Photography
Related: About this forumQuestion for any Nikon shooters.
I'm getting set to purchase an 85mm lens for portraiture.
So far I have looked at the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG HSM ART, the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF AF Telephoto, and the Tamron SP 85mm f/1.8 Di VC.
The Sigma is large, heavy and has no image stabilization (I don't think the Nikon does either) but I expect this to be on the tripod much of the time.
Wondering if anyone here has made a choice between any of these, and whether you are happy with it.
Thank you
and Happy New Year to the DU Photo group. I wish you all the very best in the coming year.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,297 posts)I have not used any of these lenses; however, I do know that the Nikkor ones are extremely well made. (I was going to get a Nikkor but they did not make the zoom I wanted, so I bought the Tamron zoom instead.)
Best of luck, and whatever you get, I hope you will share whatever images you get!
Adsos Letter
(19,459 posts)Are you happy with the Tamron?
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,297 posts)The photo I entered in this month's contest was taken with it.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)So no knowledge on the nikkor lenses, but I have been happy with my Sigma 150-500mm and my Tamron 18-400mm the I purchased this year. That said Im not all that good at photography but hit a decent shot once in awhile.
Adsos Letter
(19,459 posts)Well, I'm in the same boat. I don't study the technical side of it enough, nor get out and practice enough. I get the editing wrong more often than not.
I also own a Sigma lens (50-100mm F1.8) for my D7100, and I like it very much even without image stabilization, which is why I'm considering the Sigma.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)For the all in one lens at 400mm. If Sigma would have had one I would have bought it. I had a 18-270 from them that I liked but wanted the longer reach and I do one expensive camera purchase a year. I have found the best deals are in the Easter to Fathers Day time frame so might be worth holding off awhile.
CaliforniaPeggy
(149,297 posts)Small world, hey?
It's a great lens. I love being able to take all sorts of shots without having to change lenses!
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)I havent used it as much as I would have liked, but hopefully soon.
edbermac
(15,919 posts)Have a Nikon 24-120 and a Nikon 85 1.8 now for a D750.
I bought a used 70-300 Sigma for my crop sensor D70s, way too clunky, I rarely used it.
Adsos Letter
(19,459 posts)I have the Sigma 50-100mm for my D7100, and I love it, but it's heavy.
edbermac
(15,919 posts)Another is B&H. I get an idea of what I want and check the user ratings. Another is a page for https://kenrockwell.com
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)This is a bit strange now that I think about it because I've owned a shitton of Nikkor primes and I have done a shitton of portraiture over the years and various versions of the 85mm have always been quite popular for portraiture.
So I can't answer your question, but might have another suggestion and have other thoughts on the subject.
My hands down all time favorite Nikkor portrait lens is the 135/2 DC. There's also the 105/2 DC which is the little brother to this lens which I've never owned. Before I got this one I owned the 105/2.5 AiS which was my previously favorite portrait lens. I've also done a fair amount of portraiture with my 180/2.8 AF-D.
As you can see I prefer longer lenses than the 85mm for portraiture and there's a few reasons for this. Longer lenses give you more subject isolation (notice how I didn't say DoF). Subject isolation, bokeh, sharpness, and field of view are all things I'm looking for in a portrait lens. There are some professional portrait photographers who will go with even much longer lenses, but for my purposes 105-180mm is the sweet spot. That being said almost all of my portraiture is either outdoors or on location in very big rooms, so space isn't really a problem. Most of my portraiture is head shots. So if I were doing portraiture either for full body shots, multiple people, and/or in more confined spaces I might rethink the usefulness of 85mm, but personally I've never had much use for that focal length.
Another lens to consider is the 70-200/2.8 VR. I have the original version of this lens and I've used it a little for portrait work. Nikkor makes a newer version and there's a few non-OEM versions of it. It's a big honkin lens, but if you're on a tripod it's no big deal. I think it does a very nice job at 85mm and it gives you the option of easily zooming in tighter with the advantages that come with that. If I found myself needing 85mm quite a bit, this would probably be my primary portrait lens. The big down side here is that it's two stops slower than a 1.4, but it does perform quite well wide open in my experience.
Adsos Letter
(19,459 posts)You've given me a lot to consider.
I own the Nikkor 85mm DX for my D7100 (and I could use that combo) but I'm looking for something to pair with the D810. I also looked at the Tamron, but I have concerns about the need to fine-tune the AF at the outset (I'm pretty much all thumbs with that stuff).
I think I'll take a look at the Nikon 105mm f/2 DC.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)Pros and by extension many serious amateurs gravitate towards super sharp and super fast portrait lenses. One of the reasons for this is with all other things being equal, wider aperture lenses also tend to be sharper at a given f-stop. At wider f-stop settings, subject isolation becomes more dramatic. So what you get when shooting wide open or nearly so with these really nice lenses is a super sharp eyeball and a highly blurred background. This draws the attention right where you want it and makes for a more pleasing portrait.
Those are typically the portraits everyone wants to produce. But here's the problem you run into. With very wide aperture settings the precise focal point becomes extremely narrow, perhaps as little as a millimeter or two in some instances. So precise focusing becomes a real problem. Miss the focal point on the eyeball and you don't get a super sharp eyeball and a millimeter can make the difference between a really fantastic portrait and an average one even if you get everything else right which has all sorts of other challenges.
If that's what you're after, fine tuning the AF becomes almost essential particularly with shorter lenses(more on that later). You might get lucky and an out of the box lens is perfectly calibrated with your camera and maybe some lenses tend to be better about this than others, but I'm not sure if there's any AF lenses out there that are immune from focusing calibration errors and remember also the camera itself has a lot to do with it. Like you, I'm not all that great at fine tuning AF. I've done it and I can do it, but I don't get the greatest results. I actually like using manual focus with a nice focusing screen as much as I can. For me I'm just more comfortable shooting that way which is another reason I really love my 135/2. Most AF lenses suck at MF, but the 135/2 is one of those rare exceptions. I suspect the 105/2 is the same.
The important thing to realize is it isn't DoF that you're after, it's subject isolation. Subject isolation becomes greater the narrower the DoF with all other things being equal, but at different focal lengths all things aren't equal. So what if you could get a more forgiving focus with more DoF, but the same level of subject isolation? Well that's exactly what happens with longer lenses assuming the frame size is the same. That's why I love longer lenses for portraiture. The down side is you have to back up more and sometimes space is an issue. You can try this yourself with a zoom lens. With a fixed subject try a zoom lens at different focal lengths with the aperture the same. Move the camera back as you zoom to keep the subject the same size. Then evaluate each for subject isolation.
Adsos Letter
(19,459 posts)Much to think about and to learn. I really need to get serious about the technical end of cameras, lenses, and photography in general.
I struggle with Manual focus when using the viewfinder, so I guess it's time to accustom myself to using the zoom function in live view when the camera is on the tripod.
The Nikkor 105mm f/2 DC may be what I go with.
Thank you again for such an informative and helpful answer.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)I went with an aftermarket Katzeye the last time I got one, but they are out of business. There's down sides to using them on modern cameras which is why Nikon doesn't make them anymore.
I'm really not sure how people are doing MF these days, at least with any high degree of precision. There's probably techniques with which I'm not aware. My technique with MF and a split prism is pretty simple. I adjust the focus till it's close and move the camera in and out until the split circle lines up. When the camera is on a tripod you have to use the focus ring so sometimes it's not worth doing.
ManiacJoe
(10,136 posts)especially from Major Nikon.
It is been a long time since I looked at any of the 85mm offerings. While the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 seems to be the standard that lenses for Nikon get judged by, most of the folks I have talked/typed to all seem to agree that in the real world's end result, the difference between the f/1.4 and f/1.8 lenses are not usually distinguishable by the human eye. Thus the recommendation usually ends up being "save your money, get the f/1.8".
Adsos Letter
(19,459 posts)And I thank you for weighing in, ManiacJoe.
Yes, Major Nikon went out of his way to provide a lot of help, and I'm grateful for it.
Thank you for the heads up on the f/1.4-f/1.8 issue. It makes a lot of sense. I don't own any lenses faster than f/1.8, and they have always met my needs. I don't mind laying out money for a really decent lens, although it's also an issue of justifying what I would like against my skill level (which is not very high).
Thanks again. Would love to see you posting more of your work, as it's always very good.