Nikon Prime for Portraits, Choices??

lifeinfocus · July 26, 2011

So there are three Nikon prime lenses I am considering for portraits at the semi professional level. I am using a DX Nikon camera now and hope to upgrade in relatively near future, although probably stay with DX format for now.

First, the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.4G Classic Portrait Lens
FX format lens, at $1,669.95, which is out of stock at B&H and is a little too expensive at this point in time.

Second, the Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D Lens – released Mid 1990s. NikonRumors.com buying guide recommends wait for new release with no date set. FX format lens, $464.95 in stock at B&H. This lens is not easy to find on NikonUSA.com and NikonRumors.com noted today that major Nikon announcements are due August 24. So, while this may a good lens as a starter, it appears it may be replaced soon.

Third, Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4G Classic Portrait Lens
FX format lens, $439.95 in stock at B&H. Good all around lens for family shots but is its focal length long enough even with Nikon 1.5 crop to 75mm?

Other considerations?

Comments??

Phil

insanefred · July 26, 2011

50mm isn't really a portrait lens, it's just used that way sometimes. One other lens to look at for portraits is the Nikon 105mm macro (personal favorite focal length). Maybe a 80-200mm 2.8D, or the 85mm 1.8D (you can wait for the G version but that could be years before it's released) , that should get you started.

ziggy53 · July 26, 2011

I tend to think of portraits in terms of:

Head shots and head-and-shoulders.
3/4 length and full-length.
Group portraits.

I use different focal lengths depending partly on the available space. (Indoor portraits may have different requirements than outdoor portraits in every category.)

My preference is (corrected for FF field-of-view):

85mm or longer for the head shots and H-n-S. I often try to use 135mm for these outdoors.
50mm or longer for 3/4 and full-length. Again, longer is generally better as long as you have the room.
A "standard zoom" for group portraits. 24-70mm, f2.8 is typical for FF camera bodies.

Large aperture lenses give you better control over DOF and the best Nikkor large aperture lenses are expensive for a reason; they give very high image quality and tend to hold that quality out to the edges of the frame.

In addition to the lenses already discussed I would also recommend the Nikkor 105mm, f2 AF-D DC and Nikkor 135mm, f2 AF-D DC, which were designed for portraiture as one of its applications. (In this case "DC" stands for "Defocus Control".)

In Nikon, shooting DX with an eye for FX capability and looking for value, I would easily recommend:

Nikkor 85mm, f1.8 AF-D
Nikkor AF-S 50mm, f1.4 G
Nikkor AF-S 24-70mm, f2.8G ED

Foques · July 26, 2011

^
absolutely agree.

Sam (and Ziggy, IIRC) told me that I would be an idiot to not give a shot to the 85mm.
Boy, were they right. I am in love with that lens.

lilmomma · July 26, 2011

FWIW i just bought the 85 1.8 after debating between that and the 50 1.4g, I know I made the right choice. but if you can swing ~1600, do the 1.4. I couldn't justify it purely because I don't do this for $$. I am completely in love with my 85. And yeah who knows if they will release the 1.8g anytime soon. I am too impatient to wait.

Harryb · July 26, 2011

Anther lens that doesn't get much mention but does well for portraits is the Nikon 60mm f2.8 micro lens.

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/394-nikkor_60_28?start=2

lifeinfocus · July 26, 2011

Thanks to all for your valuable time and comments.

Phil

Icebear · July 26, 2011

For the money, I don't think you can beat the Tamron 90mm 1:2.8 Macro. DX or FX, it gives me great results. I also love the 70-200 Nikkor for portraits (on the FX) but you asked specifically about primes.

Qarik · July 26, 2011

the 85 1.4 D sells for about 1k new and on DX is every bit as good as the new version I think

areyoutheredaniel · July 26, 2011

http://www.ryanbrenizer.com/blog/2011/03/review-sigma-85mm-f1-4/

You may find the above of interest. He also compares the nikon 85 d to the 85 g.

I just take travel and grandkids pictures, but i have used 17-55 2.8, 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 and they are all very good for portraits at events. The 17-55 2.8 and the 85 1.4 make a great pair.

Bryce Wilson · July 26, 2011

I'm going to chime in here and hope I don't get blasted by the "lens snobs". Being as you say your use is "semi-professional", I'm going to assume you aren't making all or even a majority of your living by shooting. You mention doing portraiture and are looking for a lens, so I will assume also that this is a new venture or activity for you. This is why I'm going to recommend that you at least look at the following.

Currently, The digital bodies I have are the D700 and a D100. Guess what camera I use when I'm going to do portraiture in a studio lighting type setting? I still use the d100 in that environment. Why? Several reasons, but mainly it's because I have the Nikon 18-70mm 3.5-4.5 Af-s DX lens on the D100. Yes, according to the snobs, it's a consumer lens, but it's been on that camera a long time (I don't take it off the D100 because it's used for in studio use only these days) and frankly I love it and the portraiture it produces. Yes, there is some vignetting when used wide open, but seldom, if ever, are you going to use it wide open for portraiture. Funny thing about portraiture though, in most cases I find myself ADDING vignetting when it isn't there.

Currently you can pick this lens up used in the 150 to 200 range, save yourself a bunch of money starting out, and then, as your portraiture grows, make the decision on which one you might buy as you find out which focal length you use the most.

There is certainly nothing wrong with spending a lot for a lens if you really want it (God knows I'm guilty of this) but I kind of like testing the water prior to jumping in.

Here is a review by Thom Hogan

http://bythom.com/1870lens.htm

Here are a couple of portraits I've done with that lens on the old D100 body. Try as I might, I cannot find too much to bitch about.

This one at 70mm

This one taken outside in natural light at around 35mm if I remember correctly.

My two cents for what it's worth.

Matthew Saville · July 27, 2011

And f/3.5-5.6 zoom lens is nice if you've got control of your light, but on a crop sensor in low light, I wouldn't settle for anything less than a fast prime.

I'm betting that you (the original poster) already have plenty of misc. zoom lenses in the 18-70 range, and the whole reason you're getting a prime is for the shallow depth and low-light focusing.

I am also one of those slightly more telephoto shooters who doesn't mind the crop factor of an 85mm prime on DX. I'm just a more distanced shooter, I guess. It really depends on how you shoot your portraits, though. If you're very interactive, if you make your best images when you're close to the subject, then obviously my lens choice is not going to work for you. I'd even consider something wider than 50mm maybe, like the 35. But for "portraits", as others have mentioned, 50mm on DX or 85mm on FX is the accepted "portrait" length. Even though the really high-end fashion photographers actually shoot supermodels at 200mm and 300mm a lot of the time. But I digress.

The problem I have with recommending the 85mm f/1.8 AF-D is that, to be honest, it's just the old style of focusing and I'm spoiled by all the new AF-S lenses. Their focusing might not be as cranked-up fast, but WOW are they truly magic when it comes to accuracy and consistency. Having tested all SIX of the AFS / AFD versions of the 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.8, and the 85mm f/1.4, as well as the 35 f/1.4 AFS, I gotta say if you're looking to achieve maximum accuracy in low-light, you gotta get an AF-S lens. Even the lowly new 85 f/1.8 AFS-G is fantastic, I just bought it recently actually for my D700 and D300. I shot with it for an entire photo shoot (a for-fun casual day, not a paid gig) on my D300 recently.

Anyways, the problem I have with recommending the 85 f/1.8 AFD is that, in my opinion, it is one of the next lenses to be replaced with AFS. You can certainly buy one now and it will hold it's resale value quite well, but I would still urge you to go in the direction of maybe the 50 f/1.4 AFS, or even just the 50 f/1.8 AFS, if you'd rather save for the 85 f/1.4 AFS like me. I don't use 50mm on full-frame very much, so I just bought the $200 f/1.8 AFS instead of the $450 f/1.4 AFS. I'm saving up for the 35 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.4 AFS, they're the ultimate wedding photojournalism combo in my opinion. (weddings is my job)

Anyways, that's my opinion. You can't go wrong with a 50 on a crop sensor. I have a friend who learned almost exclusively on that setup, and he became a really good photographer because of the discipline that it took to shoot with just that lens.

Definitely borrow / rent a few lenses before buying. If you have no clue what "your style" is yet, I wouldn't buy anything too expensive lest it wind up completely un-used in 6 months...

=Matt=

jziegler · July 27, 2011

Are you willing to consider third party lenses? If you are, consider the Tamron 60mm f/2 macro. It's a stop faster than any of the Nikon micros, hits a good focal length for portraits on DX, and is just a good lens in general. I've had one about a month and have been very happy with it.

-Jim

lifeinfocus · July 27, 2011

Matthew Saville wrote: »

And f/3.5-5.6 zoom lens is nice if you've got control of your light, but on a crop sensor in low light, I wouldn't settle for anything less than a fast prime.

I'm betting that you (the original poster) already have plenty of misc. zoom lenses in the 18-70 range, and the whole reason you're getting a prime is for the shallow depth and low-light focusing.

I am also one of those slightly more telephoto shooters who doesn't mind the crop factor of an 85mm prime on DX. I'm just a more distanced shooter, I guess. It really depends on how you shoot your portraits, though. If you're very interactive, if you make your best images when you're close to the subject, then obviously my lens choice is not going to work for you. I'd even consider something wider than 50mm maybe, like the 35. But for "portraits", as others have mentioned, 50mm on DX or 85mm on FX is the accepted "portrait" length. Even though the really high-end fashion photographers actually shoot supermodels at 200mm and 300mm a lot of the time. But I digress.

The problem I have with recommending the 85mm f/1.8 AF-D is that, to be honest, it's just the old style of focusing and I'm spoiled by all the new AF-S lenses. Their focusing might not be as cranked-up fast, but WOW are they truly magic when it comes to accuracy and consistency. Having tested all SIX of the AFS / AFD versions of the 50mm f/1.4 and f/1.8, and the 85mm f/1.4, as well as the 35 f/1.4 AFS, I gotta say if you're looking to achieve maximum accuracy in low-light, you gotta get an AF-S lens. Even the lowly new 85 f/1.8 AFS-G is fantastic, I just bought it recently actually for my D700 and D300. I shot with it for an entire photo shoot (a for-fun casual day, not a paid gig) on my D300 recently.

Anyways, the problem I have with recommending the 85 f/1.8 AFD is that, in my opinion, it is one of the next lenses to be replaced with AFS. You can certainly buy one now and it will hold it's resale value quite well, but I would still urge you to go in the direction of maybe the 50 f/1.4 AFS, or even just the 50 f/1.8 AFS, if you'd rather save for the 85 f/1.4 AFS like me. I don't use 50mm on full-frame very much, so I just bought the $200 f/1.8 AFS instead of the $450 f/1.4 AFS. I'm saving up for the 35 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.4 AFS, they're the ultimate wedding photojournalism combo in my opinion. (weddings is my job)

Anyways, that's my opinion. You can't go wrong with a 50 on a crop sensor. I have a friend who learned almost exclusively on that setup, and he became a really good photographer because of the discipline that it took to shoot with just that lens.

Definitely borrow / rent a few lenses before buying. If you have no clue what "your style" is yet, I wouldn't buy anything too expensive lest it wind up completely un-used in 6 months...

=Matt=

i am leaning toward the 50mm 1/4 as a start. I have a kit lens 18-105mm that I have used for flowers etc, and a 70-300mm that I used a lot for Michigan State football games - 15,000 photos over two years. My sister created a photo book from my photos and hers for the senior players parents last year and made a few bucks.

I have started to take a lot of young children's photos at our local church and found I need a low light lens. Plus, I would like to dabble in senior high school photos for friends. Provided this does well I will invest in more lens and upgrade my camera. I am semi-retired so this is how I spend my free time and loving it.

Thanks again for you comments.
Phil

lifeinfocus · July 27, 2011

areyoutheredaniel wrote: »

http://www.ryanbrenizer.com/blog/2011/03/review-sigma-85mm-f1-4/

You may find the above of interest. He also compares the nikon 85 d to the 85 g.

I just take travel and grandkids pictures, but i have used 17-55 2.8, 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 and they are all very good for portraits at events. The 17-55 2.8 and the 85 1.4 make a great pair.

Excellent reference site and the bokeh panorama method certainly would be fun to try.

Thanks much, Phil

lifeinfocus · July 28, 2011

jziegler wrote: »

Are you willing to consider third party lenses? If you are, consider the Tamron 60mm f/2 macro. It's a stop faster than any of the Nikon micros, hits a good focal length for portraits on DX, and is just a good lens in general. I've had one about a month and have been very happy with it.

-Jim

I have a photographer friend who just bought a Tamron. I will check with him too. Thanks for the suggestion, Phil