Reading mode: Light Dark

Best portrait lense for D40?

Go to last post
I was going to get a Sigma 30mm HSM, but when I checked it out at the camera store, it didn't seem as sharp as the Nikon 50mm 1.8 - but the only Sigma lens they had was for a Canon, so didn't really get a a/b comparison on the D40 - I copared the Sigma on a Canon Xti to the Nikon on a D40 - I bought the 50mm 1.8, knowing that I would have to perform manual focus, and so far, I really like it. I have taken some out-of-focus shots, but hey, it's digital, so I can just delete them, right? Anyhow, having to focus manually causes me to pay more attention to the composition of the picture, and to the exposure - does that make sense? sometimes I tend to just point and shoot when I've got the kit lens on, and don't really get as good a shot as I would like to have - and I'm still learning the post processing software - It seems like it is easier to get it right in the viewfinder than to try to make it right after the fact.

and the 50mm 1.8 is priced right, in my opinion - just a little over $100.00 - the 30mm Sigma will run over 300 - almost 400 in most venues. I'm not sure it's worth 3 to 4 times as much just to have autofocus....

Harry
 
once you get over the thrill of blurry backgrounds -

head on over to the lighting forum and see metering for portraits starting around f8

so you don't need f1.8 for a portrait lens

you do need something that can give a proper perspective and be adequately sharp

the 55-200 covers a very nice focal range and would be great for portrait

the sigma 50-150mm f2.8 hsm is also a nice portrait lens

the 50mm f1.8 is actually a little wide for classic portraits

the 85mm f1.8 - if you shoot at f1.8 has a very shallow depth of field - i personally like the whole head in focus

my personal advice for the D40 would be get the 55-200 vr dx and a SB-800, camera stand, umbrella mount and umbrella

you can use the on board D40 flash set to 1/128 manual to trigger the SB-800 off camera in su-4 mode

mount the flash at 45 degrees to the subject, shoot through the umbrella as close as you can get it to the face of the model without showing up in the picture

invest in or make a background

good luck!

David

if you
 
nikkor 17 55 2.8? ..nikkor 85 1.4 is one hell of a portrait lens too but no autofocus.

a bit pricey but they are the best right?
 
I'm not sure what your kit lens is, but for the price the 18-135 makes a superb portrait lens. The 55-200vr would also work inexpensively. I just feel that the 18-135 has more pop, is more contrasty and sharp, not that you need sharp for portraits.

For proper perspective, like someone else said, around 85 mm is right for classic portraits. In the old days of film, the 105 was the classic portrait lens, but now with APS sensors, it's a little long.

The 35 or 50mm lenses are too wide unless you're doing full length portraits.
 
I've been using an old Nikkor 50mm f2 AI lens on my D40x and getting REALLY beautiful portaits. BUT... can't use the camera's meter with that lens. :-( I had thought about the Sigma 30mm, but it just seems too big and the reviews of it are so-so. And for portraits, I don't really like auto-focus anyway... I like to choose what I'm focusing on. So along comes Cosina-Voigtlander's new line of SL II lenses ( a 40mm and the 58mm f1.4). These lenses have a CPU chip in them so you can use your D40's meter!! :-) And the 58mm with the D40's 1.5 crop factor equates to a perfect 85mm... a perfect portrait lens!! Cosina's first run of the 58mm lens sold out. You can put in an order for the next run (due in late March) through CameraQuest.com ($100 deposit on the $379 lens). By the way, the reviews of the 58mm lens I've read on-line say it is outstanding.
--
Jamie
 
Guidenet said:
I'm not sure what your kit lens is, but for the price the 18-135
makes a superb portrait lens.
Click to expand...
I agree - I'm no portrait photographer, but here's an example of what my D40 + 18-135mm (sadly along with the pop-up flash) can produce.

It's really only a 'snapshot' but I wanted to post the picture to show the quality of the lens.



Exposure:0.017 sec (1/60)
Aperture:f/9
Focal Length:75 mm
ISO Speed:200
Exposure Bias:-1/3 EV
Flash:Flash fired, auto mode
ISO Speed:200
--
Cheers, Peter

 
Kimmyy0868 said:
Any suggestions out there?
Click to expand...
You tell us nothing about yout intended use (Indeed most replies exceed your 10 words many times). Studio? Candid? Group portraits?

Studio - you can consider a prime lens BUT there is no portrait prime that will AF on the D40. The 30mm Sigma will distort the image and give you subjects with a bulbous nose (a bit like those distorting mirrors at a funfair). The correct focal length is around 85mm (the 1.5 x crop has NO impact on this. It is perspective that is important. A 50mm is still too short as is 58mm (both will overemphasise the nose but to a lessening degree)

Candid - You are better off with a zoom. Fortunately many will AF on the D40. You ask for the best lens. I would say thr Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 but do get the newer model which will be sharper at close focus. The best is always expensive but the Sigma is relatively affordable.

P.S. As you can see from Peter's photo above the 18-135 will do a perfectly decent job and I expect the new 16-85 VR should be OK but it is too new to have been reviewed (It may just be a bit soft by 85mm) but neither with give the subject isoaltion of an f/2.8 or better lens.

--
Chris Elliott

Nikon D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile

http://PlacidoD.Zenfolio.com/
 
I go along with these suggestions completely. I have always wanted at least both eyes to be in focus and I prefer the eyes and nose and ears to be in focus. The 55-200 along with most other zooms in this range or near there will make superb portraits. And compared with the price of a 85 mm prime are very reasonably priced. There are many who have a fixation for the 50 and 85mm primes and will overlook all other options and I'm not sure why. Even if they were sharper (which mine aren't) you don't always want pin point sharpness in a portrait anyway. Lots of folks don't want to see their face with ears and nose out of focus and all the little blemishes on their face jumping out at them, so many portrait photographers will add some blur or other effects to even things out and I have seen many taken with the sharp primes that were post processed to the point of the skin looking like smooth plastic, so there wasn't much reason to start with razor sharpness to get there.
 
RAL said:
. Lots of folks don't want to see their face with ears and nose
out of focus and all the little blemishes on their face jumping out
at them, so many portrait photographers will add some blur or other
effects to even things out and I have seen many taken with the sharp
primes that were post processed to the point of the skin looking like
smooth plastic, so there wasn't much reason to start with razor
sharpness to get there.
Click to expand...
yes, couldn't agree more

David
 
Chris Elliott said:
The correct focal length is around 85mm (the
1.5 x crop has NO impact on this. It is perspective that is
important.
Click to expand...
i disagree with that statement

yes, perspective is only a function of distance from the camera

but field of view is a function of the focal length

so if you use a 85mm lens on a 35mm camera - you will be closer to get the same field of view as on a 1.5x crop camera

thus you will have a different perspective

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Equivalent-Lenses.shtml

for portraits the field of view and perspective are important

also 85mm is not THE correct focal length - it depends - on several things - one of which is how much of the person you want to show and of course, what kind of perspective you want to convey

i agree with everything else you said

the sigma 50-150mm is an excellent candid portrait lens

David
 
... no one asked what a "portrait" means to the poster. Looking at his profile, looks to me he is just getting started, unless I misunderstand his posting history...

So, what does a portrait mean to you with your D40? If it is a snap-capture of a moment in the park or similar non-studio situation, then you need autofocus. F5.6 at 200mm may be OK so the 55-200mm or 18-200 or the 70-300 may work. But only if you are taking a tight head shot from close-up for under 200mm. Personally, I would not go for a slower than F4 for good subject isolation on under 200mm. If things are moving, autofocus is needed and if subject isolation is what you want, the F5.6 lenses will not cut it - go for a 50-150 Sigma to keep it light and cheap (compared to the F2.8 70-200 variety).

Or if manual focus is OK for you, then some Tokina or Vivitar F2.8 or 2.5 Macro lenses would fit the bill. There are also old Nikon manual focus 105 macro lenses for not that much money. For about $400+ you can get a used 180mm AF-D Nikon (manual focus for you) that is just about the best a little money can get you in that length...

The 50mm at F2 also gives decent results IMO but you need to be relatively close do careful with the perspective distortion... Plus the D40 autofocus won't work for it...
Kimmyy0868 said:
Any suggestions out there?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
--
Regards,
Mihail
http://www.pbase.com/kocho/favorites
 
Well...

I think the important question isn't what lens, but rather what kind of portrait do you want to do? I mean, usually people asking this question SEEM to want to do a very classic headshot-style portrait with a blurry background. And those can be great shots.

But there are lots and lots of types of portraits, and I think you should at least consider what options your current equipment might offer. For instance, here's a portrait I did with the 18-55 kit lens and an SB-400:



And here's another with the 18-55 kit, but with some stage lighting (it was a press photo for an Off-Broadway play):



And here's a third with the 50/1.8, manually focused on my D40, no flash:



Anyway, I think the important thing is to think about what you'd like to do portrait-wise and to also consider what you can do with the gear you currently have.

Good luck!
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acrein
 
Peter, you seem to do a fine job on any variety of subjects with your 18-135!
Not being a pro, I don't consider that I need a specific "portrait lens", and
that any that I have (other than my 35 or 50) will be OK for the job.
Like your 18-135, my 18-200 is my "do all" lens, including portraits.
Peter Gat said:
Guidenet said:
I'm not sure what your kit lens is, but for the price the 18-135
makes a superb portrait lens.
Click to expand...
I agree - I'm no portrait photographer, but here's an example of
what my D40 + 18-135mm (sadly along with the pop-up flash) can
produce.

It's really only a 'snapshot' but I wanted to post the picture to
show the quality of the lens.
Click to expand...
--
Patco
A photograph is more than a bunch of pixels
 
Patco said:
Peter, you seem to do a fine job on any variety of subjects with your
18-135!
Not being a pro, I don't consider that I need a specific "portrait
lens", and
that any that I have (other than my 35 or 50) will be OK for the job.
Like your 18-135, my 18-200 is my "do all" lens, including portraits.
Click to expand...
Thank you kind sir - Yes my 'do all' lens seems to cater for most of my needs, although if I ever become "rich & famous", I would certainly consider purchasing the Nikor 70-300 mm lens which folks say also produces really sharp images but at much longer focal distances.

We're all allowed to dream, aren't we?

Hope the snow's not too deep where you are.

Regards, as always
--
Cheers, Peter

 
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