Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 74,521   Posts: 1,645,621   Online: 932
      
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 54
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    8
    No problem what so ever. Head and head shoulder shots 70/200 2.8 VR, Head to waist 100 to 135. Full length 85 1.4. The 70/200 is my most used and versatile lens. If it's mature women portraits or babies I go with the 28/105 D as it's a bit, just a hair softer.

  2. #22
    polyglot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    South Australia
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    3,449
    Images
    12
    Zeiss Sonnar 135/1.8 and Planar 85/1.4, with AF for Minolta bodies. The latter is also available in an older manual version for other mounts.
    Last edited by polyglot; 10-16-2013 at 05:22 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    St. Louis, Mo.
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,219
    I loved my 100mm Zeiss for my 35mm Contax. Yes, it was sharp and showed every flaw in women of a certain age. I just used a soft filter on the lens when I wanted to smooth skin.

    If I were you I would keep the 105mm Nikkor and buy a couple soft filters to use when needed.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    131
    Quote Originally Posted by E. von Hoegh View Post
    No problem whatever. 105mm/f2.5 Nikkor P. The sharpness is not a problem, I also use a 16 1/2" Artar for a LF portrait lens. You can make a sharp photo soft, but you cannot do the reverse.
    That's my pick. It lives on my F6.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    NE Ohio
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    683
    Cosina makes an expensive one in that range--85mm-105mm--in Nikon mount, but I don't know much about its performance.

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Burnaby, BC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    710
    A portrait lens? Shooting portraits with a 35mm, I have, over the years, shot with just about everything from 24mm to 180mm. While my personal preference would be one of the 85/105/135 Nikkors (very sharp, flattering perspective, etc.), the subject's personality and/or the environment will often suggest otherwise...
    Some Nikons (F6, F5, F3P, F3HP, F2ASx4, F2A, F2 and a D800), with Ai/Ais Nikkors ranging from 15mm to 600mm; Leicas (M6X2), with Leitz glass from 28 to 90mm and a pair of Hasselblads (500c/ms), with Zeiss glass from 50 to 250mm. A bit of stuff for a no-longer practicing professional, but justifiable for a now-converted hobbyist who absolutely loves taking/making pictures.

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    240
    I use a 105 2.5 and a 180 2.8. Wide open the 180 is really nice.

  8. #28
    jnanian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    17,700
    Blog Entries
    7
    Images
    39
    i don't use a nikon with film but pentax, leica and olympus (half)
    and i use everything from a 28mm - 135mm to make portraits.
    pretty much any lens can be used as a portrait lens depending on
    the type of "portrait" being made ... stopped down wide open .. &c

  9. #29
    resummerfield's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Alaska
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    1,324
    I've always preferred the 100mm range for 35mm portraits, and currently I'm using the 105mm f1.8 AIS lens. A little soft and flat wide open, but that's what I'm looking for in a portrait lens.
    —Eric

  10. #30
    analoguey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Bangalore, India
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    956
    Images
    2
    Maybe it's just me- but, I prefer the portraits with less fussy backgrounds; if too fussy a background, I'd rather take that out of the equation, by moving around , light changes, etc.,.

    The first photo looks more flattering *possibly* cos of wayy more light? I actually find the middle photographs better to look at, but hey, ymmv. Or maybe just your preferred model! :-P

    On my Nikons I prefer the 135mm if I want good enough bokeh and to be at a distance to subject, I have also shot with 35mm and 50mm depending on what I needed. I suppose you've to decide what you like and go with it.

    I have a 105 f2.8 e and I find it ridiculously bad to use. Maybe it's just my copy.

    Quote Originally Posted by momus View Post
    I have examples. These I like. The first is w/ a Leica R 90 Elmarit, the next three are w/ the 85 2.0. I'm warming up to the 85 2.0. Maybe I just had some flat light on the first roll yesterday. I looked at some old photos from the 105 2.5's I owned (the old design seems razor sharp!) and I did notice that I was able to just get the front of the face in focus, but wow, it's too sharp for my tastes. The last one shows the occasional weird bokeh w/ the 85 2.0.

    Perhaps I don't need another lens, I just need another model like the first gal :}


    Attachment 75590
    Attachment 75591
    Attachment 75592
    Attachment 75593


    Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin