Lenses, Coverage

[Shadowman]

I can't help but make a comment about the Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 I realize that most folks just love the lens but there are some bad copies out there. I bought one a couple of years ago and it had more longitudinal chromatic distortion wide open than any lens I have ever seen. Everything in front of the focus point was very purple and everything behind was slightly green. I immediately sent it back to Nikon who did nothing but adjust the focus setting and sent it back. I then called someone I trust at NPS who told me this was not that unusual for this lens but mine was on the extreme edge and Nikon wouldn't do anything about it. I asked how these lenses are successfully used in portrait work wide open. I was reminded that most portraits have nothing in the image that is closer than the focus point so the lens works.

I kept the lens for another year or so but it annoyed me so much every time I used it that I sold it at a loss and went back to my old 105mm AIS that works flawlessly.

Sorry about the rant but I do feel just a little better now.

John

I guess additional questions need to be asked such as,
1. Is the 105mm f/2.8 a portrait lens or is it a macro lens utilized for portraits?
2. What is a portrait lens? Is it a specific focal length or is it a specific set of focal lengths that render the model at their optimum form as seen by the human eye?
3. Can you use a macro lens which was designed to work at different positions from the subject and with specific lighting requirements and use whatever lighting source you desire when used for portraiture?
4. Do the defects or abnormalities you listed, chromatic distortion and aberrations, appear in macro images?

[krfessl]

I can't help but make a comment about the Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 I realize that most folks just love the lens but there are some bad copies out there. I bought one a couple of years ago and it had more longitudinal chromatic distortion wide open than any lens I have ever seen. Everything in front of the focus point was very purple and everything behind was slightly green. I immediately sent it back to Nikon who did nothing but adjust the focus setting and sent it back. I then called someone I trust at NPS who told me this was not that unusual for this lens but mine was on the extreme edge and Nikon wouldn't do anything about it. I asked how these lenses are successfully used in portrait work wide open. I was reminded that most portraits have nothing in the image that is closer than the focus point so the lens works.

I kept the lens for another year or so but it annoyed me so much every time I used it that I sold it at a loss and went back to my old 105mm AIS that works flawlessly.

Sorry about the rant but I do feel just a little better now.

John

John, I've barely used mine (just bought it in late Dec), so I can't yet comment, but that's quite a bad situation... They are @900.00 now and thanks for the heads-up... No apols necessary for the rant... I would have been fried myself and RANTED bigger. Nikon does tend to forget who pays their bills...

[krfessl]

I guess additional questions need to be asked such as,
1. Is the 105mm f/2.8 a portrait lens or is it a macro lens utilized for portraits?
2. What is a portrait lens? Is it a specific focal length or is it a specific set of focal lengths that render the model at their optimum form as seen by the human eye?
3. Can you use a macro lens which was designed to work at different positions from the subject and with specific lighting requirements and use whatever lighting source you desire when used for portraiture?
4. Do the defects or abnormalities you listed, chromatic distortion and aberrations, appear in macro images?

What he said!!! :-). John, 1, 2, 3 are what I was fishing for in an earlier post but too dumb to ask... And 4... I can guess what chromatic distortion is, but hope I recognize it should it happen to my 105... Thanks for asking the right questions... My 105 is a Micro-Nikkor, and I did think it was usable in macro (why I really bought it) and more situations... So happy to see what people say

[Shadowman]

What he said!!! :-). John, 1, 2, 3 are what I was fishing for in an earlier post but too dumb to ask... And 4... I can guess what chromatic distortion is, but hope I recognize it should it happen to my 105... Thanks for asking the right questions... My 105 is a Micro-Nikkor, and I did think it was usable in macro (why I really bought it) and more situations... So happy to see what people say

Keith,

Nikon has a weird method of labeling their lenses but a micro lens is a macro lens, so it can be used for macro photography.

[PhotomanJohn]

I guess additional questions need to be asked such as,
1. Is the 105mm f/2.8 a portrait lens or is it a macro lens utilized for portraits?
2. What is a portrait lens? Is it a specific focal length or is it a specific set of focal lengths that render the model at their optimum form as seen by the human eye?
3. Can you use a macro lens which was designed to work at different positions from the subject and with specific lighting requirements and use whatever lighting source you desire when used for portraiture?
4. Do the defects or abnormalities you listed, chromatic distortion and aberrations, appear in macro images?

The lens is definitely a macro lens and optimized for that purpose which I thought I would do more of than I have. When I used the lens for macro work, I always was looking for as much depth of field as I could get under the given situation so the lens was stopped down. As such, the aberrations were not an issue and the pictures were excellent. I can't say I ever used it wide open for a macro shot.

What really prompted me to make the post is that others had mentioned the lens being useful for more general photography like portraits. IMO, the sample of one I had was not useful as a medium telephoto unless stopped down. Pictures of such things as a plum tree with white blossoms would literally be bright purple if they were slightly closer than the plane of focus. I sent a bunch of "purple pictures" to Nikon service and they never commented.

So use the lens for what it was intended and you will probably be very happy with it. Again from my experience, if you want a general purpose lens that also takes excellent macro images, buy an older AIS or D version macro lens. Take this as only an opinion of one.

John

[Shadowman]

The lens is definitely a macro lens and optimized for that purpose which I thought I would do more of than I have. When I used the lens for macro work, I always was looking for as much depth of field as I could get under the given situation so the lens was stopped down. As such, the aberrations were not an issue and the pictures were excellent. I can't say I ever used it wide open for a macro shot.

What really prompted me to make the post is that others had mentioned the lens being useful for more general photography like portraits. IMO, the sample of one I had was not useful as a medium telephoto unless stopped down. Pictures of such things as a plum tree with white blossoms would literally be bright purple if they were slightly closer than the plane of focus. I sent a bunch of "purple pictures" to Nikon service and they never commented.

So use the lens for what it was intended and you will probably be very happy with it. Again from my experience, if you want a general purpose lens that also takes excellent macro images, buy an older AIS or D version macro lens. Take this as only an opinion of one.

John

John,

The reason I outlined those questions is because at one time I thought about getting that lens for general purpose photography as well as its macro capability. The only thing that stopped me was availability.

[Shadowman]

The lens is definitely a macro lens and optimized for that purpose which I thought I would do more of than I have. When I used the lens for macro work, I always was looking for as much depth of field as I could get under the given situation so the lens was stopped down. As such, the aberrations were not an issue and the pictures were excellent. I can't say I ever used it wide open for a macro shot.

What really prompted me to make the post is that others had mentioned the lens being useful for more general photography like portraits. IMO, the sample of one I had was not useful as a medium telephoto unless stopped down. Pictures of such things as a plum tree with white blossoms would literally be bright purple if they were slightly closer than the plane of focus. I sent a bunch of "purple pictures" to Nikon service and they never commented.

So use the lens for what it was intended and you will probably be very happy with it. Again from my experience, if you want a general purpose lens that also takes excellent macro images, buy an older AIS or D version macro lens. Take this as only an opinion of one.

John

John,

The reason I outlined those questions is because at one time I thought about getting that lens for general purpose photography as well as its macro capability. The only thing that stopped me was availability.

[RustBeltRaw]

Lex, I'm also thinking about a 200MM FX, based on some of the other inputs... What's, in your mind, the best glass for portraits ?

Honestly? That depends on the subject. Sometimes I want an undistorted perspective, and I'll reach for 160mm (100mm at 1.6x) glass. Sometimes I want to get weird, and I'll pop on a 26mm (20mm on 1.3x). Anywhere in between, plus longer and shorter, are all valid. However, if you're talking about fairly standard, traditional portraiture, I prefer slightly longer-than-usual lenses. 85mm full-frame equivalent feels a little short to me, so I lean toward 100mm+ focal lengths.

I can see 200mm being useful (Canon's 200mm f/2.8L II is definitely on my hit list), but the 105mm f/2.8 should serve you well for the time being. Unless you notice massive chromatic aberration problems, stick with that and work your new lights until you worry about additional glass.

Note that my favorite portrait lenses are my Canon EF 100mm f/2.0 USM, and a vintage Takumar MC 135mm f/3.5 (M42 screw mount version). If you want to mess with longer glass, a cheap way is to get something old and use it with an adapter. A bit of a pain, but fine for portraits. Telephoto primes get pricey fast, especially since Nikon's current 200mm options are a $1,400 f/4.0 (too tight for me, your mileage may vary), and a $5,800 f/2.0.

Long story short, you don't need more glass right now. Shed some extra gear, get a solid grip on your studio, then worry about it.

[Manfred M]

You might want to look at either the Nikkor f/2 105 DC or f/2 135 DC (DC stands for distortion control). They are in the $1K range and are two of the finest portrait lenses Nikon makes. Both are FX lenses and require the in-camera focus motor.

I have the 105 DC and love it.

[krfessl]

MORE GREAT ADVICE... thanks Lex and GrumpyDiver!

Yeah, anything over 1-15.k is nuts for me given all I've spent so far in the last month :-)

The 135 looks do-able $$-wise, (just came of B&H site) in the next rev of lens for me... as does the 180...

LOTS to think about, which is the whole point of asking! But, Lex, you sound like the CFO herself... "I want to see you use what you have before you buy more" (quote from last nite)... AND, you are both right...

btw, Lex, I get to Detroit a good bit... but been avoiding it for the past few weeks (in Cleveland instead, which is not much better)

[RustBeltRaw]

LOTS to think about, which is the whole point of asking! But, Lex, you sound like the CFO herself... "I want to see you use what you have before you buy more" (quote from last nite)... AND, you are both right...

Perhaps it's traitorous to say so, but I agree with her. Stretch your gear to its limits, then upgrade when finances allow and creative direction demands.

btw, Lex, I get to Detroit a good bit... but been avoiding it for the past few weeks (in Cleveland instead, which is not much better)

It's interesting here. Feel free to PM me next time you're in town. There's a regular group doing critiques down here.

[krfessl]

Perhaps it's traitorous to say so, but I agree with her. Stretch your gear to its limits, then upgrade when finances allow and creative direction demands.


It's interesting here. Feel free to PM me next time you're in town. There's a regular group doing critiques down here.

Lex, not traitorous in the least... When she's right ( which is often) she's right ... And I'd be broke if I didn't listen to her (hence the CFO designation)... Problem is after 36 yrs of marriage I can't put too much over on her... On the PM ... Will do!

[Pat Mann]

For studio work it would be hard to beat the 45mm PC-E. Of the Nikkors shorter than 60mm, it has the best resolution to the corners of the frame on FX (if not shifted - as you shift toward the edges of its image circle it drops like others). If you're doing product and studio work, I think you will want a lens that gives you high resolution to the edge of the frame and more coverage than your macro, which depending on the size of what you're shooting, may drive you out of your studio to get your image. You may also find the tilt feature useful in getting selective focus for product photography.

[William W]

If you want to make Portraits and assuming that you are using an FX Camera, then sell all superfluous lenses, and as a PRIMARY PURCHASE buy a very good 24 to 70 F/2.8 Zoom.

What are the dimensions of your Studio?


WW