Steve M.
Veteran
I love my non AI Nikkor 50 2.0 lens. Now I need a good, cheap ($25 to $75) portrait lens. f3.5 isn't fast enough for my purposes, but 2.8 is. The Vivitar 100 and 135 2.8 varieties are very nicely priced, as is the Nikkor Q 135 2.8. There are probably a lot of others.
Any recommendations? Obviously sharpness isn't an issue wide open, but nice IQ and smooth bokeh are, and either non AI or AI form is OK. Thanks!
Any recommendations? Obviously sharpness isn't an issue wide open, but nice IQ and smooth bokeh are, and either non AI or AI form is OK. Thanks!
filmtwit
Desperate but not serious
85mm f2 Nikkor?
Steinberg2010
Well-known
You can probably find a 105mm f2.5 for that amount if you look carefully - might need to buy a Non-AI version though.
~S
~S
mdarnton
Well-known
You will probably have to pay over your budget for the 105, but it will then be the best lens you will ever own, which makes it cheap in the long run.
muser53
MUSER53
I'll second that notion! Owned one (that sees constant use) since
1974.
If it's in the budget buy it.
Paul
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
Look for the Series E Nikon 100/2.8. Terrific lens. Or one of the best third party lenses of all time, the Vivitar Series 1 35-85/2.8.
Steve M.
Veteran
Seems to be a consensus here. I did indeed have one of the 105 2.5 lenses once, and it was nice and sharp. Usual olde Nikon build quality too. Unfortunately, they've gone up a little in price since then, and on the one roll I shot, it seemed to do something not so good when used as a portrait lens. I'm not very good at lens nomenclature. Maybe it was CA, coma or plain old flare (I did have the correct Nikon hood). Maybe it was my sample, or even a development issue, but I wasn't happy with what I saw. Otherwise, in every other situation, it was fine. So I was thinking of trying something different.
I agree that a Series E 100 2.8 or Vivitar Series I lens would be great, but their prices seem to be way out of my little budget.
Here's an example of what I DON'T want. I shot this wide open with a Hanimex 135 3.5, figuring that 135mm lenses were like 50mm's, they're all pretty darn good. Well I absolutely hate the way this lens renders. Over the top contrast, too sharp subject, and nasty bokeh. The 3.5 min aperture didn't do much for smoothing out the background either.
I agree that a Series E 100 2.8 or Vivitar Series I lens would be great, but their prices seem to be way out of my little budget.
Here's an example of what I DON'T want. I shot this wide open with a Hanimex 135 3.5, figuring that 135mm lenses were like 50mm's, they're all pretty darn good. Well I absolutely hate the way this lens renders. Over the top contrast, too sharp subject, and nasty bokeh. The 3.5 min aperture didn't do much for smoothing out the background either.
ferider
Veteran
Try an early Nikkor 135/2.8. Not a cult lens like the 105/2.5, but technically just as good except for slower and longer.
Which 105 did you have ? If you had a more recent one, you might want to try the early Sonnar formula (I have that in LTM mount - it's great).
If you go the Vivitar Series I route, I recomment the 90/2.5. But usually above your budget.
Roland.
Which 105 did you have ? If you had a more recent one, you might want to try the early Sonnar formula (I have that in LTM mount - it's great).
If you go the Vivitar Series I route, I recomment the 90/2.5. But usually above your budget.
Roland.
Steve M.
Veteran
Roland, I had the earlier model. Maybe it was the PC? It had the small rear element, not the large one. The auction site shows the 90 2.5 Vivitars go for between $300 and $400! If I were going to do that I'd just buy another R 90 Summicron for a little more.
I'm leaning toward that Nikon 135 2.8 Q. It's a Nikon and it's cheap. How bad could it be? 135mm is a little long for me, but for a nice price and a good lens, I'll step back a few feet.
I'm leaning toward that Nikon 135 2.8 Q. It's a Nikon and it's cheap. How bad could it be? 135mm is a little long for me, but for a nice price and a good lens, I'll step back a few feet.
Contarama
Well-known
I second the 135/2.8 non Ai as it is pretty good and very cheap...that beings said about a month ago I bought a bargain grade 105/2.5 K lens from KEH for $80...it is fantastic and was knicked up and scratched up a little but the glass was pristine.
Steve M.
Veteran
OK. I think I'm getting somewhere now. It sounds like the 105 2.5 is a better lens by a good margin. The difference between pretty good and fantastic is REAL big. Others here love their 105 too, so maybe I just had a bad sample or development issues w/ my last one.
Now to somehow decide whether the smaller size and weight of the 100 2.8 is worth any appreciable IQ difference from the 105.
Now to somehow decide whether the smaller size and weight of the 100 2.8 is worth any appreciable IQ difference from the 105.
cary
Well-known
For an inexpensive portrait lens, take a look at the 135mm f3.5 Nikkor. Better yet if you can come up with a few extra bucks in your budget, the 105mm f2.5 is your best bet.
dbarnes
Well-known
That's a challenging price point. As you noted, a 135 is on the long side for a portrait lens. If I couldn't find a suitable bargain grade 85 or 105 Nikkor, I'd try the Series E 100/2.8.
One man's comparison: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=37253101
One man's comparison: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=37253101
Contarama
Well-known
The only reason I would buy a 100 E is to use on my D5000 because it is light weight and balances well with the plastic DSLRs...use one on my F2??? Never in a million years I don't care what they say about it...I'd use a 75-150 zoom E before I'd do the 100 E and I absolutely hate zoom lenses...based upon what I have read in this thread I would wager that what you are after is available in the two old Nikon Sonnars...the 105/2.5 very early lenses and any 135/3.5. They are both gonna have the soft sonnar portrait glow that I think you are after.