 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Photo Technique / People Photography / February 2004bokeh in portraits - best lens in nikon range
What to buy for spectacular portraits for Nikon? I have F100 and Fuji S2 ( x1,4). Lens should work with full frame body (F100 and some digital SLR). Small sensor of Fuji camera will not be an issue next year when I'll sell it. Lens will be used many years What about Nikkors: 105 DC 135 DC 105 2,5 What's the best and what are you ranking? -- Jan Werbiński O0oo....._[:]) bul, bul, bul Strona domowa http://www.janwer.com/ Nasza sieć http://www.fredry.net/ those lenses are double the 'normal' focal length, a good rule of thumb for portrait work, (actually 42mm is the true normal lens as typically defined by the diagonal of the film frame, as early 35mm cameras featured, it was moved to 50mm cause it was easier to design a lens far enough forward of the mirror, which is why the 85mm is what I consider the optimum portrait lens.) since most digi cams have a smaller chip size, you might want to consider a 55mm lens. > What to buy for spectacular portraits for Nikon? I have F100 and Fuji S2 ( > x1,4). [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Strona domowa http://www.janwer.com/ > Nasza sie? http://www.fredry.net/ >those lenses are double the 'normal' focal length, a good rule of thumb for >portrait work, (actually 42mm is the true normal lens as typically defined >by the diagonal of the film frame, as early 35mm cameras featured, it was >moved to 50mm cause it was easier to design a lens far enough forward of the >mirror, Early 35mm cameras didn't even have reflex viewing, let alone a mirror box. The 50mm lens was in common use at the time as the "standard" lens for the standard 35mm motion picture format, 18x24mm. This format was doubled to 24x36mm in the Leica. Movie makers seemed to like the flatter perspective of the slightly narrower angle of view See http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005KKi Rick > >those lenses are double the 'normal' focal length, a good rule of thumb for > >portrait work, (actually 42mm is the true normal lens as typically defined [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > See http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005KKi that is probably true, I was just thinking of some of the Leicas and zeiss cameras that tend to feature a 42mm as normal vs the slr that is typically 50mm >> Early 35mm cameras didn't even have reflex viewing, let alone a mirror >> box. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >cameras that tend to feature a 42mm as normal vs the slr that is typically >50mm Sorry, those early, pre-WWII Leica and Zeiss Ikon cameras were not SLRs. The Contax S (circa 1948) was the first SLR to have a pentaprism and the M42 mount. The Leicaflex did not come out until 1964 and did not even have an M42 mount. And no Leica camera ever did. The 50mm focal length was long in use in cinematography when the first Leica came out in 1925. However, a focal length around 40-45mm does appeal more to me as a normal lens than the 50mm, which can be a little too tight at times. Rick >>> Early 35mm cameras didn't even have reflex viewing, let alone a mirror >>> box. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > >Rick "Standard" 35mm lenses have varied from 38mm to 58mm or perhaps even more. As far as portraiture and fashion photography goes, the idea of what is an "ideal" focal length tends to change with whatever is in vogue at the moment. Right now it is fashionable to use long lenses to achieve the desired "flat" look that distances the viewer from the model. It's common for fashion shooters to use quite long teles (up to 600mm) to exaggerate the "flat look." >those lenses are double the 'normal' focal length, a good rule of thumb for >portrait work, (actually 42mm is the true normal lens as typically defined >by the diagonal of the film frame, as early 35mm cameras featured, it was >moved to 50mm cause it was easier to design a lens far enough forward of the >mirror, which is why the 85mm is what I consider the optimum portrait lens.) Actually, early 35mm rangefinder cameras (first Leica, and then later Nikon), where a mirror is not an issue, established 50mm as the normal lens for a full-frame 35mm camera. Contax still has a 42mm as normal for rangefinder, I believe. 85-90mm has long been the standard focal length for a portrait lens. Some photographers favor lenses that have a slightly "softer" (less contrasty) look, and others go for good "bokeh" (a pleasing quality to the out-of-focus parts on the image). Having both would be ideal, I suppose. The Canon 85mm f/1.8 (pre auto-focus) had both, IMO. Leitz Elmars in 90mm are great too, for a rangefinder lens. Which lens (among contemporary auto-focus lenses for SLRs) is a debate that could go on forever, but you are right that 85mm is probably the ideal focal length--for full-frame 35mm cameras. Jan Werbi?ski wrote: > What to buy for spectacular portraits for Nikon? I have F100 and Fuji > S2 ( x1,4). [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 105 2,5 > What's the best and what are you ranking? The Nikkor 85mm is much better suited for portraits (actually it was designed exactly for that purpose...) Two versions are available, f/1.4 and f/1.8. The former is about $1,500 retail, while the latter is less than half of that and, unless you are a true professional, that's what I'd recommend: Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 AF-D. On Sat, 1 Nov 2003 14:09:31 +0100, Jan Werbiñski <janwerNIESPAMUJ@DRANIUfotojw.com> wrote: >What to buy for spectacular portraits for Nikon? I have F100 and Fuji S2 ( >x1,4). [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >105 2,5 > What's the best and what are you ranking? Nikon's 85mm f/2.8 PC-Nikkor is famous for it's excellent bokeh in portraiture use. Its specially bladed diaphragm permits stopping down to f/45, but this feature may have relatively little value. Unfortunately it does not fit up to the Kodak 14n because of clearance restrictions. The special Nikon 105 and 135 DC lenses have adjustable settings that control spherical aberration, and also have specially rounded diaphragm openings. But this is also true of the diaphragm for the 85mm f/1.4 as well as the PC type noted above. I have not examined closely the bokeh from the 60, 105 and 200 macros, but my understanding is that all of these have also found use in portraiture, and are good for lots more things as well. >... >I have not examined closely the bokeh from the 60, 105 and 200 macros, >but my understanding is that all of these have also found use in >portraiture, and are good for lots more things as well. feb504 from Lloyd Erlick, In 35 mm, I've used the 55-60 mm macros and 100-105 mm macros quite a lot for portraiture over the years. I've been using the Hasselblad Zeiss 'Makro' (120 mm) for almost twenty years for portrait work. I find them just beautiful for portraits. regards, --le _______________________________________ Lloyd Erlick Portraits, 2219 Gerrard Street East, unit #1, Toronto M4E 2C8 Canada. --- voice 416-686-0326 lloyd@the-wire.com http://www.heylloyd.com _______________________________________ |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.