Portrait lens for beginners

[tom b berger]

Hi guys,

i'm thinking to buy a portrait lens. To be honest, do no know what to buy.

Is 50mm on APS-C good enough to be portrait lens? Or should I get 85mm or more?What if I want to shoot indoor as well? Should I get 35mm (30mm) one?

If 50mm ...

Nikon 50mm F1.4D?
Nikon 50mm F1.4G?
Sigma 50mm F1.4 EX DG?

over 80mm

Nikon 85mm F1.8D
Tamron AF 90mm f/2.8 Di SP

Or any other suggestions?

Thanks,
Tom

 

[MajorNikon]

The term "portrait lens" means a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

The first thing you should consider is what type of portraits do you want to take most of the time? If you want to take full body shots or pictures with multiple people in them, and you have limited space, a 50mm probably wouldn't be a bad way to go. If you want to take head shots, or upper body torso shots, even a 135mm isn't too bad indoors (although that's probably on the extreme end for most homes). When shooting outdoors, pro photographers might use lenses as long as 300mm.

Once you figure out the minimum and/or maximum focal lengths you can use, you can go from there.

On a DX sensor, with a 50mm lens you can take a full body portrait of 1-2 people from about 15' away. From about 10' away, you can take a head shot of a single person with a 135mm lens (I'm working from memory here so those figures may not be precise, but they are close).

Personally I like lenses on the longer end. Your needs may dictate shorter focal lengths. Naturally zoom lenses are good choices for some.

 

[Deleted1929]

First lets start with what you have - camera and lenses. Some lenses need an motor in the body to autofocus and some Nikon's don't have a motor in the body.

--
StephenG

 

[tom b berger]

Thank you,

to be honest I prefer/would like to do head shots or upper torso as you said. 85mm on FF is 127.5mm on DX lens, you were pretty close 50mm is 80mm on DX ...

It is so difficult to choose the right piece of glass. I'm still thinking that 50mm even the focal length is not really suitable for head shots could be better choice it could be used indoor, outdoor ... and 50mm lenses are much cheaper then 85mm ones except Nikon 85mm f1.8D ... 85mm f1.4 lens sigma or nikon are over £800 and that just to much ...

Which one would you go for?

T.

 

[tom b berger]

Hi,

I do have Nikon D80, it's got build in motor

Lenses ...
Tamron SP AF 17-50mm F2.8
Sigma 28-200mm F3.5-5.6 Aspherical

Thanks,
T.

 

[MajorNikon]

I've never owned a 85mm lens so I couldn't say. My portrait lens is the Nikon 135/2D DC.

 

[tom b berger]

I assume you are not a beginner just due to f2.0 defocus lens

 

[Cross_]

Sigma 28-200mm F3.5-5.6 Aspherical

Looks like you've got a beginner's portrait lens right there.

Before running out to buy another one- what are the limitations you run into with that lens you own ?

Take a look at the portraits you have taken so far- are most of of them at a specific focal length? If so then you might want to consider getting a prime lens of that length.

 

[tom b berger]

Thanks for your reply. This Sigma isn't my favorite lens, got it from my gf . I took a few portraits with this one, quite a lot of them were on focal length over 100mm, to be exact 60% taken with focal lenght 200mm, it's got nice creamy bokeh on 200mm at least I like it and my gf as well.

I can't really use it on lower light conditions, the shutter speed goes down to 1/20s.
Sorry for my broken english it isn't my first language

T

 

[Guidenet]

Hi Tom, I don't see where you mentioned a budget. Let me suggest 85 f/1.4 if you can afford it. The crazy sweet OOF areas are beautiful. If you can't afford that, get the f/1.8 version.

I find it a wonderful length for indoor portraits, formal or informal.

I also really love my old Nikon 105 f/2.5 manual focus lens. It is almost as magical as the 85 f/1.4 at a much lower price. You'll have t move back slightly more with it. Dont be afrait of the length. It's good indoors, but keep the portraits tight.

It all depends on your budget.
--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile

 

[tom b berger]

Thank you for your advice and suggestions. I'm just a beginner and in this case MF lens is not the best option and my budget ... well £500. What are my options if I would like to get 85mm lens and do not want to spend fortune on lens?

Sigma 85mm 1.4 if around £900
Nikon 85mm 1.4D is about the same
Nikon 85mm 1.4G is more the £1200

It means I do have only one option and that's the old 85mm 1.8D lens.

T.

 

[MajorNikon]

I assume you are not a beginner just due to f2.0 defocus lens

No, I've been at it for a couple of years. I started out with a Nikon FM. As a beginner, I wouldn't recommend you run out and buy a $1300 lens that's primarily used for portraits, unless you know for sure that's what you want. However, there are other options to get a 135mm focal length. You can use a zoom lens (although I'd recommend a fast one with a wide maximum aperture for portraiture). There's lots of manual focus Nikkor 135mm lenses available on the used market, and there's plenty of choices for 3rd party lenses. If you really want a spiffy portrait lens, the Nikon 180mm (in manual or AF), makes a great one if you have the room to use it. Many of those can be had reasonably too.

 

[Deleted1929]

to be exact 60% taken with focal lenght 200mm

A little longer than most people would define as portrait on crop frame.

Some possibilities in view of your preference for telephoto ranges :

• Nikon 180mm f2.8
• Sigma 50-150 f2.8
• a 70-200 f2.8 or 80-200 f2.8

I'd also add as a budget option :

• Nikon 55-200 VR

If you can handle the weight ( perhaps with a monopod or tripod ) the 70/80-200 f2.8 lenses are good choices for a fast lens at 200mm.

If you'd like something lighter for hand-held shots then the Sigma or the Nikon 180. Optically very good and almost 200mm.

The Sigma 50-150 is a lighter option than the 70/80-200 f2.8's that gives you a good fast zoom lens.

The 55-200 VR is very cheap used. If you're not put off by the relatively slow aperture ( f5.6 at 200mm ) then it's fine optically. It has the advantage of being very light.

--
StephenG

 

[Guidenet]

Thank you for your advice and suggestions. I'm just a beginner and in this case MF lens is not the best option and my budget ... well £500. What are my options if I would like to get 85mm lens and do not want to spend fortune on lens?

Sigma 85mm 1.4 if around £900
Nikon 85mm 1.4D is about the same
Nikon 85mm 1.4G is more the £1200

It means I do have only one option and that's the old 85mm 1.8D lens.

And Tom, that's not a bad option. That 85 f/1.8 is a wonderful lens and the pricei is a bargain.

My choice would be the 85 f/1.4D but the f/1.8 is nice as well, just not as much magic. I'd certainly pick it over the others you've mentioned. That is if you really want a portrait lens and not some dual purpose glass.

--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile

 

[tom b berger]

Yeah, I'm a bit extreme with 200mm ... it is extreme. Just hope to fit one day in between 85-135mm ...

Thanks for great advice and selection of different lenses ...

Best of luck,
Tom

 

[tom b berger]

Really would like to buy prime lens/portrait lens. Dual lens?Well ... I've got Sigma 28-200mm F3.5-5.6 Aspherical if you mean zoom lens as dual lens.
The 1.4G is my dream but for now it is out of budget.

Would you buy f2.8 lens as portrait lens? Just for example 105mm f2.8 one?I know, it is now a low light performer but would you consider it as a choice?

Thanks,
T.

 

[tom b berger]

I've got my DSLR olny for 4 months and to be honest, I did try MF and setting aperture but the results were terrible . So, AF is back on ...

Would you consider Sigma 105mm f2.8 as an option or Tamron SP AF 90mm f2.8? Non of them is not a low light performer and after reading Sigma lenses reviews I'm a bit scared of FF and BF problems.

Thanks,
T.

 

[Guidenet]

Really would like to buy prime lens/portrait lens. Dual lens?Well ... I've got Sigma 28-200mm F3.5-5.6 Aspherical if you mean zoom lens as dual lens.
The 1.4G is my dream but for now it is out of budget.

Would you buy f2.8 lens as portrait lens? Just for example 105mm f2.8 one?I know, it is now a low light performer but would you consider it as a choice?

What I meant as a dual purpose lens it a Macro and a Portrait lens, not really a zoom.

By 105 f/2.8, I think you're probably talking a macro lens. I also think it would be a great choice. Many folks use a macro as their portrait lens and they do well at it. I think Nikon's 105 f/2.8 is a bit expensive and I think Sigma's 105 f/2.8 is just as good as far as optically. Tamron's 90 f/2.8 is also absolutely superb.

F/2.8 is a great low light performer as well. It might not be as good as a 1.4, but most of us stop down our f/1.4 lenses to f/2 or 2.8 much of the time to better control that very thin depth of field. A 105 f/2.8 at 2.8 will be plenty thin for a nice OOF rendreing.

I love portraits, especially baby portraits at f/1.4 but I'm a minority. The DOF is so thin such that many don't like just one eye being sharp, or the hairline blurring slightly.

Here's a fence taken with an 85 f/1.4 at f/1.4 for an example.



Here's a baby at f/1.4. See the hair and ears already blurring. Maybe too much for many.



Here's a 35 f/2 at f/2. I'm right up close, but I wanted to show depth.



Just for fun and to show OOF or the Bokeh, here's 500mm and f/4.8. Notice its a pretty think depth of field.



--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile

 

[tom b berger]

wow, they are stunning. Getting impression that you do photography for living not just for fun The Sigma 105 f2.8 is macro one as well as Tamron SP AF 90mm f2.8. Is the second picture is taken with 35mm f2.0 lens? If yes, is the "old" f2.0 better then 35mm f1.8G lens?

 

[Guidenet]

wow, they are stunning. Getting impression that you do photography for living not just for fun The Sigma 105 f2.8 is macro one as well as Tamron SP AF 90mm f2.8. Is the second picture is taken with 35mm f2.0 lens? If yes, is the "old" f2.0 better then 35mm f1.8G lens?

No, I do very little for a living anymore. I've been a passionate photographer for over 50 years now and enjoy it ever week.

Yes, it was the 35 f/2. When I bought it, the 35 f/1.8 was not out. The f/1.8 is a better lens optically, but it's pretty much DX only and I also use my D700. That old 35 isn't half bad though and actually can be excelllent at f/8 and be there.
--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile