Portrait Prime for D90 (I already have the 35mm 1.8)

kilofox

Looking for a "not in your face" prime for portraits. I suppose I could use the 35mm in some cases. Should I consider a 50mm or 85mm?

I am not in the market for a fast zoom, so a fast prime like the 50 or 85 would be the leading candidates.... I think.

Thanks in advance.

ziggy53

kilofox wrote:

Looking for a "not in your face" prime for portraits. I suppose I could use the 35mm in some cases. Should I consider a 50mm or 85mm?

I am not in the market for a fast zoom, so a fast prime like the 50 or 85 would be the leading candidates.... I think.

Thanks in advance.

For a head shot or head-and-shoulders on a crop 1.5x camera, 50mm is the shortest I would recommend but the 85mm focal length is nice if you have the room. Some even use 100mm or so. For a full-length or 3/4 length portrait a 35mm is probably pretty nice and the 50mm, if you have the room.

DsrtVW

I love my 50mm f1.8 on the D300. The D90 has a body drive motor doesn't it.
I have wanted to get a 85mm F1.8 or 1.4 but I am happy with my telephoto zoom 50-135mm f2.8 Tokina ATX Pro. I have thought about the Nikon 50mm AF-S f1.4 but can not justify it, when I have other wants and the lowly f1.8 is such a good performer. Other thought would be a Macro in that range 65 - 100mm that could pull double duty.

Mitchell

Budget?

Are you looking for a lens for headshots or full length portraits? Studio or outdoors?

MrBook2

I can't truly speak for the 85mm f/1.8D (since I don't have one yet) but the 50mm f/1.8D is a great for portraits on a DX sensor. And at about $140 new, you absolutely cannot go wrong with that lens. In fact, I will say that if you own a Nikon that can use "screw" type AF (ie the body has a motor for autofocus) you owe it to yourself to own the 50mm f/1.8D. Unless you have splurged and have the f/1.4, of course.

Tim Kamppinen

The 50 1.8 is a great value BUT I don't like to use mine for headshots. I find that (even with a DX sensor... I have a D90) I need to get too close for a tight headshot and there's too much perspective distortion in most cases. Now, sometimes it works out but most of the time I go with a longer lens. For a headshot I normally use my 80-200, typically at 200 but it's fine at 80mm as well.

Considering that you already have a 35mm for the wider shots, I'd think that an 85 1.8 or 1.4 would be a great way to go. I'd really like to have one myself but it's not in the budget at the moment.

MrBook2

I tend to be more of a head and shoulders type, but Tim is completely correct. If you like your shots really tight, you will have to get pretty close with the 50mm. It will still be a far cry from the 35mm, but if you like tight head shots, the 85mm would be better.

kilofox

Macro for Portrait????
I am liking DsrtVW's suggestion of letting a macro pull double duty as a portrait lens.

Right now I am looking at the Sigma 105 and Tamron 90 (both macro). Both are within my budget and I like the idea of using either for portraits and getting macro capabilities as a bonus.

Thoughts???

Darren Troy C

I have the 50mm 1.4 and it's one mega-machine! It has crazy sharpness and outstanding bokeh.

ziggy53

kilofox wrote:

I am liking DsrtVW's suggestion of letting a macro pull double duty as a portrait lens.

Right now I am looking at the Sigma 105 and Tamron 90 (both macro). Both are within my budget and I like the idea of using either for portraits and getting macro capabilities as a bonus.

Thoughts???

Absolutely. A true short-tele to medium tele-macro can have awesome sharpness. Bokeh can be somewhat dependent upon the actual lens candidate, so do a little homework to see if the lens you consider has the attributes you want.

Focus speed can also vary so portraits of moving subjects may be more challenging for some macro lenses.