Macro/portrait lenses

"frederick" wrote in message
news:1119837336.185401@ftpsrv1...
Tony Polson wrote:
frederick wrote:

The Sigma 105 has soft and smooth boket and makes a very nice portrait
lens. Harsh boket is either a myth, or if not then certainly does not
apply to the EX DG version of the lens.



I have tested several examples of the Sigma 105mm EX DG, and all had
harsh bokeh.
http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/shell.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/ninabw.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/down.jpg


Don't make me laugh! Why on earth did you choose a portrait with a
blank background? To hide the bokeh, of course!

The rendering of the child's face is harsh, showing the typical
results of an over-corrected macro lens that is basically unsuitable
for portraiture. Use this Sigma lens on a subject over 25 years old
and you will get complaints from the subject, because every line,
wrinkle and blemish will not only be visible, but cruelly emphasised
by the edge effects that are a result of over-correction. You cannot
remove them by using soft focus filters either. This is simply not a
good portrait lens, whichever way you look at it.

While the Sigma is a very unforgiving portrait lens, it is a very good
macro lens, as the macro shots you linked to clearly show.
Go to http://www.fredmiranda.com and read some user reviews.


User reviews by ignorant snapshooters are much the same wherever I
read them. As with other similar "user review" sites, that site is a
repository of reviews by people who wouldn't know a portrait lens if
it hit them on the head. I wonder how many of the reviewers have even
handled the equipment they "review", let alone used it.


I knew that you'd fall for that - sorry that wasn't fair.
The portrait wasn't taken with a macro lens.
(the other shots were)
It was taken with an 85mm AI-s Nikkor at f4.
Obviously not a very good portrait lens - as you have pointed out the
faults so accurately.

I have an older 85 1.8 AI Nikkor lens which is a fantastic portrait lens.
It's not a good macro lens, but it's very sharp and gives a nice blurred
background when shooting at wide apertures. I mean, what's the idea here,
to get a lens that "isn't" sharp to hide somebody's zits? Good lenses are
supposed to be sharp, and there are a lot of ways to soften a portrait. You
can also use Photoshop to remove a zit or a wrinkle here and there.

Sheldon wrote:

"frederick" wrote in message
news:1119837336.185401@ftpsrv1...

Tony Polson wrote:

frederick wrote:


The Sigma 105 has soft and smooth boket and makes a very nice portrait
lens. Harsh boket is either a myth, or if not then certainly does not
apply to the EX DG version of the lens.



I have tested several examples of the Sigma 105mm EX DG, and all had
harsh bokeh.

http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/shell.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/ninabw.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/down.jpg


Don't make me laugh! Why on earth did you choose a portrait with a
blank background? To hide the bokeh, of course!

The rendering of the child's face is harsh, showing the typical
results of an over-corrected macro lens that is basically unsuitable
for portraiture. Use this Sigma lens on a subject over 25 years old
and you will get complaints from the subject, because every line,
wrinkle and blemish will not only be visible, but cruelly emphasised
by the edge effects that are a result of over-correction. You cannot
remove them by using soft focus filters either. This is simply not a
good portrait lens, whichever way you look at it.

While the Sigma is a very unforgiving portrait lens, it is a very good
macro lens, as the macro shots you linked to clearly show.

Go to http://www.fredmiranda.com and read some user reviews.


User reviews by ignorant snapshooters are much the same wherever I
read them. As with other similar "user review" sites, that site is a
repository of reviews by people who wouldn't know a portrait lens if
it hit them on the head. I wonder how many of the reviewers have even
handled the equipment they "review", let alone used it.



I knew that you'd fall for that - sorry that wasn't fair.
The portrait wasn't taken with a macro lens.
(the other shots were)
It was taken with an 85mm AI-s Nikkor at f4.
Obviously not a very good portrait lens - as you have pointed out the
faults so accurately.


I have an older 85 1.8 AI Nikkor lens which is a fantastic portrait lens.
It's not a good macro lens, but it's very sharp and gives a nice blurred
background when shooting at wide apertures. I mean, what's the idea here,
to get a lens that "isn't" sharp to hide somebody's zits? Good lenses are
supposed to be sharp, and there are a lot of ways to soften a portrait. You
can also use Photoshop to remove a zit or a wrinkle here and there.


Hey - if it's an older MF one like the one I used, then it suffers the
same "fault" as the 105mm Sigma. They both have 7 blade diaphrams, and
small very bright highlights (sunlight reflected off water droplets etc)
in out of focus areas can take on a polygonal appearance. IIRC the
Tamron and later 85mm Nikkors have 9 bladed diaphrams, so are somewhat
less likely to take on a polygonal appearance. But both provide nice
soft rendering of out of focus areas. IMO either are fine as portrait
lenses - with the proviso that ~100mm is getting quite long on a 1:1.5
crop ratio DSLR.
"Edge effects that are the result of over-correction" is IMO absolute
nonsense. The 105 Sigma and 85 Nikkor I used have surely been sharp as
a pin. But I wouldn't think that using a lot of USM across the entire
frame or having a digital camera on a high sharpness setting is a great
idea for portraits. OTOH lack of sharpness in the eyes detracts from
any portrait. You can use Photoshop (I use Gimp) to perform miracles.

frederick wrote:

"Edge effects that are the result of over-correction" is IMO absolute
nonsense. The 105 Sigma and 85 Nikkor I used have surely been sharp as
a pin. But I wouldn't think that using a lot of USM across the entire
frame or having a digital camera on a high sharpness setting is a great
idea for portraits. OTOH lack of sharpness in the eyes detracts from
any portrait. You can use Photoshop (I use Gimp) to perform miracles.


If you use an over-corrected lens to create a portrait, no amount of
post-processing can make right what was wrong in the first place. You
cannot add smooth bokeh to a shot taken with a lens that doesn't have
it, and you cannot hide an unpleasant rendition of people's natural
imperfections without detracting from the shot in some other
significant way.

Why bother, when you can buy a lens that gets it right first time,
every time. There are many excellent portrait lenses for 35mm
cameras, some old, some new. There are many excellent macro lenses
too. But there are very few that do both macro work and portraiture
to a high standard, and unfortunately none of the current Sigma macro
lenses is on that list (although a particular old one definitely is).

Note that I am not criticising Sigma macro lenses. They are excellent
for their purpose, especially the 105mm. They are just not good for
portraiture.

If you wish to believe otherwise, that is your choice. I wish you
luck with your photography.

Tony Polson wrote:

Why bother, when you can buy a lens that gets it right first time,
every time. There are many excellent portrait lenses for 35mm
cameras, some old, some new. There are many excellent macro lenses
too. But there are very few that do both macro work and portraiture
to a high standard, and unfortunately none of the current Sigma macro
lenses is on that list (although a particular old one definitely is).

Would you consider a Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.4 D lens a good choice for portrait
work since the camera has a 1.5x crop factor or would you still use the 85mm
AF f/1.4 D instead?



Rita

Tony Polson wrote:
frederick wrote:


"Edge effects that are the result of over-correction" is IMO absolute
nonsense. The 105 Sigma and 85 Nikkor I used have surely been sharp as
a pin. But I wouldn't think that using a lot of USM across the entire
frame or having a digital camera on a high sharpness setting is a great
idea for portraits. OTOH lack of sharpness in the eyes detracts from
any portrait. You can use Photoshop (I use Gimp) to perform miracles.



If you use an over-corrected lens to create a portrait, no amount of
post-processing can make right what was wrong in the first place. You
cannot add smooth bokeh to a shot taken with a lens that doesn't have
it, and you cannot hide an unpleasant rendition of people's natural
imperfections without detracting from the shot in some other
significant way.

Why bother, when you can buy a lens that gets it right first time,
every time. There are many excellent portrait lenses for 35mm
cameras, some old, some new. There are many excellent macro lenses
too. But there are very few that do both macro work and portraiture
to a high standard, and unfortunately none of the current Sigma macro
lenses is on that list (although a particular old one definitely is).

Note that I am not criticising Sigma macro lenses. They are excellent
for their purpose, especially the 105mm. They are just not good for
portraiture.

If you wish to believe otherwise, that is your choice. I wish you
luck with your photography.


My experience leads me to a different conclusion.
http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/ab.jpg
I assure you that the sigma 105 is on the left.
It does not have "harsh boket" compared with a portrait lens.
I would like you to clarify how a lens can "over-correct", and show an
example. To me that statement does not make any sense.

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote:

Tony Polson wrote:

Why bother, when you can buy a lens that gets it right first time,
every time. There are many excellent portrait lenses for 35mm
cameras, some old, some new. There are many excellent macro lenses
too. But there are very few that do both macro work and portraiture
to a high standard, and unfortunately none of the current Sigma macro
lenses is on that list (although a particular old one definitely is).

Would you consider a Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.4 D lens a good choice for portrait
work since the camera has a 1.5x crop factor or would you still use the 85mm
AF f/1.4 D instead?


The crop factor is a real problem. The 85mm effectively becomes
almost a 135mm, a focal length I would not choose to use for
portraiture, because the camera-to-subject distance forced on the
photographer makes for an unnatural perspective.

The 50mm effectively becomes a 75mm, which is at the short end of the
portrait range of focal lengths, but is more acceptable than 135mm in
my opinion. But the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 has unpleasant, harsh bokeh.
The 60mm macro, a fine macro lens, is even worse as a portrait lens
than the 50mm f/1.4.

I really don't know what to recommend as a good portrait lens for a
Nikon digital SLR, other than the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro, which is
too long, or to suggest you try various zoom lenses to see which has
the best (or least worst) bokeh. The 18-70mm Nikkor 'kit' lens is in
many respects very good, but you should check whether the bokeh is
acceptable to you. The 75-150mm f/3.5 Nikon Series E has superlative
bokeh, but it will not meter with your Nikon DSLR, although it will
mount to it. I am sorry I cannot be of more help.

I changed brands a couple of years ago from Nikon to Pentax because
Nikon could not offer at least one lens in every focal length I needed
which offered good bokeh. There was a good choice of Pentax lenses
available in these focal lengths.

When moving to digital I found my solution in the Olympus E system,
with an outstanding 50mm f/2 macro lens that also performs very well
as a portrait lens. The angle of view is the same as a 100mm lens on
35mm film. At the ISO levels I use, the E-1 and E-300 produce superb
noise-free images, and the range of lenses is simply exceptional.

frederick wrote:

My experience leads me to a different conclusion.


As I said, I wish you luck with your photography.

Tony Polson wrote:

frederick wrote:

My experience leads me to a different conclusion.



As I said, I wish you luck with your photography.


Thanks.

But that's it?
No explanation of how the optics of a lens can "over correct" as you claim?
No comment on how you claim a lens has "harsh boket" when I go to the
trouble of showing you how comparitively the exact lens you are talking
about looks better than a "portrait lens" in terms of boket?
Even if you are to say "the boket from that portrait lens looks nicer to
me" I can accept - as that is an opinion.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 02:27:26 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:

frederick wrote:

My experience leads me to a different conclusion.


As I said, I wish you luck with your photography.


Yes, because if he doesn't buy lenses specifically for their bokeh he
will never take a good picture again.
I wish you luck with your photography, Tony. Have you taken a picture
in the last 3 years? Or a good picture, ever?
Armchair photographers talk about bokeh. Real photographers make
images.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:07:43 +1200, frederick
wrote:

frederick wrote:

My experience leads me to a different conclusion.



As I said, I wish you luck with your photography.


Thanks.

But that's it?
No explanation of how the optics of a lens can "over correct" as you claim?
No comment on how you claim a lens has "harsh boket" when I go to the
trouble of showing you how comparitively the exact lens you are talking
about looks better than a "portrait lens" in terms of boket?
Even if you are to say "the boket from that portrait lens looks nicer to
me" I can accept - as that is an opinion.


Tony only reads magazines and the internet. I suspect he holds no
unique information or opinions not formulated by someone else.
If your lens can form an image you can make great photography. David
Burnett, a famous photojournalist, used a Holga to photograph the 2000
U.S. election with stunning results.
Tony Polson uses his mind to create images that are stunning to him,
for the fleeting few seconds he imagines them.