105 MC ahead of others for portraits?

Started 9 months ago | Discussions
DiscoDale Junior Member • Posts: 36
105 MC ahead of others for portraits?
4

Looking to get the new 105 MC to dive in to macro.

Just wondering if I got into portraits if this lens would be the go to for that too?

 DiscoDale's gear list:DiscoDale's gear list
Nikon Z7 Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 | C Nikon Z 24-70mm F4 Nikon Z 14-30mm F4 Nikon Z 24-200mm F4-6.3 VR +1 more
dreyko
dreyko Contributing Member • Posts: 637
Re: 105 MC ahead of others for portraits?
3

Not sure about the new version, but the old vr model was between 3.3 And 3.5 when you were close enough for head shots. For me that was always an issue and pushed me into the 85mm 105mm 1.4 and 1.8 lenses. 3.5 is dangerously close to an f4 zoom.

However if shallow dof is not your thing then it will be great. 105mm is a awesome focal length for full body down to headshots as long as you are not trying to obliterate the background.

If you use case is mixed, ie: macro, portrait, walkabout then it will be great, if you are a portrait focused photographer id get the 85mm 1.8 at current.

 dreyko's gear list:dreyko's gear list
Nikon D750 Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 60mm F2.8G ED Nikon AF Nikkor 180mm f/2.8D ED-IF Nikon AF-S Micro-Nikkor 105mm F2.8G IF-ED VR Nikon AF-S Nikkor 24-120mm F4G ED VR +5 more
Straz Regular Member • Posts: 329
Re: 105 MC ahead of others for portraits?

That was in my thinking when I bought the 105mm. I'd been thinking of getting the 85mm, but don't do enough portraits to need a lens just for that, besides which I also have the 70-200mm F2.8 zoom to do portraits with in a pinch.

My primary goal for the 105mm was macros. But if I now needed to do a portrait, odds are very high I'd grab the 105mm rather than the 70-200mm, if only to save size and weight.

If I shot lots of portraits, perhaps I'd have long ago also bought the 85mm when on sale at a good price.

 Straz's gear list:Straz's gear list
Nikon Z7 Nikon Z 24-70mm F4 Nikon Z 50mm F1.8 Nikon Z 14-30mm F4 Nikon Z 70-200 F2.8 VR +6 more
OP DiscoDale Junior Member • Posts: 36
Re: 105 MC ahead of others for portraits?

Straz wrote:

That was in my thinking when I bought the 105mm. I'd been thinking of getting the 85mm, but don't do enough portraits to need a lens just for that, besides which I also have the 70-200mm F2.8 zoom to do portraits with in a pinch.

My primary goal for the 105mm was macros. But if I now needed to do a portrait, odds are very high I'd grab the 105mm rather than the 70-200mm, if only to save size and weight.

If I shot lots of portraits, perhaps I'd have long ago also bought the 85mm when on sale at a good price.

Thank you, I think my occasional portrait means I’ll use this lens. I don’t have any 2.8 of better lenses so makes sense.

 DiscoDale's gear list:DiscoDale's gear list
Nikon Z7 Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 | C Nikon Z 24-70mm F4 Nikon Z 14-30mm F4 Nikon Z 24-200mm F4-6.3 VR +1 more
jjz2 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,886
Re: 105 MC ahead of others for portraits?
2

For most macro lenses I've tried, the contrast and detail is too high, which requires too much post processing on skin and hair. Also, they are slower, so less background blur, especially at half/full body shots.

I think the long end of a 70-200 2.8 would be better suited personally than most macros, and more versatile.. if just looking for more versatility.

One reason I use 105 F2 DC.

I used to use 85 prime, but that was when my main lens was a 35... I'm using 50 as my main lens now and wanted something a bit longer, so went with 105... 135 would probably work also, but harder indoors.

Most clients are more concerned about looking nice, not showing skin imperfections, rather than ultimate sharpness.

If using a macro for portrait, I'd definitely want studio lighting and heavier makeup.

All that being said... I am keeping an eye on this... as the 105 f2 DC for me really needs to be stopped down to 2.8 for good sharpness anyway... and Nikon is touting it as a portrait lens as well, though I'm not sure whether that's just to sell any.

 jjz2's gear list:jjz2's gear list
Nikon Z6 Nikon Z5 Nikon Z 24-70mm F4 Nikon Z 50mm F1.8 Nikon Z 35mm F1.8 +3 more
Kaj E Forum Pro • Posts: 10,225
Re: 105 MC ahead of others for portraits?

DiscoDale wrote:

Looking to get the new 105 MC to dive in to macro.

Just wondering if I got into portraits if this lens would be the go to for that too?

It has beautiful bokeh.

I rarely shoot at long focal lengths and have the Z 70-20 f/2.8 S for those situations. My most used lenses are the Z 14-24 f/2.8 S and the Z 24-70 f/2.8 S, and I hate bringing the weight and bulk of the 70-200 unless I know I am going to need it.

I am thinking about getting the Z MC 105 f/2.8 VR S as a "go everywhere" fairly lightweight "longer" lens for portraits and otherwise for me longer focal length. The micro capability is a bonus. The sharpness for portraits does not bother me the least, I anyhow post-process it to my liking. If you want to get is softer right from the camera, use a softening filter.

For me, 105 mm is preferable over 85 mm for portraits (more flattering for facial features).

Waiting for the MC 105 to become available.

-- hide signature --

Kind regards
Kaj
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member #13
It's about time we started to take photography seriously and treat it as a hobby.- Elliott Erwitt

OP DiscoDale Junior Member • Posts: 36
Re: 105 MC ahead of others for portraits?

jjz2 wrote:

For most macro lenses I've tried, the contrast and detail is too high, which requires too much post processing on skin and hair. Also, they are slower, so less background blur, especially at half/full body shots.

Would the same apply to the 50mm MC?

I think the long end of a 70-200 2.8 would be better suited personally than most macros, and more versatile.. if just looking for more versatility.

One reason I use 105 F2 DC.

I used to use 85 prime, but that was when my main lens was a 35... I'm using 50 as my main lens now and wanted something a bit longer, so went with 105... 135 would probably work also, but harder indoors.

Most clients are more concerned about looking nice, not showing skin imperfections, rather than ultimate sharpness.

If using a macro for portrait, I'd definitely want studio lighting and heavier makeup.

All that being said... I am keeping an eye on this... as the 105 f2 DC for me really needs to be stopped down to 2.8 for good sharpness anyway... and Nikon is touting it as a portrait lens as well, though I'm not sure whether that's just to sell any.

 DiscoDale's gear list:DiscoDale's gear list
Nikon Z7 Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 | C Nikon Z 24-70mm F4 Nikon Z 14-30mm F4 Nikon Z 24-200mm F4-6.3 VR +1 more
Kaj E Forum Pro • Posts: 10,225
Re: 105 MC ahead of others for portraits?

DiscoDale wrote:

jjz2 wrote:

For most macro lenses I've tried, the contrast and detail is too high, which requires too much post processing on skin and hair. Also, they are slower, so less background blur, especially at half/full body shots.

Would the same apply to the 50mm MC?

The short focal length gives you less background blur. You do not want to get too close with a 50 mm lens for portraits, it distorts the facial features due to perspective. That is why portrait lenses are longer focal length.

-- hide signature --

Kind regards
Kaj
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member #13
It's about time we started to take photography seriously and treat it as a hobby.- Elliott Erwitt

jjz2 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,886
Re: 105 MC ahead of others for portraits?

Kaj E wrote:

DiscoDale wrote:

jjz2 wrote:

For most macro lenses I've tried, the contrast and detail is too high, which requires too much post processing on skin and hair. Also, they are slower, so less background blur, especially at half/full body shots.

Would the same apply to the 50mm MC?

The short focal length gives you less background blur. You do not want to get too close with a 50 mm lens for portraits, it distorts the facial features due to perspective. That is why portrait lenses are longer focal length.

Yeah..85 is really the shortest I want to go for "traditional" portraits.... 85/105/135, 70-200 are all good choices depending on working distance, indoor/outdoor, flexibility, or available light.

50 is great for lifestyle and showing a person in their environment though... I use it more day to day, but if I need to get in close or really blur out the background, I opt for the longer lens.

Anything longer than 180/200 ish, I'm not a fan of...the compression is too strong and it starts to look like the person was just cooped out and pasted on a photo. It can also start to flatten their face too much.

 jjz2's gear list:jjz2's gear list
Nikon Z6 Nikon Z5 Nikon Z 24-70mm F4 Nikon Z 50mm F1.8 Nikon Z 35mm F1.8 +3 more
mga010 Regular Member • Posts: 406
Re: 105 MC ahead of others for portraits?

Just go to the DPReview page below and look for yourself if the lens is good for portraits or not.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/1968733722/nikon-announces-the-nikkor-z-mc-105mm-f2-8-vr-s-and-nikkor-z-mc-50mm-f2-8

 mga010's gear list:mga010's gear list
Nikon Z5 Nikon Z 50mm F1.8 Nikon Z 24-200mm F4-6.3 VR Nikon Nikkor Z 28mm F2.8
Kaj E Forum Pro • Posts: 10,225
Re: 105 MC ahead of others for portraits?

mga010 wrote:

Just go to the DPReview page below and look for yourself if the lens is good for portraits or not.

https://www.dpreview.com/news/1968733722/nikon-announces-the-nikkor-z-mc-105mm-f2-8-vr-s-and-nikkor-z-mc-50mm-f2-8

Yes, the portraits with the Z MC 105 mm f/2.8 VR S are good. I have also seen other excellent portraits with the lens, but cant remember the exact source.

-- hide signature --

Kind regards
Kaj
http://www.pbase.com/kaj_e
WSSA member #13
It's about time we started to take photography seriously and treat it as a hobby.- Elliott Erwitt

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads