Reading mode: Light Dark

Which portrait lens to choose in Nikon

Go to last post
I

iamHamza

New member
Messages
4
Reaction score
1
Hi !

I have Nikon D5200 camera with kit lens. I am not a pro , i am just a hobbyist and bought this camera very recently and i am interested in animal and portrait photography and as most of us i am too much obsessed with bokeh. i would like to know which lens in Nikon will provide me very creamy bokeh in full body portrait. Here is one sample image and i want something like this



6e7b647f31f64ab3bcdc63920545feb4.jpg

As being just a hobbyist i would prefer cheap lenses. Some photos what i have taken u can ask me if you want to check out and those all are by kit lens and some little post processing. Advance thanks for your help.
 
If you find that ~50mm on your kit lens is the right focal length, then the easy choice is the Nikon 50mm f/1.8G. Slightly shallower depth of field still with the more expensive Nikon 50mm f/1.4G.
 
Ido S said:
If you find that ~50mm on your kit lens is the right focal length, then the easy choice is the Nikon 50mm f/1.8G. Slightly shallower depth of field still with the more expensive Nikon 50mm f/1.4G.
Click to expand...
Or shallower still with a longer lens such as 105mm or 135mm.
 
iamHamza said:
I have Nikon D5200 camera with kit lens. I am not a pro , i am just a hobbyist and bought this camera very recently and i am interested in animal and portrait photography and as most of us i am too much obsessed with bokeh. i would like to know which lens in Nikon will provide me very creamy bokeh in full body portrait.
Click to expand...
To get a good quantity and quality of background blur you need one or more of these items:
  1. A camera with a large sensor.
  2. A long focal length lens.
  3. A wide aperture lens, shot close to wide open.
  4. Stand close to your subject.
  5. Have a distant background.
  6. Make sure the background is nondescript and soft, without lots of contrasting elements.
  7. Use a lens known for having a good quality of bokeh.
Your camera has a fairly large sensor and so this isn't much of a consideration.

Generally speaking for quality portraiture, consider standing at least 10-15 feet away from your subject for good perspective, and then select the focal length to get whatever part of the subject you desire, full length, ¾ length, head and shoulders, or a head shot. For maximum blurriness in the background and image quality, avoid cropping your image significantly to get less of your subject in the frame: rather, use a longer focal length and fill your frame with your subject.

Here are my recommendations for focal lengths to be used with your camera with the APS-C size 'crop' sensor:

For a full length portrait with the camera held horizontally: 35 mm or longer.

Full length portrait with the camera held on its side: 50 mm or longer.

¾ shot: 85 mm or longer.

Head shot: 135 mm or longer.

As you can see, every style of portrait can be taken with a longer lens than recommended, and so you just might want to get a somewhat longer lens. A good compromise lens is the Nikon 85 mm f/1.4 or f/1.8, which is long enough for many portraits and is wide enough to produce a good background blur; the Rokinon 85 mm f/1.4 is less expensive but lacks automatic focus, which might be a problem. Alternatively, the Nikon 50 mm f/1.8D is inexpensive, although it produces a rough background blur which might be distracting.

Finally, if you want a rough measure of how much background blur a lens is capable of generating, simply divide the focal length by the aperture setting you are using. The bigger the number, the more potential blur.
 
Ido S said:
If you find that ~50mm on your kit lens is the right focal length, then the easy choice is the Nikon 50mm f/1.8G. Slightly shallower depth of field still with the more expensive Nikon 50mm f/1.4G.
Click to expand...
Thanks for taking your time to answer. Yes 50 mm is comfortable for me and i am ready to buy 1.8g but the problem is if it will be able to produce bokeh as shown in my sample image because whenever i see sample images on flicker and dpreview there is no image like that.
 
Many people who upload images to Flickr, 500px, DPReview, etc. don't strip the EXIF data off the photos, so you can see the settings — most importantly in your case, that's focal length & aperture. For example, searching "full body bokeh" on 500px got this shot up, and it says it was shot at 85mm, f/2, on a DX camera body, like yours.

If you think you can go far enough backwards and still get the composition you want (as much of the body as you want in the photo), then an 85mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 will be easier to get a shallower depth of field with.
 
That sample picture was shot with Canon 135mm f/2 lens. For APS-C sensor camera a 85mm f/1.4 would be the closest equivalent, but the f/1.8 version for Nikon is just as sharp and much cheaper.

The sad fact is that getting a lens with "great bokeh" is not going to make you a great portrait photographer. Practice, good eye, good light, good backgrounds, good models first, then worry about the lens.
 
iamHamza said:
Ido S said:
If you find that ~50mm on your kit lens is the right focal length, then the easy choice is the Nikon 50mm f/1.8G. Slightly shallower depth of field still with the more expensive Nikon 50mm f/1.4G.
Click to expand...
Thanks for taking your time to answer. Yes 50 mm is comfortable for me and i am ready to buy 1.8g but the problem is if it will be able to produce bokeh as shown in my sample image because whenever i see sample images on flicker and dpreview there is no image like that.
Click to expand...
No, a 50 mm f/1.8g won't produce that much blur, not even close. Another problem is that the lens has a 'busy' out of focus blur.

You need to find a lens which is both known to have a smooth out-of-focus blur and has a wide physical aperture. By definition, the width of a lens' aperture (as viewed from the front of the lens) is the focal length divided by the f/stop setting, and the bigger the width, the more potential blurriness.

Why a wide aperture is needed can be illustrated by considering the tiny aperture width of a smartphone camera: put your finger in front of the lens, and the photo is ruined. With a wide aperture lens, you can put your finger in front of it, and it would be blurred beyond any recognition.

As someone else mentioned, your sample photo was taken with a 135 mm lens at f/2, which implies an aperture width of 135 mm / 2 = 67.5 mm, while a 50 mm f/1.8 lens has a maximum width of 50 mm / 1.8 = 27.8 mm.
 
I recommend a 200mm f/2. From what I've read and seen, it's so good, it instantly makes those who wield it a significantly better photographer.

If you sell your car, you might be able to afford it.
 
Last edited:
buybuybuy said:
I recommend a 200mm f/2. From what I've read and seen, it's so good, it instantly makes those who wield it a significantly better photographer.

If you sell your car, you might be able to afford it.
Click to expand...
Amateur and wants a cheap lens and you recommend chubby which is a huge lens and 3000 or more used. Agree if you show up with this on any body the people part, are in awe and assume you are a professional photographer. Rarely have I seen a bad shot from chubby shot wide open. I'd not go so far as to say priced like a car, a car price lens is a 400 2.8, LOL

Get / try rent a 85 1.8G on a crop sensor that should give you some cream. Next up might be to try a 105 2.8 Macro lens.

The bread and butter portrait isolation IMHO, not cheap, but versatile and great for portraits an sports would be the 70-200 VRi can be had for 1000-1300 used depending on condition, or the rare 80-200 2.8D AFS for 800-900 bucks in good condition.

--
"Today's Pictures Are Tomorrow's Memories"
 
Last edited:
chipmaster said:
buybuybuy said:
I recommend a 200mm f/2. From what I've read and seen, it's so good, it instantly makes those who wield it a significantly better photographer.

If you sell your car, you might be able to afford it.
Click to expand...
Amateur and wants a cheap lens and you recommend chubby which is a huge lens and 3000 or more used. Agree if you show up with this on any body the people part, are in awe and assume you are a professional photographer. Rarely have I seen a bad shot from chubby shot wide open. I'd not go so far as to say priced like a car, a car price lens is a 400 2.8, LOL
Click to expand...
Chubby! I like the sound of that. If there were ever a case to be made for a man's reach needing to exceed his grasp, "chubby" would be it. :)
chipmaster said:
Get / try rent a 85 1.8G on a crop sensor that should give you some cream. Next up might be to try a 105 2.8 Macro lens.

The bread and butter portrait isolation IMHO, not cheap, but versatile and great for portraits an sports would be the 70-200 VRi can be had for 1000-1300 used depending on condition, or the rare 80-200 2.8D AFS for 800-900 bucks in good condition.

--
"Today's Pictures Are Tomorrow's Memories"
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
iamHamza said:
Hi !

I have Nikon D5200 camera with kit lens. I am not a pro , i am just a hobbyist and bought this camera very recently and i am interested in animal and portrait photography and as most of us i am too much obsessed with bokeh. i would like to know which lens in Nikon will provide me very creamy bokeh in full body portrait. Here is one sample image and i want something like this

6e7b647f31f64ab3bcdc63920545feb4.jpg

As being just a hobbyist i would prefer cheap lenses. Some photos what i have taken u can ask me if you want to check out and those all are by kit lens and some little post processing. Advance thanks for your help.
Click to expand...
As has been noted, the shot you used as an example was taken with an expensive lens, a 135mm f/2 Canon. And the model is also pretty high-end.

The Nikon lens that will do a very similar job on your camera is the 85mm f/1.4G. It's $1600. There's also a 58mm f/1.4G for the same price. Some people have recommended the 85mm f/1.8G, an excellent lens that costs less than $500. I have one. Sharpest lens I own. Its bokeh is neutral, not spectacular. Portraits I take with it look cold to me.

But there is a way out. The 105mm f/2.5 AI-S Nikkor is widely available used for around $200. It is very robustly built so as long as the glass isn't scratched, a used one is OK. This lens has excellent bokeh and is my favorite portrait lens. But it is manual focus. And on your camera it's also manual exposure. So you would have to work to get results.

--
Leonard Migliore
 
apiron said:
apiron said:
Mark Scott Abeln wrote
  1. Stand close to your subject
Click to expand...
Confusing advice there imho.
Click to expand...
True. Not too close.

I mean that you don't want to stand so far back that you have to crop your image significantly to get the look you want. Of course this is roughly equivalent to using a longer lens at the same camera position, but that's a waste of pixels and sharpness.

But standing way back from the subject is a classic n00b mistake, hence the advice to 'fill the frame' with the subject. Leaving room, of course for judicious, not gross, cropping. But not so close that you'll have gross distortion on the subject. Unless you want that distortion. But you better be sure that your subject wants it too. :-)

Photography is an exercise in compromises.
 
if price is not an issue, the nikon 70-200 2.8
 
Mark Scott Abeln said:
iamHamza said:
Ido S said:
If you find that ~50mm on your kit lens is the right focal length, then the easy choice is the Nikon 50mm f/1.8G. Slightly shallower depth of field still with the more expensive Nikon 50mm f/1.4G.
Click to expand...
Thanks for taking your time to answer. Yes 50 mm is comfortable for me and i am ready to buy 1.8g but the problem is if it will be able to produce bokeh as shown in my sample image because whenever i see sample images on flicker and dpreview there is no image like that.
Click to expand...
No, a 50 mm f/1.8g won't produce that much blur, not even close. Another problem is that the lens has a 'busy' out of focus blur.

You need to find a lens which is both known to have a smooth out-of-focus blur and has a wide physical aperture. By definition, the width of a lens' aperture (as viewed from the front of the lens) is the focal length divided by the f/stop setting, and the bigger the width, the more potential blurriness.

Why a wide aperture is needed can be illustrated by considering the tiny aperture width of a smartphone camera: put your finger in front of the lens, and the photo is ruined. With a wide aperture lens, you can put your finger in front of it, and it would be blurred beyond any recognition.

As someone else mentioned, your sample photo was taken with a 135 mm lens at f/2, which implies an aperture width of 135 mm / 2 = 67.5 mm, while a 50 mm f/1.8 lens has a maximum width of 50 mm / 1.8 = 27.8 mm.
Click to expand...
 
iamHamza said:
Hello Sir, According to your calculations above, a 200 mm F/5.6 and 300 mm F/5.6 will produce a lot more bokeh (Blur) than 50 mm F/1.8, so what is the speciality of prime lenses, why buy separate prime lens, we can better buy 70-30 mm f/4 - f/5.6 for both portraits and telephotos.
Click to expand...
Prime lenses typically have simpler designs than zoom lenses, often allowing them to have higher image quality, more rugged construction, wider apertures, and lower price.
 
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