

PSCL1 said:

105mm f2.5, shot at optimum f4 aperture f4, any AI or later AF version of this legendary lens.

Click to expand...

I'm not aware of an autofocus version of the 105mm f/2.5. Any AF lens of that focal length is going to be internal focusing, requiring a different optical design and almost certainly having a different look. There are some AF 105mm Micro Nikkors but those have no relation to the 105mm f/2.5.

The 105mm f/2.5 is still my favorite portrait lens but I don't do well focusing it manually; I generally use my 85mm f/1.8G because most of the pictures from it are in focus.

Longer is better and my top choice for portraits with 35mm film and full frame cameras has always been a 105mm lens. I use the 105mm f/2 DC lens which is exceptional both in IQ and in its providing the DC functionality. Second choice is the 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom lens.

I owned a 85mm lens when I was shooting with Nikon DX cameras where it functioned like a 135mm prime and I hated using it with its limitations from an overly long focal length. The 105mm focal length is short enough to work indoors where camera to subject distances are limited.

A 50mm with a good 2x TC. Softens just enough to keep women from complaining about their crows feet, blemishes, and other skin flaws.

Leonard Migliore said:

PSCL1 said:

105mm f2.5, shot at optimum f4 aperture f4, any AI or later AF version of this legendary lens.

Click to expand...

I'm not aware of an autofocus version of the 105mm f/2.5. Any AF lens of that focal length is going to be internal focusing, requiring a different optical design and almost certainly having a different look. There are some AF 105mm Micro Nikkors but those have no relation to the 105mm f/2.5.

The 105mm f/2.5 is still my favorite portrait lens but I don't do well focusing it manually; I generally use my 85mm f/1.8G because most of the pictures from it are in focus.

--
Leonard Migliore

Click to expand...

Why not the micro 105? ....

FYI here would be my ranked portrait lenses list based on Image quality, not size or ease of use (>200mm excluded due to not commonly used for portraits):

1. Nikon 200 f/2 VR, zeiss otus 85mm (big $ of course)

2. Nikon 105 1.4g (as you stated, it's spendy)

3. nikon 85 1.4g, zeiss 85 milvus (I found Milvus hard to nail focus but IQ is Excellent)

4. Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 Fl (expensive as you know already), 70-200 f/2.8 VRII ($1300 used)

5. Zeiss 100 f/2 Makro ($750-$900 used)

Unable to rank as I have not shot them- Tamron 85, Sigma 85, I would definitely check into the Tamron. I haven't shot it but judging by the 35 VC, which has excellent sharpness and Bokeh (very hard to get in a 35mm) I would look for sample photos from the Tamron 85 VC Their new design primes seem to be very very good.

Personally I would use any of the above lenses over the older DC lenses. I like those lenses but they are very unforgiving so needs very consistent, excellent technique to get good shots (note that a controlled environment such as well lit studio/non-moving subjects helps mitigate this need for super attention to technique).

What about the old nikon 85 1.4 d? I bought a used copy after returning the 85 1.8g and am very pleased with its rendering and sharpness. It´s my most used portrait lens (I have the 135 f2 dc as well, but that focal lengh is more limiting IMO).

Cineast said:

What about the old nikon 85 1.4 d? I bought a used copy after returning the 85 1.8g and am very pleased with its rendering and sharpness. It´s my most used portrait lens (I have the 135 f2 dc as well, but that focal lengh is more limiting IMO).

Click to expand...

I have the 85/1.4D also and even tho it renders beautifully, it's also an old school lens. It flares and hazes like crazy when shooting against sun. Kind of ruined one of my portrait shoots once. Other than that I find it great, bokeh and sharpness are top notch, but honestly haven't used it very much after getting Nikkor 58/1.4G.

You should be able to find galleries for any of these lenses by typing the name followed by "flickriver". Eg


As for the rest: everything depends on your personal style. Eg do you want flatter perspective?

I'd suggest trying a trial version of Capture One and perhaps some other alternative raw developers as a possible alternative to a lens purchase.

Take a look at DxO range for the new Tamron SP 85mm f1.8 VC. Pretty awsome result.....and it has VC.

incoherent1 said:

Why not the micro 105? ....

Click to expand...

The 105mm Micro-Nikkors share very little with the 105mm f/2.5 except (roughly) the same focal length, so the "legendary" status of the latter lens doesn't carry over.

I'll keep this short, as I've given details elsewhere. The older "screwdriver" 105mm micro lenses don't have a lot of advantages for portraiture. They are significantly harder to focus at portrait distances, no faster than an xx-200mm f/2.8, and IMO the bokeh is a bit harsh. The current 105mm VR has better bokeh and allows easier application of "touch-up" manual focus, but is much larger and heavier than a 105mm f/2.5. It's "good enough" as a portrait lens that I haven't seriously considered buying another 105mm prime, but I wouldn't suggest buying it unless you plan to do a significant amount of close-up photography as well.

I'll take a contrarian view. I wouldn't even bother upgrading if you are just moving from 1.8 to 1.4 and keeping the same focal length. It's just not a $1,000 upgrade. IMHO.

You noted that the 105MM/1.4 out of reach. Well, it's $500 more than the 85MM/1.4. Save up for a few more months.

As someone who owns both a 85MM/1.8 and a 105MM 1.4 I can say you will see a truly material difference in the compression you will get in portraits. That extra 20MM matters as much as the move from 1.8 to 1.4. Focal length matters. Compression matters. Together they truly matter.

You already have a great portrait kit with the 85 and 70-200 so you should focus on buying something where you will note a material difference that may impact your style -- not a step change.

When in doubt, rent first!

105 f2d DC

The main thing I look for in a portrait lens is focus transition. Sharpness is like #4 or further down on the list (and corner sharpness isn't even a consideration...). The reason transitions are so important is when you shoot a shallow DOF portrait, what is in front and behind the focus plane MUST be smooth yet still retain some detail or it just looks weird.

So, my go to portrait lenses are:

105mm F2 DC

85mm f1.4D

58mm f1.4G

35mm f1,4G

I can't speak on the new 105mm f1.4, but given I mainly shoot at around f2.2-2.9, I can't see spending the $$$ right now. And when I was choosing between the 105 and the 135 DC, I noted a lot fewer complaints about misfocus with the 105 for some reason.

The older 85 1.4D really is an amazing lens and while the newer optics have sharper corners, for portraits I like this old lens better.

The 58 is, well it's just epically good for this application. The fast 35G is also quite good for group portraits.