Portraiture..45mm f1.8 or 60mm f2.8?

Hi all, I'm looking to get a longer lens for my nx500 for portraits. Currently I have the 16-50mm PZ, 30mm, & 50-200mm. I'm contemplating between the 45mm & 60mm, as I can't really afford the 85mm f1.4 at the moment (with its price I can get BOTH 45mm & 60mm! :-O).

I know the 45mm f1.8 is a very well loved lens in our NX community, but I wonder is its focal length long enough for portraiture? On the other hand, although 60mm seems like a perfect focal length for portraits (~90mm equivalent), is it sharp at wide open? I'm actually leaning towards the 60mm as it does macro as well.

Hmmm...can anyone please kindly share their experiences/opinions? Thanks!

I have the NX 45 1.8, the NX 60 2.8 macro and the NX 85 1.4, and I much prefer ther 45 and 85 for portraits because of the lovely quality of their bokeh and their beautiful combination of nice softness, very good sharpness and pop. The 60 macro is very sharp, but also very contrasty and has a much harder rendition than the other two. This can be fine for tough, cold, very sharp or high contrast portraits, but the other two are much more charming, flattering, airy.

The FL of the 45 works very well for portraits, and its bokeh at portrait distance is better than that of the 60 2.8 which can quickly look flat and hard at non-macro/portrait distance (light depending). Remember that all macros are optimized for macro distance in their rendition, and I find them usually inferior to fast standard or short tele lenses at longer or portrait distance. This also applies to the stellar 60 and 105 macro Nikkors I have. The NX 45 has also a very fast AF, faster than the NX 60 macro and the 85 1.4 (which has a lot of heavy glass to move). I really love the 85, but it's clumsy and heavy on my small NX500, and not such a good action-portrait lens. The 45 is much better at action shots, portraits included. It also has the most colour pop of the three, I'd say. It's a very beautiful lens. And if you get the standard 2D version (same optically as the 2D/3D), it's also cheap.

Get the 45.

Andrea

I'm a fan of the 60. The shorter the lens the more distortion you will get. Ideally on APS-C you want 55mm or greater, 60-70 is good. 100mm is better. 135 is actually not bad. 
I love the 60 and use it when ever possible. (as I don't have the 50-150 or the 85) 
Though if I'm doing full body from a distance I have been known to use the 30mm when space is an issue.

60mm

30mm

The first one really is a great portrait, Kaziklu, the lady with the red hat. Thanks for posting that. It illustrates my point about the 60, i.e. that it works for hard high contrast shots when well employed. But as you can also see on this image, this lens is unforgiving through its sharpness and high contrast, for instance when it comes to various kinds of skin imperfections. I found that it can also easily age people, emphasizing wrinkles and shadows. When used well, that can look cool, though. But it's not what I'd call a flattering lens. The 45 and 85 are much more flattering.

Regarding the FLs, yes, some think it's all about compression through telephoto. But I have no problems shooting a fast 50+ mm FF equivalent to get some lovely portraits. That being said I think that the 85/128 equiv. is also FL-wise actually the best portrait lens among the three. The 60 macro/90 equiv. is clearly good FL wise as you say, but I don't think it's a good enough portrait lens as I explained. Despite its relative shortness, the 45/68 equiv. works very well for portraits, trust me. I think Kaziklu doesn't have the 45 (or the 85). They have a very different character when compared to the 60 macro, and not just in terms of their compression rates. You guys should try them!

Andrea

Andrea Georgia wrote:

The first one really is a great portrait, Kaziklu, the lady with the red hat. Thanks for posting that. It illustrates my point about the 60, i.e. that it works for hard high contrast shots when well employed. But as you can also see on this image, this lens is unforgiving through its sharpness and high contrast, for instance when it comes to various kinds of skin imperfections. I found that it can also easily age people, emphasizing wrinkles and shadows. When used well, that can look cool, though. But it's not what I'd call a flattering lens. The 45 and 85 are much more flattering.

Regarding the FLs, yes, some think it's all about compression through telephoto. But I have no problems shooting a fast 50+ mm FF equivalent to get some lovely portraits. That being said I think that the 85/128 equiv. is also FL-wise actually the best portrait lens among the three. The 60 macro/90 equiv. is clearly good FL wise as you say, but I don't think it's a good enough portrait lens as I explained. Despite its relative shortness, the 45/68 equiv. works very well for portraits, trust me. I think Kaziklu doesn't have the 45 (or the 85). They have a very different character when compared to the 60 macro, and not just in terms of their compression rates. You guys should try them!

Andrea

I would much rather have the detail and soften if I choose to, than not have it. I have never ever had an issue using the 60. Soft focus lens have their time and place, for general purpose portraiture I want a good sharp lens.

I don't have the 45 that is a choice because I don't shoot at that focal length. 30 I do. 85 I haven't gotten because again I rarely shoot at that focal length, I tend to shoot 60 or 100.

The 85 is a nice compromise and I may pick up the Rokinon. As I shoot is a small space I have to pick the right focal lengths.

Complaining a lens is too sharp.. suggest you shoot a different kind of Portraiture.
I don't know though, I haven't seen any.

Not necessarily too sharp, both the 45 and 85 can be very sharp, too, especially when stopped down a tad, and the 85 especially has an immense resolution, but I find the 60 macro to be too hard and contrasty for a general purpose portrait lens, and to my eye the bokeh is just not as nice for portrait distance as that of the other two. It has a completely different rendition from the others. But as I said already, if you like its style, hardness, it may work for you.

Andrea

I agree with Andrea. While 60 is a great lens and it sits on my camera most of the time I don't really like to take portraits with it. It's too... I don't know how to name it Maybe contrasty and rough. And 85 is just great for portraits, it feels like it was definitely developed with portraits in mind. It's soft at sharp at the same time. It's sharpness just differs from 60's.

Andrea Georgia wrote:

Not necessarily too sharp, both the 45 and 85 can be very sharp, too, especially when stopped down a tad, and the 85 especially has an immense resolution, but I find the 60 macro to be too hard and contrasty for a general purpose portrait lens, and to my eye the bokeh is just not as nice for portrait distance as that of the other two. It has a completely different rendition from the others. But as I said already, if you like its style, hardness, it may work for you.

Andrea

I agree about the 45 and 60mm's. I don't have the 85mm, which seems to be amazing. I like the 45mm for people portraits:

and the more contrasty 60mm for wild animals:

I think you are nuts. The only significant differences are the wider aperture, the quality of the class and the focal element allowing for Macro.

Wide open the 45 and the 85 with have a more narrow focal plan and greater focal fall off/bokeh but beyond that there is not significant difference in "Contrasty" images. That is something that comes from the light.

You can achieve great results with any lens all you have to do is use the lens well. For me the Focal distance the of the 60mm is much better than that of the 45mm... For the way I shoot I don't need the extra aperture.

Each lens has it's own rendition. There are more contrasty and less contrasty lens. We're not talking about aperture here.

Yes. The level of contrast is very important to the character or rendition of a lens. Bokeh is also part of the character, and I like to have the option for excellent bokeh. Different lenses also have different colour renditions, some cooler, some warmer. My newer Micro Nikkor 105 2.8 VR has a warmer rendition than my much older yet still very good 60 2.8 Micro Nikkor. If you look at the Nikon and Canon forums, you'll see dedicated lens forums where folks discuss the complex characters of lenses ad nauseam. But these discussions can be quite instructive.

Andrea

Lovely shots, and what a beautiful double portrait, TJL, thanks for the illustration. That impressively grumpy cat - is it shaved or photoshopped?

Andrea

You will be happy with it. I was surprised with it's AF speed on NX500 compared to NX30. It is really one of the best in it's class.

Don't ge me wrong - each Samsung's prime is a great lens. I love my 45 and 60 and 85 and even 10 (which is a little gem), not to mention 30. Each one has it's character and use, and I find it wonderful.

You like the 10 fisheye, I see! It must be an interesting lens. I thought about getting it at some point, but some lukewarm reviews kept me away. I think they talked about a distinctive lack of edge sharpness which does not vanish even when the lens is stopped down. Do you find this also with yours?

Andrea

As Spaceman said, you'll like the 45. It's a great lens.

Andrea

Andrea Georgia wrote:

You like the 10 fisheye, I see! It must be an interesting lens. I thought about getting it at some point, but some lukewarm reviews kept me away. I think they talked about a distinctive lack of edge sharpness which does not vanish even when the lens is stopped down. Do you find this also with yours?

Andrea

I actually find in pretty sharp even in corners. Of course you can't expect that it will be as sharp, as, say, 45 all over the frame but I see no problems with corner sharpness.

Here are 2 shots made with this lens:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3890433?page=4#forum-post-56397297