Hello,
I have been wondering for a while, what might be the best portrait lens that could be hand held and give great Bokeh in the Nikon family. Many street photogs on this site have mentioned liking for 70-200 2.8VR , but is the VR sufficient to handhold such a heavy lens for spontaneous shots? 85mm f1.4 is well regarded, so what are your opinions regarding these 2 lenses and the 105/135mm f2 DC lenses for handheld portraits, great Bokeh and low light capability. 85mm is most capable for lowlight , but no VR yet !!! I would like to hear your thoughts, given the awesome portraits here, I figure you must use some of these lenses.Thank You .

I do have 85 1.4,, And really love it
I do use 70-200 VR,, And really love it

I do see the 200 f2 Vr,, And I'm Drooling on it

Between the two i will choose 70-200 for portrait,, it's seems the 200mm f2.8 have a nice perspective on Portrait (if the Location have a lot of space).

but for INDOOR it's hard to beat the 85 1.4

HTH

Eric

For portraits in studio, definitely 85/1.4.
For normal use, carrying it around in the backpack, I normally bring the 70-200/VR. But turn off that VR if you don't struggle with the light. It ruins the bokeh with those elements flapping around.
The 85 gives you shorter depth of field when you want it, and is letting through 4 times the light..

Depends also on what you put it!

If its a crop factor camera, I would go definitely for the 70-200.
If its a full frame camera, I would think between the two, but I am sure I would still choose the 70-200, it gives you a nice conversion between the foreground and the background which i love...

Thank You all, I guess 70-200mm is popular for good reasons. Any first or second hand experience with the new version , better on FX but apparently short of 200mm something like 155mm ,read on amazon. The older lens is harder to find !!

The 85mm/1.4 and the 105mm/2.0 DC are great portrait lenses -- in my opinion the greatest by a large margin.

The 70-200mm/2.8 is more a top alround lens.

VR for portrait -- why ? No use at all.

Oh, one more thing. On the FX camera the 85mm/1.4 and the 105mm/2.0 DC works really well.

Never was all that satisfied with the 85mm on DX cameras. The 105mm on the DX becomes a long for portrait.

For my liking the 85 /1,4 is a llittle bit too sharp für portrait ( although many people have a different opinion). I feel very happy with the 105, f2 DC, the natural sharpness is a real treat. VR for portrait is not advisible, it ruins the bokeh ( check it out ).

Hey as you can see from the images here, but most never say, "Kah ching". I bought my award winning image from a camera store after I saw what other people can do. Once you see then you ask. Once bought and you discover how heavy they are in the sun, your water bottle gets most of your hand held time.

The 85 1.8 will do just a good a job at less money than the 85 1.4. The 50 mm 1.4 d used, will be just as good an the the 85 1.4 and for less. and what about second hand D lenses and saving some money to do a few trips to put your gear to task against. Well if you want to keep up with the big boys spend away.

Shooting street with a 200 or 85 is royal pain. You might get a shot but with all the people walking in front and making the auto focus act like a circus clown, eye strain and brain damage comes to mind.

Portraits. Just set the puppy on manual and focus. All the lenses you mentioned are good. but they'll dog you onto missing just as many shots as you thought you could get with a 50 mm 1.4 or 1.8 or 2.0.

When I shoot with my friends their kits are all the same. They have a 14-24 , 24-70, and 70-200. After an hour of walking ducking, dodging , bending and running to get a head of shot their tongs hang out like Bob Patefield's Whippets. I whip on a 20mm and that's it. If I wan something more I go to a 24. Its cheaper to get in close and float like a butter fly than being top heavy in a crowded situation. My last experience with my friends is that they are now just taking one lens and leaving the rest in their car trunk. When day they'll come back to a trashed car for part and find their gear gone.

So the moral of the story is. Only pay for what you can carry. Don't ask if they like their lenses. :) you know the story about the guy that jumps in the water and discovers it's ice cold. He comes to the surface and tells his date with a straight face to jump in, the waters fine.... There you go don't ask just buy and find out the hard way.

From the examples I have seen and what I have read - regarding portrait lenses, though I am certainly not a portrait specialist (and far from being one):
1) 105 f/2 dc - superb quality & perfect focal lenght for FX;
2) 85 f/1.4 - idem, but focal length might be a bit short for some;
3) 85 f/1.8 - still excellent quality, bokeh less great than 2);
4) 70-200 f/2.8 - super allround lens (with some limitations that should bother you if you doing portraits).

From what I've seen - and if I had the cash, I would buy 4) & 1)

There is only one!!!! 50 mm f1,4! And the good thing on this is, low cost and very good for all!

Robert

Robert, do you have any idea how much "G" or "D" differ and are you talking for DX or FX format?

DX or FX is does not matter for the "D" and the "G". But the G is not that good like the D!

Robert

I heard same that D is better than G.

On the other hand 50mm is good for DX but a little short for FX IMO but surely you can take protraits with every lens.

It fits FX more perfect than DX! And.... almost too long for FX:-) Check my portfolio and look at some of my 50mm`s!
:-)

Robert

OK, i'll look at them again, i've got a 50mm 1.8 already, i wonder if 50 1.4 is a necessary investment?

Because of what Robert just said, I didn't think I would use a 50mm much, so I bought the MUCH cheaper 1.8 G. Good choice, as I rarely use it. I use my 35mm f2 and my 85mm f1.8 much more. I have sometime regretted not getting a 85mm f1.4, but it's also heavier. Good lenses hold their value really well, so if I really wanted the 1.4, I could probably sell my 85mm 1.8 for just about the same as I paid for it. Size and weight for me matters a lot.

Thanks a lot guys for rekindling this thread.

Uzay , G lens is $440 at amazon compared with D lens $320.00 in the US. G lens has less spherical aberration which makes blurry smudges with the D lens shot wide open, which is why one wants a fast lens in the first place, for low light. In your case i'd wait for the better bokeh 85mm 1.4. i love and use my 501.4D the most, its light, awesome quality stopped 5.6 atleast, but bokeh, not its best feature.

Just by the way I have seen leica 501.4 Summilux make the sharpest f1.4 images, at a whopping $4000.

Wings excellent point, despite such rave reviews abt the 70-200, just don't think my wrists can take it. No equipment junkie but a stickler for sharp sharp photos with creamy backgrounds for portrait. Hence this thread.

Thank you langkilde and groucho for enlightening me about VR ruining portraits. Could you care to explain why, I mistakenly believed , routinely needing to shoot at 1/15-1/30th in my house lighting , VR was beneficial.[ most of my work is kid shots]

I have 70-200 and 85 f/1.4, both gives fantastic bokeh, but the 85mm f/1.4 have a certain "touch" - some love it, some can not see it = I love it, and for me the 70-200 is too heavy to carry around, so I only use it on tripod for sports.

It is true, that VR ruins the bokeh.

I have also two 50mm-lenses,... in my IMHO they do not come close to the bokeh of the 70-200 and 85 f./1.4.

I have the "old" 70-200, and as I have understood the new is more like a 135 mm (not 150mm, I think), when shooting close, but it is better than the old for FX, if you want sharp corners on the long focal lenght - I do not, because it is fine for portratis with not sharp corners, and it is fine in the corners up to about 135mm, here it begins (but you can hardly see it at 135mm), and then it is stronger and stronger and obvious at 195-200 mm, but mostly if you shoot focusing at infinity.

The sharpest lens and the best bokeh I have ever seen was from a Nikon 200mm f/2.0 VR I borrowed 14 days, but it is too heavy for me, otherwise I have bought it long time ago - it is the price worthy.

Thanks Steinar for shedding light on VR ruining Bokeh, in which case holding breath for rumored 851.4 AF-S, G VR is pointless, will also lose ability to use with film cameras due to G feature. What is your experience with CA and 851.4, is it only at 1.4, what is your aperture of choice for best sharpness and bokeh [ i'm aware d300 and newer Nikons auto correct CA ].

I also use the 85mm f/1.4 for other things, so here it would be fine with VR, but I do not miss it with the fine iso-value Nikon D700 gives.

Yes there are CA from the 85mm f/1.4, in high contrast scenes, you have do deal with that, and with 70-200 (the old) there are some flare and ghost.

...........................No perfect humans, no perfect lenses ;);)

Supplement:

Removing the amount of CA in post from the 85-lens is not a big problem, and in jpg.s it is automatical.

Steinar thanks for update.

The tradeoff between those two lenses is at the 200mm side. You should consider what kind of situation you want to shot.
If you use 70-200, it can allow you stand aside and observe without disturbing the object.
If you use 85, it might need you to step in the parameter and the object may detect your existence.

So, you want to be an observer or a participants?

I own both lenses (85mm f1.4D and the new 70-200 VR II). For portrait, I get much better results with the 85. It's lighter, lets me move around and is optically superior to the 70-200 at large apertures. It also has a more realistic rendition of color. And of course you can get as much creamy DOF as you want.

The new 85mm f1.4G is *much* better than the 85D. Like all G lenses, you can't use it on older bodies (I still use my old F3 and F5) so if I buy it (that it, if my wife lets me buy it), I probably won't trade in my 85D.