Some prefer an 85mm for "Portrait" work. I prefer about 105mm. But, if I'm outdoors on location and my subject is allowed to move around? Then 135 or even a "light as I can find" 200mm. It all depends on what your goals are. What kind of pictures are you trying to capture. Studio Portraits have their place. But, your best, most memorable images are going to present when your subject is "out and about". Say, on an early morning walk in the forest or park. Try it sometime. You might get some incredible pictures!
Thanks for the great list. I have used the following affordable Nikon lenses for head & shoulder portraits on Nikon full-frame bodies: 75-150mm f/3.5 Series E 85mm f/1.8 100mm f/2.8 Series E 105mm f/2.5 135mm f/3.5
I have gotten lucky on my three Nikkors I could call "portrait lenses". A few years ago before film started to take off again, I picked up the 105 f2.5 AI for $50, and the 135mm f3.5 AI for $40. Back then it seemed like nobody wanted manual focus lenses. Both of them are great. I owned the 85mm f2 for a while as well and enjoyed it, but was offered a really good price on it so I sold it. Two months ago I was following an auction for the 85mm f1.8 D autofocus lens that had an awkward end time in the middle of the night. I got it with caps and hood for $150 with shipping. Oddly enough, even though it is a full frame lens, I really like it the most on my APS-C Nikon D7000. It's also very good when adapted to my Olympus mirrorless cameras.
My first (and only) portrait lens was the 85mm f/1.8 Nikkor. (It was a companion to my "substitute normal" 35mm f/2 Nikkor) A less-than-stellar 90-230mm f/4.5 Soligor rounded out the "usual suspects" during my college years. I eventually shelved the Soligor and got an 80-200mm f/4.5 Nikkor, which solved low contrast/flare/soft problems. A 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor and 24mm f/2.8 Nikkors rounded out the collection. When Nikkor's "AI upgrade" program was announced, I had all of them upgraded, because it would cost far too much to get "real AI mount" Nikkors. That was the best investment I made, and continued to use the lenses until a job change forced me to put the cameras away from the 1990's to the early 2000s. By then, the siren call of electronic digital cameras was the talk of the town. But that's another story.;)
I have a great 75 to 150 series E lens with a constant 3.5 aperture which I bought for £30 in perfect condition. Very light weight with lovely bokeh. I also use my 55mm 2.8 ais macro on my FE for really sharp portraits and on my Nikon D300s which gives me a 110mm equivalent lens. Perfect for me and no banks have been broken in the putting together of this versatile kit
That's interesting. Roland's famous photosynthesis site of Nikon lens data indicates that the pre-AI and AI versions had curved blades whereas the AIS has regular straight blades. Odd, as the blades on both my Sonnar-formula Nikkor-P and AIS look pretty straight to me.
@@BriansPhotoShow you are absolutely right lol, and with good right. You did right a book, tho people do make mistakes. I can be forgiven though right? Since I'm only 33 and much older than the days of nikkors when they were in their prime, pun intended lol. I appreciate all your info.
None of the lenses in this video can be found easily in good condition for under $100. They range from about $125 to $250 with clean glass and smooth focus.
Brian's Photo Show Maybe I’ve been lucky- the 105 2.5 AIS is the most I’ve spent for a prime, mint, at $125. But the 85mm prices are making me think I’m better off without this focal length.
Does it 85mm AF make a lot of noise during autofocus? I have a 50mm AF that sounds like a truck with a bad transmission went it autofocuses, whereas the D version purrs like a kitten.
Some prefer an 85mm for "Portrait" work. I prefer about 105mm. But, if I'm outdoors on location and my subject is allowed to move around? Then 135 or even a "light as I can find" 200mm.
It all depends on what your goals are. What kind of pictures are you trying to capture.
Studio Portraits have their place. But, your best, most memorable images are going to present when your subject is "out and about". Say, on an early morning walk in the forest or park. Try it sometime. You might get some incredible pictures!
Thanks for the great list. I have used the following affordable Nikon lenses for head & shoulder portraits on Nikon full-frame bodies:
75-150mm f/3.5 Series E
85mm f/1.8
100mm f/2.8 Series E
105mm f/2.5
135mm f/3.5
I have gotten lucky on my three Nikkors I could call "portrait lenses". A few years ago before film started to take off again, I picked up the 105 f2.5 AI for $50, and the 135mm f3.5 AI for $40. Back then it seemed like nobody wanted manual focus lenses. Both of them are great. I owned the 85mm f2 for a while as well and enjoyed it, but was offered a really good price on it so I sold it. Two months ago I was following an auction for the 85mm f1.8 D autofocus lens that had an awkward end time in the middle of the night. I got it with caps and hood for $150 with shipping. Oddly enough, even though it is a full frame lens, I really like it the most on my APS-C Nikon D7000. It's also very good when adapted to my Olympus mirrorless cameras.
My first (and only) portrait lens was the 85mm f/1.8 Nikkor. (It was a companion to my "substitute normal" 35mm f/2 Nikkor) A less-than-stellar 90-230mm f/4.5 Soligor rounded out the "usual suspects" during my college years. I eventually shelved the Soligor and got an 80-200mm f/4.5 Nikkor, which solved low contrast/flare/soft problems. A 55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor and 24mm f/2.8 Nikkors rounded out the collection. When Nikkor's "AI upgrade" program was announced, I had all of them upgraded, because it would cost far too much to get "real AI mount" Nikkors. That was the best investment I made, and continued to use the lenses until a job change forced me to put the cameras away from the 1990's to the early 2000s. By then, the siren call of electronic digital cameras was the talk of the town. But that's another story.;)
I have a great 75 to 150 series E lens with a constant 3.5 aperture which I bought for £30 in perfect condition.
Very light weight with lovely bokeh.
I also use my 55mm 2.8 ais macro on my FE for really sharp portraits and on my Nikon D300s which gives me a 110mm equivalent lens.
Perfect for me and no banks have been broken in the putting together of this versatile kit
Agreed. I'm guessing he didn't have a 75-150 to show. It's a series E and CRAZY sharp. As is the 70-150 Vivitar they say it is based on....
You should have the later metal ring version of the 100mm E.
The nikkor 105 2.5 P. C. Has 7 rounded blade's, while the AI and AIS have 7 regular. Thanks for the video. I love my vintage nikkors on my D700
That's interesting. Roland's famous photosynthesis site of Nikon lens data indicates that the pre-AI and AI versions had curved blades whereas the AIS has regular straight blades. Odd, as the blades on both my Sonnar-formula Nikkor-P and AIS look pretty straight to me.
@@BriansPhotoShow you are absolutely right lol, and with good right. You did right a book, tho people do make mistakes. I can be forgiven though right? Since I'm only 33 and much older than the days of nikkors when they were in their prime, pun intended lol. I appreciate all your
info.
@@BriansPhotoShow I do have a pre AI 105 2.5 Nikkor P. C. with rounded blade's
I have yet to find an affordable (sub $100) 85mm Nikkor.
None of the lenses in this video can be found easily in good condition for under $100. They range from about $125 to $250 with clean glass and smooth focus.
Brian's Photo Show Maybe I’ve been lucky- the 105 2.5 AIS is the most I’ve spent for a prime, mint, at $125. But the 85mm prices are making me think I’m better off without this focal length.
Brian there is a version of the 100mm 2.8 Series E that has the chrome band is that same formula as the one shown here? Better or worse?
same formula
Manuell focus camera???
Does it 85mm AF make a lot of noise during autofocus? I have a 50mm AF that sounds like a truck with a bad transmission went it autofocuses, whereas the D version purrs like a kitten.
I've never noticed a difference in the autofocus noise between AF versus AF-D lenses. My AF 85 isn't distracting, at least not to me.
@@BriansPhotoShow So probably just my lens.