Nikon D5100 - Portrait Lens

Hi,

I am a novice to photography and recently purchased a D5100 with a Nikon AF-S 18-105mm f3.5-5.6 ED VR Lens. This Lens is sufficient for my needs as an all round lens however I have realised that I mostly take portraits so would like to invest in a portrait lens (on a budget).

Could someone please advise on which of these two would be better for portraits? Both are Autofocus therefore work with my D5100. They seem to be the same and would offer the same portrait quality (i.e. bokeh etc.) - I think the first one is older.

Nikon 50mm f/1.8 D AF Lens

OR

Nikon AF-S 50mm f1.8G

And lastly, since they are budget lens - would either actually provide much benefit for portraits over my current zoom lens (Nikon AF-S 18-105mm f3.5-5.6 ED VR Lens)?

Thanks in advance.

RhythMick said:

Hi,

I am a novice to photography and recently purchased a D5100 with a Nikon AF-S 18-105mm f3.5-5.6 ED VR Lens. This Lens is sufficient for my needs as an all round lens however I have realised that I mostly take portraits so would like to invest in a portrait lens (on a budget).

Could someone please advise on which of these two would be better for portraits? Both are Autofocus therefore work with my D5100. They seem to be the same and would offer the same portrait quality (i.e. bokeh etc.) - I think the first one is older.

Nikon 50mm f/1.8 D AF Lens

OR

Nikon AF-S 50mm f1.8G

And lastly, since they are budget lens - would either actually provide much benefit for portraits over my current zoom lens (Nikon AF-S 18-105mm f3.5-5.6 ED VR Lens)?

Thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

First I'd look at what focal length you are most often using to take portraits with your current lens.
If it is around 50mm, then I'd go for the 50mm 1.8mm - and yes it will be better. At the same focal length you'll be able to get much better subject isolation than with the zoom, and it should be considerably sharper and have better contrast, etc.

You'd be able to get even a little bit more subject isolation with the 1.4 wide open - but in reality the depth of field at that aperture is so narrow it can be difficult to use.

Firstly the 50mm f1.8 lens are not budget lens, they just happen to be inexpensive due to ease of design and market availability. For a heck of a long time they were the lens which most photographers bought with a new camera as their standard lens.

The 50mm fl on DX is slightly too short for head and shoulders and pictures will suffer slight distortion , e.g. big noses. but is OK for anything further away than that. If you need head and shoulders just crop.

As the other poster said have a look at what focal length you take your portraits, you will probably find its at about 85mm unless you're zooming in to get the shot.

If money is a problem then look for a second hand 85mm f1.8D.

The 2 main advantages you will get is sharper pictures (not always a good thing for portraits) and subject isolation if used at wider than f4.

RhythMick said:

Hi,

I am a novice to photography and recently purchased a D5100 with a Nikon AF-S 18-105mm f3.5-5.6 ED VR Lens. This Lens is sufficient for my needs as an all round lens however I have realised that I mostly take portraits so would like to invest in a portrait lens (on a budget).

Could someone please advise on which of these two would be better for portraits? Both are Autofocus therefore work with my D5100. They seem to be the same and would offer the same portrait quality (i.e. bokeh etc.) - I think the first one is older.

Nikon 50mm f/1.8 D AF Lens

OR

Nikon AF-S 50mm f1.8G

And lastly, since they are budget lens - would either actually provide much benefit for portraits over my current zoom lens (Nikon AF-S 18-105mm f3.5-5.6 ED VR Lens)?

Thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

Your 18-105 is a very good lens optically and it covers a range of focal lengths that are the most suitable for portraits (60 - 90mm). If you can shoot indoors with a plain backdrop or outdoors with a good distance between your subject and the background and without any distracting elements in the background it might be all you need.

What the 50mm f1.8 gives you is the opportunity to use a fast (wide) aperture to isolate your subject against a blurred background. The 50mm lenses are not at there best wide open but at f2 to f2.8 should provide you with decent isolation. That doesn't mean that you can ignor the background though - bright highlights and highly coloured objects will still be distracting even when blurred.

On FX cameras the classic portrait lens is the 85mm (f1.8 or f1.4) The f1.8 is as good if not better than the f1.4 unless you really do have a need for f1.4. It is still a suitable lens for portraiture on DX but does have a narrower FOV - similar to a 135mm on FX. This latter was also a popular focal length for portraits on 35mm cameras (and FX) but gives tighter framing unless you have the space to back off.

On DX the Tamron 60mm f2 Macro lens makes for a very nice portrait lens. It is also a very good Macro lens and a short telephoto for general use.

Regards

John

I have to agree with the 50mm 1.8....hands down bang for the buck!

RhythMick said:

Hi,

I am a novice to photography and recently purchased a D5100 with a Nikon AF-S 18-105mm f3.5-5.6 ED VR Lens. This Lens is sufficient for my needs as an all round lens however I have realised that I mostly take portraits so would like to invest in a portrait lens (on a budget).

Could someone please advise on which of these two would be better for portraits? Both are Autofocus therefore work with my D5100. They seem to be the same and would offer the same portrait quality (i.e. bokeh etc.) - I think the first one is older.

Nikon 50mm f/1.8 D AF Lens

OR

Nikon AF-S 50mm f1.8G

And lastly, since they are budget lens - would either actually provide much benefit for portraits over my current zoom lens (Nikon AF-S 18-105mm f3.5-5.6 ED VR Lens)?

Thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

The 50mm f/1.8D won't focus with the D5100, as it lacks the auto-focus motor in the lens, you'll want one of the AF-S G lenses (50mm f/1.8G).

If you want something longer than the 50mm (for head and shoulder shots), the Nikon 85mm f/1.8G is a fairly impressive lens for a reasonably low price (~$400).

A rather underestimated lens is the 55-300mm telephoto (and to some extent the 55-200mm kit). While it won't have the razor thin DoF of a fast f/1.8 or 2.8 lens, it's still able to get pretty good at separating the subject from your background and is fairly sharp at <150mm. If it's a lens you already have, it's an option to play around with, although I wouldn't buy it just for portraits.

I agree that 50mm is a hair short (and 85mm quite long) for an 'ideal' portrait lens, and that your existing lens is far from terrible as a portrait lens.

That said the Nikon 50mm 1.8D (~$85) is not as good as the Nikon 50mm 1.8G (~$217) and nothing is as good as the Sigma 50mm 1.4 (~$400). The Nikon 50mm 1.4D is better than the either Nikon 1.8s and is a real bargain at about $230.

Something else you may not have considered is that none of Nikon's "D" series lenses will auto-focus on your camera. They will focus manually just fine, and that may work for you, but be aware it is an issue.

RhythMick said:

Hi,

I am a novice to photography and recently purchased a D5100 with a Nikon AF-S 18-105mm f3.5-5.6 ED VR Lens. This Lens is sufficient for my needs as an all round lens however I have realised that I mostly take portraits so would like to invest in a portrait lens (on a budget).

Could someone please advise on which of these two would be better for portraits? Both are Autofocus therefore work with my D5100. They seem to be the same and would offer the same portrait quality (i.e. bokeh etc.) - I think the first one is older.

Nikon 50mm f/1.8 D AF Lens

Click to expand...

D lenses won't AF on your camera. You need G lenses or lenses that say "build in focus motor"'

RhythMick said:

OR

Nikon AF-S 50mm f1.8G

And lastly, since they are budget lens - would either actually provide much benefit for portraits over my current zoom lens (Nikon AF-S 18-105mm f3.5-5.6 ED VR Lens)?

Click to expand...

While not expensive, the 50mm f1.8G is optically very good and will be noticeably better than your kit lens.

That said, I own both the 50mm f1.8G and the 85mm f1.8G, my suggestion is save your money for the 85mm. I rarely would pick up the 50mm for portraits. The 85mm Gives more distance between you and your subject and just does a great job of rendering people.









--
Stacey

Example from af-d 50 on d3100 (manual focus)

RhythMick said:

Nikon 50mm f/1.8 D AF Lens

OR

Nikon AF-S 50mm f1.8G

Click to expand...

In order for a lens to auto-focus on your D5100, you need to buy lenses described as "AF-S" as opposed to simply "AF". Notice that the first 50mm lens you list is an "AF" lens (without built-in silent wave motor) while the second is "AF-S" which refers to a built-in SWM for auto-focus.

It is a quite often repeated false statement in this forum that "D" lenses won't auto-focus on bodies lower than the D7XXX series and the "G" lenses will AF on all Nikon bodies. The "D" and "G" designations have nothing to do with the lens's auto-focus type. However, it is far more common for "G" lenses to be "AF-S" lenses and for "D" lenses to be "AF" lenses hence the continuation of the falsity.

But, if familiarize yourself with Nikon's current and past lens offerings you'll see ones which contradict the false "G" and "D" statements. Of the current available options the following prove my point:

"D" series lenses with AF-S motor:

Nikon Zoom Super Wide Angle AF-S Zoom Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/186250-GREY/Nikon_1960_AF_S_Zoom_Nikkor_17_35mm.html

Nikon Telephoto AF-S Nikkor 300mm f/4D ED-IF: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/207356-USA/Nikon_1909_Telephoto_AF_S_Nikkor_300mm.html

"G" series lenses without AF-S:

Nikon 10.5mm f/2.8G ED DX Fisheye Nikkor: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/300487-USA/Nikon_2148_10_5mm_f_2_8G_ED_DX.html

Nikon AF Zoom Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/207359-GREY/Nikon_1928_AF_Zoom_Nikkor_70_300mm.html

I didn't know that! I'll try to be more precise in the future.

Try taking a series of pics, same head shot, different focal lengths, 35, 50, 85, 100, with the subjects head size the same in each pic. Compare each for the most pleasing fl for portraits. Head shots I think an 85+ for a really natural look without distortion, 50 for head to toe. I would continue to use the zoom, and experiment, unless your sure the 50 is what u want.

Chris 1 said:

Try taking a series of pics, same head shot, different focal lengths, 35, 50, 85, 100, with the subjects head size the same in each pic. Compare each for the most pleasing fl for portraits. Head shots I think an 85+ for a really natural look without distortion, 50 for head to toe. I would continue to use the zoom, and experiment, unless your sure the 50 is what u want.

Click to expand...

Are you quoting focal lengths for an FX or DX camera? 85mm is frequently used on FX for head and shoulders or even tighter portraits. 50mm on DX is barely 10% different at 75mm equivalent. You literally could take a step back and then barely crop the photo to get the same perspective. Unless you are photographing someone with a large nose looking right at you, I doubt most could tell the difference between a portrait taken at 75mm versus 85mm anyway.

Jeff AG said:

I didn't know that! I'll try to be more precise in the future.

Click to expand...

I always knew about the AF-S D lenses because I started shooting a DSLR using a 17-35/2.8, 28-70/2.8, and 80-200/2.8 all AF-S D lenses. I was corrected on this forum a while back for stating that all G lenses had AF-S motors because at the time i hadn't looked hard enough to find those few oddball lenses Nikon made without an aperture ring or a built-in AF motor. But sure enough, a few do exist.

joejack951 said:

Chris 1 said:

Try taking a series of pics, same head shot, different focal lengths, 35, 50, 85, 100, with the subjects head size the same in each pic. Compare each for the most pleasing fl for portraits. Head shots I think an 85+ for a really natural look without distortion, 50 for head to toe. I would continue to use the zoom, and experiment, unless your sure the 50 is what u want.

Click to expand...

Are you quoting focal lengths for an FX or DX camera? 85mm is frequently used on FX for head and shoulders or even tighter portraits. 50mm on DX is barely 10% different at 75mm equivalent. You literally could take a step back and then barely crop the photo to get the same perspective. Unless you are photographing someone with a large nose looking right at you, I doubt most could tell the difference between a portrait taken at 75mm versus 85mm anyway.

Click to expand...

DX and I agree with you, 50/75 is oft said to be good, it's an interesting exercise though. I did it a while back and found the 85+ on APSC to my liking.

RhythMick said:

Nikon 50mm f/1.8 D AF Lens

OR

Nikon AF-S 50mm f1.8G

And lastly, since they are budget lens - would either actually provide much benefit for portraits over my current zoom lens (Nikon AF-S 18-105mm f3.5-5.6 ED VR Lens)?

Thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

There is another option: the glamour portrait. This is where the glamour photographer uses a very long focal length to remove even more face distortion on headshots (and head and shoulder shots). The result is said to be equivalent to seeing a person for the first time at the distance of one end of a room to the door, roughly 4 meters, and is thought to be the most flattering by many (but not all). Look at this for a demonstration. It'll tell you if you prefer the longer focal length.

If you do then there is an excellent budget option: the 55-200mm VR G (careful to avoid the non-VR), where 200mm gets you very close on dx to that example of 350mm (presumably shot on FX, fullframe). It isn't bad at 200mm. And it's very cheap.

However, the caveat is that the facial distortion at the 50mm focal length is probably better for people with some weight on them as it is somewhat slimming. In addition, the 50mm f1.8 doesn't need 4 meters to get a portrait. Your portrait oppotunities will be reduced to better weather with the 55-200mm. It also doesn't have the low-light benefit.

It's so cheap, however, that a 2nd hand copy of ebay may be justified in addition to the 50/1.8.

--

Dpreview Auto image-resizer for Firefox :
Chrome version here:

RhythMick said:

Hi,

I am a novice to photography and recently purchased a D5100 with a Nikon AF-S 18-105mm f3.5-5.6 ED VR Lens. This Lens is sufficient for my needs as an all round lens however I have realised that I mostly take portraits so would like to invest in a portrait lens (on a budget).

Could someone please advise on which of these two would be better for portraits? Both are Autofocus therefore work with my D5100. They seem to be the same and would offer the same portrait quality (i.e. bokeh etc.) - I think the first one is older.

Nikon 50mm f/1.8 D AF Lens

OR

Nikon AF-S 50mm f1.8G

And lastly, since they are budget lens - would either actually provide much benefit for portraits over my current zoom lens (Nikon AF-S 18-105mm f3.5-5.6 ED VR Lens)?

Thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

Neither. I'd get the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 in a heartbeat. It has better bokeh than the Nikon's and the half stop advantage is welcomed at times. I had the Sigma and it's one of the only lenses I have regretted selling. On the used market, it's a steal.

itsastickup said:

There is another option: the glamour portrait. This is where the glamour photographer uses a very long focal length to remove even more face distortion on headshots (and head and shoulder shots). The result is said to be equivalent to seeing a person for the first time at the distance of one end of a room to the door, roughly 4 meters, and is thought to be the most flattering by many (but not all). Look at this for a demonstration. It'll tell you if you prefer the longer focal length.

Click to expand...

This must be the "Some Enchanted Evening" effect.