camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

A known professional photographer here in Miami, a good friend for many years, asked my opinion about the 85 mm f1.8 Nikon lens. He told me he was interested in improving his portraits and needed a good portrait lens. I know he owns a Nikon two touch 80-200 f2.8 and I asked him if there was something wrong with his lens. He said no.
I cannot understand why you need a “better” lens for portraits having the excellent 80-200 f2.8 was my reply. Perhaps you meant portability? No was his answer. He was after a “better” lens for portraits and portability was not his priority.

I am no professional photographer although years ago I made a part time living as a professional. My portrait lens of preference has always been the Nikon 105 mm f2.5 and mine is from 1969, single coated, a lens that has served me well and continues to do so.
Perhaps I do not have the right answer but my feelings are that the best lens for portraits is the lens that you happen to have in your camera when you are shooting. Even a wide angle with its distortions of facial features could be exactly what you want. I do not know of your expertise as a photographer and I do not know what your artistic style is.

I asked this young man to pose for me. It is an indoor shot with the model looking into a window facing south. The lens I had in my Olympus OM-10 Mk II was the 40-150 f4-5.6 kit lens. I have the 12-40 f2.8 Pro, a better lens and a Sigma 60mm f2.8 Art which is a very sharp lens for micro fourth thirds but it was the 40-150 lens what I had in my camera. I simply set it at 100 mm and opened it up to its maximum opening. I could be too old and too lazy by now but I though the kit lens could do a good job. I went with ISO 400.

Technically there are some things I could have done for a better portrait like selecting a better lens. I could have used a reflector to bring more light into the shadow areas although I like it like it is. Even a low intensity hair light could have been effective but available light was all I had in mind. I did not pose him and let the young man to show his spontaneity.

I tend to warm a little bit my b&w images to simulate the Agfa warm tone fiber base paper I used in the past. I kept sharpening to the lowest setting. I like to add contrast to my b&w images. Original RAW data edited with Olympus Workspace and Affinity Photo.
Which lens for portraits? A dedicated portrait lens between 85-135 mm is an excellent choice but if you do not have the budget use good techniques and the lens you have now in your camera. You could be pleasantly surprised at the results.

(Download)

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Many people want the BEST, some people want BETTER than best.

Some people may have the best, but are plagued by the question, "Is there something better?".
Those people will always be anxious and wondering. A few will let it eat at them.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I thank you for your comments. Because there is the same feeling for the latest and the best I have excellent used cameras and lenses, at least they are excellent for my daily use. An old camera or lens was probably tops at the time it was introduced. They can take excellent images when we do our part. Technology helps but it does not take pictures on its own.
Once again, thank you for your interesting comments.

willaim Loc: Sunny Southern California

To some, the best is never enough. That Nikon 85mm 1.4 lens is a great portrait lens. The person behind that camera just has to know how to shoot portraits. BTW, that portrait looks good to me

CPR Loc: Nature Coast of Florida

In the days of the Nikon "F' I used an 85mm lens for portraits and it worked very well. It was quality Nikon optic and is still around here somewhere. I had the 105 and used it if not able to get close enough for the 85.
I've found prime lenses to be better than zoom lenses.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

For portraits, I prefer to use an 85mm f/1.8, a 105mm f/2.3, or a 135mm f/2.8. All of them are Nikkor lenses. The choice of lens is based on how well I know the person I'm photographing.
--Bob

ksmmike

I guess we could debate this forever and then some but I agree with Willaim that no matter the lens or camera if you don't know how to shoot a good portrait nothing else matters. That's not to say I'm the best portrait photographer but like shooting sports, landscapes, wildlife, some photographers are better than others because they understand their subjects more than other formats. Many fantastic landscape photographers will tell you they are lousy portrait photographers even with the best glass and camera.

I have used everything from a Voigtlander 58mm, the Nikon 85 1.8 you mentioned earlier, the classic 105 mm Nikon, a 135 manual focus Nikon and the 80-200mm Nikon for portraits. I have obtained many nice images using all the above.

Manual focus is tougher with moving kids but easier with adults who will sit still for a moment. I firmly believe that you can obtain nice images with just about any lens as long as you understand how it makes the face and nose ect look at each focal distance. Most prefer 85 or above because of that, though I have had some nice ones at 58mm too.

In the end, I tend to the Nikon 85mm 1.8 most of the time because of the autofocus, focal length and it's a light lens. It's a very good lens and I would recommend it for portraits but the quality of image is better with the Voigtlander 58mm 1.4 lens. I photograph mostly kids for portraits. For sports portraits during play, I would use the 80-200 every time. Yes, you can shoot portrait type images during games and matches if you look for them. That's just my two cents worth, but if I had to chose one overall lens for portraits, I would lean towards the Nikon 85mm 1.8. I've read that the 1.4 might be slightly better but for the cost, the 1.8 was my choice.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Boy howdy you got that right!

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Focal length, sharpness and color would be reasons to pick one lens over another. You can buy / rent a prime and compare the prime on the same subjects to the zoom lens at the same focal lengths and exposure parameters. Many times, the tried and true rules of the olden days do not hold up in these modern times with modern equipment.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Your example is an excellent job and I, for one, enjoyed your talking us through the picture.

In thoughts about lense selection; Sure, it would be nice to have the Olympus 45 f1.2 Pro lens for portraits (90mm in FF equivalent). But what would have been the difference if the you had to use the 45 at f2.8 for this shot? Both the 40-150 and 45 would be ~ 27° and f2.8. The difference would be almost nil. Yes, if a specific portrait required a narrower DOF, you would not get it with the 40-150 f2.8. But most portrait shots do not require a very narrow DOF and do not necessarily require a total blurring out of the background. And with environmental style portraits, one will want to be able to "see" where a person is without totally losing the background. And you are right: the best lens for a portrait is the one on hand. Sometimes we as photographers will have time to change to another lens - and then, again, sometimes not. There is always the chance that one's not having the right lens on, and having to improvise, will result in the absolutely best choice for the portrait.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

The only reason that motivated me to start this thread was the fact that many young photographers have a hard time selecting a lens for portraits. In the case of the professional that asked me about getting a "better" lens for his portraits I had the opportunity of looking at some of the shots he has made with the old 80-200 f2.8. In particular there was one of his grandson that was an excellent portrait. I believe I convinced him to keep the 80-200 f2.8 because as far as I know he has not bought the 85 mm f1.8 lens.

The 85 mm f1.8 lens is an excellent optic. I am familiar with the D version only. As I said I have used the single coated 105 mm f2.5 since 1967 and once, on assignment for the University of Miami I made many portraits of students and teachers in the Department of Medicine with this lens alone. This lens has character and the images appear to be shot with film. It is still my favorite lens for portraits and it is still readily available used at many camera stores and Ebay many in excellent condition and the more modern ones have an incorporated lens hood and multicoating. I believe these more modern lenses have a slightly different formula than mine but I am not 100% sure. At the price they sell they are a bargain.

I am still using lenses from the 60's, 70's and early 80's. They all perform very well for my needs.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

f/1.8 gives a more shallow DoF than f/2.8.

Also an 85mm prime is smaller and lighter than an 80-200mm. Easier to carry around.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

I just got the 58mm, f/1.8 prime and I have to say, it is really nice! Even better than my Nikon 105 macro. Great bokeh. I'm not really into portraits that much (portraits are not the reason I bought it), but my cat's portrait (my experimental model) turned out beautifully. I don't think a prime can be beat for some images.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

I think the 85 focuses closer than the 80-200 at 85 as well.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Hi William!

Here's a link to something I wrote a few days ago to answer a similar question- you may find it useful:

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/tpr?p=11001987&t=635005

The gist of it is besides selectin the best focal length for your format and the working distance for various kids of portraits much has to do with the style and look you want to achieve.

The lastest lenses made by reliable high-quality manufactures will probably be sharper than many older models so if your style requires razor-sharp imagery, perhaps the investment in a new lens is worth the money. In some stylizations, a ultra-sharp lens may negate a more ethereal or soft quality that some portrait photographers prefer. This does not mean that older lenses are totally lacking is sharpness or contrast so you old 105 is perfectly fine for what you are doing.

A zoom lens is more versatile and convenient for selecting a focal length for headshots, head and shoulders,
3/4 and full-length, portraits as well groups, especially if you only have one lens. It will be easy to arrive at the proper focal for the best working distance and perspective. Of course, individual prime lenses will usually be sharper. With, full-frame cameras, ideally you need a 135mm for tight headshots, 75-105mm of head and shoulder (bust) images, 50-80mm for 3/4 portraits and 50mm or full-length and groups. That's a whole lot of glass which can be done without if a decent zoom will be sharp enough for your purposes.

Then there are the "bokeh" or selective focus issues. Some photographers want an extremely fast lens, not so much for low light, but for extremely shallow depth of field. An f/1.2, 1.4, or 1.8 lense will enable extremely shallow DOP. Some photographers' favorite lenses are based on the shape of the diaphragm blades which enable specific kids of "bokeh".

Then there are more exotic lenses that are specifically designed for soft focus and deliver results that are far superior to adding a diffusion filter to a sharp lens or softening effects in post-processing!

Another factor to consider is the degree of enlargement. Of course, if very large prints or methods of display are required, perhaps a sharper lens is in order.

Another fooler with old lenses is film vs. digital. The old 105 Nikor was/is a fine portrait lens. Older versions of both color and black and white negative films that were preferred by portrait photographers could resolve much less than the common lenses in general use. In other words, the lenses were far sharper than the film could resolve. The film was processed for better gradations and softness rather than maximum resolution and contrast. Until the later T-Gran technology emerged, color negative films were somewhat grainy and not all that sharp. When the new emulsions arrived, many photographers were surprised at their existing lenses' performance. That old 105 on a digital body might knock your sox off!

Lighting issues are somewhat separate from lens selection. As far as the coating is concerned, the only problem with a non-coated or lesser coated lens is the flare that might occur with the use of a kicker, hair or back-lighted subject. A lens shade and barn-doors will fix that.

Ask you friend what improvement he needs or expects for a new lens and advise him accordingly.