Reading mode: Light Dark

Portrait lens for D300 - 85mm f/1.8 or 60mm f/2.8?

Go to last post
M

martinch

Senior Member
Messages
3,054
Reaction score
5
Location
UK, UK
Hi all,

I'm looking at getting a lens for doing portraits (on my D300), and am trying to decide between the following:
  • Nikon 85mm f/1.8D
  • Nikon 60mm f/2.8G Micro
I'm looking to be doing head-shots (i.e. head-and-shoulders), rather than full-length portraits, and am looking for a lens that will give me a reasonable working distance (I'm not sure what either would give on that front), whilst not being overly large, nor expensive, as it's not going to be one of my "main" lenses. I already own a 70-200mm f/2.8 VR, which I could use, although it's rather heavy and people tend to react to having it pointed at them...

I'm leaning towards the 85mm - anyone with any experience want to chime in, or provide some samples?

Thanks :-)

--
My gallery of so-so nature photos:
http://martinch.zenfolio.com/
 
Hi Sean,

I hadn't considered the 50mm, because I thought it possibly too short? I don't really want to be in the subject's face when taking pictures. I wasn't sure if the 60mm was a little on the short side, but I was considering it because it could double as a small pseudo-macro (not enough working distance to comfortably use at 1:1 for me). Don't know if that makes any sense, or if I'm being silly ...

--
My gallery of so-so nature photos:
http://martinch.zenfolio.com/
 
It rather depends what you consider to be a 'reasonable working distance'. Your 70-200 will allow to see what an 85mm will give you, and perhaps you have another zoom that will let you compare working distances at 50 and 60mm.

Chris
 
martinch said:
Hi all,

I'm looking at getting a lens for doing portraits (on my D300), and
am trying to decide between the following:
  • Nikon 85mm f/1.8D
  • Nikon 60mm f/2.8G Micro
I'm looking to be doing head-shots (i.e. head-and-shoulders), rather
than full-length portraits, and am looking for a lens that will give
me a reasonable working distance (I'm not sure what either would give
on that front), whilst not being overly large, nor expensive, as it's
not going to be one of my "main" lenses. I already own a 70-200mm
f/2.8 VR, which I could use, although it's rather heavy and people
tend to react to having it pointed at them...

I'm leaning towards the 85mm - anyone with any experience want to
chime in, or provide some samples?

Thanks :-)
Click to expand...
I would prefer the 85. I tried to substitute a 50 for 85 on film, but the feeling was not there. I dont like the low optical magnification even if the FOV on a 1.5x is clsoe to a classical portrait lens on FF.
You can see some samples (not so much portraits) from the 85 1.8 here:
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/?p=923
martinch said:
--
My gallery of so-so nature photos:
http://martinch.zenfolio.com/
Click to expand...
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
 
martinch said:
I'm looking to be doing head-shots (i.e. head-and-shoulders), rather
than full-length portraits,
Click to expand...
I love my 85mm f/1.8. It's a cracker of a lens. A bit long for full-length but ideal for the situation you describe. It's a reasonable price for the quality too.

I think it's an easy decision. The 85mm wins on focal length and aperture.
 
First up, my apologies for the tardy reply - real-life, and all that (work - blargh! ;-)).

Thanks for the replies, guys - it's much appreciated. I've had a play with my 70-200mm set to what I guess is 85mm (it's not marked), and 18-70mm set to what I guess is 60mm (again, not marked), and, hoping to avoid focal length alterations with focus distance issues, I think the 85mm wins out.

Thanks for the f/1.4 samples, John - they're great, especially the first one - if I got something even remotely close to that, I'd be very happy indeed! :-) I did try looking through PBase using its camera/lens function, but gave up due to some of the images being, uh, "unsafe" for work ...

Thanks for the article, PerL - interesting read :-)

--
My gallery of so-so nature photos:
http://martinch.zenfolio.com/
 
I find the 50mm to be a perfect portrait lens. I feel like im just far enough from the subject without being so far away i can't give directions. I say save the money and get the 50mm 1.8

 
I've got the 85mm 1.8 and its a great lens, and I love it, a ton.

I made the same choice you're making now, and honestly, I think I should have gone with the 60mm. Its a macro lens, which is nice, but also on the d300 that 60mm lens is really closer to the 85-90mm portrait length. then again, i still shoot with my old film camera, and i'll eventually upgrade to an FX sensor, so the 85 is still great in the long term.
--
http://www.austinbeausoleil.com
 
I have the 50mm 1.8, 60mm and 105VR and love them all. I think the 105 is the sharpest of the three with great bokeh but the 50mm is really the best bang for the buck. I like the 60 and 105 just because you can switch to macro mode should you be in to that.
--
-Ken
Nikon D300
 
Considering you have the 70-200, I suggest you get the 50mm f/1.8

At this price, even if you don't use it often it's still a great purchase. It will probably do the job (it's easy to do headshots with it, without being to close) If it does not, keep the wonderful 50mm f/1.8 and get the 85.
--
Nikon D300, Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, Sigma 20mm f/1.8, Nikkor 50mm f/1.8.
 
Hi, I have a D300 as well and a 50mm 1.4G. It is a terrific portrait lens! I would rather take the 50mm as the longer lenses because you need much more distance to your subject. And..... you have 2 stops more flexibility! The lens isn't that expensive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top