Park Edwards
Veteran
I ran across a 100m 2.8 for fairly cheap and wanted to know if it's a decent enough portrait lens like the 85mm? Anyone have any experience with 100mm lens?
Portrait lens
- Thread starter Park Edwards
- Start date
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
Yeah the 85 is a pretty standard portrait lens. My favorite is the 85mm F1.4.
Ralph Oshiro
Veteran
Most would agree that so-called "portrait" focal lengths range from 85mm to 135mm (full-frame sensors). But when accounting for the DX format's 1.5x multiplication factor, your 100mm lens is now a 150mm lens, which is bit more telephoto. This isn't necessarily a bad thing-- it'll just foreshorten your perspective a bit more (often desirable in portrait photography). The main issue, however, is that it increases your working distance (subject-to-camera distance), and your shooting environment may not be able to accommodate that extra distance (plus you'd have yell louder to direct your model). Other than those issues, optically, I think a 150mm would be fine for portraits. Actually, the Nikkor 105mm lens on a full-frame camera, I think is the perfect portrait lens. Then again, I do love that Nikkor 85mm. I already have an 85mm 1.8, but am planning to get the 85mm 1.4. Actually, after thinking about it a bit more, I think perhaps you may be happier with the 85mm 1.8. It's a really great lens.
Now, the "bikini lens" is what I've always wanted . . . the oft-coveted, $4,500 Nikkor 300mm 2.8. Anything from a fast 300mm on up to fast 600mm lens is great for those long-lensed bikini or fashion shots. But, again, on the DX format, a 180mm 2.8 (one-sixth the price of the "real" 300mm 2.8) becomes the poor man's 300mm 2.8 (270mm full-frame equivalent) on a DX camera!
Now, the "bikini lens" is what I've always wanted . . . the oft-coveted, $4,500 Nikkor 300mm 2.8. Anything from a fast 300mm on up to fast 600mm lens is great for those long-lensed bikini or fashion shots. But, again, on the DX format, a 180mm 2.8 (one-sixth the price of the "real" 300mm 2.8) becomes the poor man's 300mm 2.8 (270mm full-frame equivalent) on a DX camera!
Last edited:
William_Robinette
Shallow Member
Hmm, I was under the impression that the optical qualities don't change when using a lens on a cropped sensor, just the FOV gets tighter.
Andrew Brinkhaus
Veteran
William you are correct.
Park Edwards
Veteran
Either way, I'm thinking of picking it up. They're selling a 100mm 2.8
50mm 1.8 35mm 2.5 2x 28mm 2.8 all for $75.00...really can't pass it up.
50mm 1.8 35mm 2.5 2x 28mm 2.8 all for $75.00...really can't pass it up.
Ralph Oshiro
Veteran
Right. I stand corrected. What I meant was, I was comparing the FOV of your 100mm lens (150mm DX-equivalent) on your DX-sensor vs. that of a 135mm lens on a full-frame sensor, not the difference between the same lens on a cropped sensor vs. the same lens on a full-frame sensor.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Get the 100 for that price !
As a stills photographer I am finding that stills 'rules' about lenses '85 is a portrait' lens for example are not translating to footage
Reason - because one is 'forced' to shoot in a landscape format one is often 'wasting' frame at the sides
ie most stills portraits are shot portrait - if you see what I mean
Therefore to isolate the subject in the same manner as one would be doing on a still one needs a longer lens because you are forced to back off and backing off reduces the isolating effect
I am feeling the need to use the 85 in situations where I would be using a 50 on the stills camera
I had a similar experience recently shooting a square stills brochure - I kept the camera landscape to give me a safety margin and found the 'look' of many of the images compromised
Of course by cutting ones footage one is not forced to show the 'whole scene' in a single frame so one can frame tighter in footage if an establishing shot has been shown to make the viewer understand what we are looking at - not an option in a still !
SMM
As a stills photographer I am finding that stills 'rules' about lenses '85 is a portrait' lens for example are not translating to footage
Reason - because one is 'forced' to shoot in a landscape format one is often 'wasting' frame at the sides
ie most stills portraits are shot portrait - if you see what I mean
Therefore to isolate the subject in the same manner as one would be doing on a still one needs a longer lens because you are forced to back off and backing off reduces the isolating effect
I am feeling the need to use the 85 in situations where I would be using a 50 on the stills camera
I had a similar experience recently shooting a square stills brochure - I kept the camera landscape to give me a safety margin and found the 'look' of many of the images compromised
Of course by cutting ones footage one is not forced to show the 'whole scene' in a single frame so one can frame tighter in footage if an establishing shot has been shown to make the viewer understand what we are looking at - not an option in a still !
SMM
theabsurdman
Member
the nikon 100mm 2.8 is the star of the series E lineup and makes a very good manual portrait lens, second only to the 105/2.5 at that FL, with the advantage of being smaller and lighter, at half the weight.
Last edited: