questions about portrait lenses...

Briggie

What lens would i be better off having to ensure my portraits have a nicer bokeh.. i understand bokeh has to do in part with the quality of the lens, but would i have a better result using a Nikon 50mm 1.8, a Nikon 60mm 2.8, a Nikon 85mm 1.8, or a Nikon 105mm 2.8.... I have the 50mm, but was wondering if i'd be better served with any of these other lenses. Most of these are within my snack bracket... I'm also entertaining the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 for portraits..good or bad idea? i guess you could add the 50mm 1.4 in there too, if someone thinks it would be better than my current 1.8.

Also, would someone explain if and how the focal length and distance between you and your subject affects bokeh?

Mucho Gracias!!

ziggy53

"Bokeh" is one of those ethereal, wishy-washy things that have no definite single answer.

By far the things that I notice that affect bokeh are a combination of:

f stop. A 50mm, f1.4 has much more bokeh quality wide open than a 50mm, f1.8, and the bokeh is of better quality because of the shape of the aperture due to curved diaphragm blades and because there are more diaphragm blades. It's not like a night-and-day difference, but it is very noticeable. (This aperture shape difference may be a Canon thing.)

Camera to subject "and" subject to background distances, and the ratio thereof. Generally, the greater the background distance is in this ratio, the more diffuse and "nebular" the bokeh becomes. A short focal length lens with a large aperture and a great distance behind the subject can produce very nice bokeh. In portraiture, a longer focal length is generally preferable to reduce perspective distortions, and, because longer focal lengths tend to have less DOF than short focal length lenses at the same aperture, the distance to background doesn't need to be as long.

Even lens design can play a role. I have a sonnar design lens that has better bokeh than a tessar design at the same focal length and aperture. It is especially evident when the subject is closer to the camera.

Recommended portrait lenses on (crop 1.5x) Nikon are:

Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D AF IF
Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D AF
Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D AF
Nikon 50mm f/1.8D AF

The 85mm lenses are nice for head-and-shoulders and outdoors or where you have more room.

Other lenses and third party lenses are available, but these are the Nikon brand recommendations.

SloYerRoll

Briggie wrote:

What lens would i be better off having to ensure my portraits have a nicer bokeh.. i understand bokeh has to do in part with the quality of the lens, but would i have a better result using a Nikon 50mm 1.8, a Nikon 60mm 2.8, a Nikon 85mm 1.8, or a Nikon 105mm 2.8.... I have the 50mm, but was wondering if i'd be better served with any of these other lenses. Most of these are within my snack bracket... I'm also entertaining the Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 for portraits..good or bad idea? i guess you could add the 50mm 1.4 in there too, if someone thinks it would be better than my current 1.8.

Also, would someone explain if and how the focal length and distance between you and your subject affects bokeh?

Mucho Gracias!!

I'm sure someone more versed in lens' will jump on this. [EDIT] Ziggy and I posted the same time.
I do know that camera sensor size in that camera also directly affects bokeh as in addition to the glass.

I've shot w/ the nikkor 50 1.4 & 1.8. The price the cost to performance ratio just isn't there for me on the 1.4. I can see if your shooting something specialized or food that needs razors edge DOF. Other than that the 1.8 is dandy. THere is a differnece in the bokeh, just not enough to say I'm gonna buy a lens that's almos 10x the price of the other.

You have to get pretty close to get a standard portrait w/ the 50. This makes the models head rather large and unattractive. I think this is due to perspective distortion (anyone wnat to yes or no that?).

My money is on the 105 2.8.

Just my .02

ziggy53

A fairly nice comparison of the Nikon 50mm lenses here:

http://www.pbase.com/miljenko/50mm_vs_50mm

SloYerRoll

ziggy53 wrote:

Generally, the greater the background distance is in this ratio, the more diffuse and "nebular" the bokeh becomes.

ziggy definatly has it together and I'm not second guessing him.
Another thing to account for is how much contrast is in the background. If your shooting outside and half af the BG is a house and the other half is the sky. Your going to get nasty bokeh at the point where the two meet {what term is that?} even when the distance is 50+ feet. I can only speak of this on the Nikons under the D200 range though.

Briggie

Thanks Ziggy and Slo! Great input! I was thinking the 85mm 1.8 (more in my price range than the 1.4), so that seems to be in keeping with your advice, Ziggy! Great explanation! Makes sense now!

Slo, i hadn't thought about the "big head" syndrome one might encounter with the 50mm! Will have to keep that in mind!

Cheers folks!
Brige

Briggie

SloYerRoll wrote:

My money is on the 105 2.8.

Just my .02

I think the 105 is a nice lens too, but a little long for my taste. Great for outdoor stuff, but if you have to shoot indoors, and don't live in a mansion, you're kinda cooked!

pathfinder

On a crop body with a 1.6 mag factor, the 50mm lens ( 50 x 1.6 = 80mm ) is almost the perfect focal length for portraits. Not to long, not too short.

A true 105 will be long for portraits with a crop body DSLR. Not too long, but long for use indoors.

Someone will now wade in here saying you can do portraits with any lens from 16mm to 500mm, and of course, they will have a frame or two to demonstrate their point. This is the web after all and everybody has an opinion.

But lots and lots of photographers over the last 50 years have liked and used the 85mm focal length on 35mm film cameras with great success.

Briggie

pathfinder wrote:

On a crop body with a 1.6 mag factor, the 50mm lens ( 50 x 1.6 = 80mm ) is almost the perfect focal length for portraits. Not to long, not too short.

A true 105 will be long for portraits with a crop body DSLR. Not too long, but long for use indoors.

Someone will now wade in here saying you can do portraits with any lens from 16mm to 500mm, and of course, they will have a frame or two to demonstrate their point. This is the web after all and everybody has an opinion.

But lots and lots of photographers over the last 50 years have liked and used the 85mm focal length on 35mm film cameras with great success.

okay..so, 85mm is the "prefered" portrait focal length on film, and 50mm on a 1.5 crop mostly mimics that length (actually...75mm, but close enough)??... so in essence, i should save my money, and keep shooting with the 50? Unless of course, Nikon ever gets a notion to develop a full frame dSLR!! (hmmm...apparently they have!! WOOHOO!! don't imagine i'll be able to afford it anytime soon though!!)

Now, will i get the "big headed" model syndrome using the fifty for head and shoulder shots? Could there be a noticeable advantage to the 85mm on my Nikon 1.5 that would justify my dropping $400 to pick one up?

Sorry about all the questions!! I'm a noob at this, but have recently discovered a passion for portrait work!! I'm currently using a D50, and i'm trying to find the best setup to feed my habit!!

Thanks for the input, Pathfinder!

pathfinder

Shoot a lot with your 50mm.

If you want a different lens, the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di is a great value. It was the first lens I bought when I first purchased my 10D. It is sharp, with nice contrast, small, and modestly priced. It will cover most of the ranges needed for portraiture.

Portraits are created by subjects and lighting, the lenses needed are rather simple. Lots of fine portraits can be captured with simple cameras and good lighting.

Rather than a lot of money for a new lens, how about a more modest sum for an off camera flash system with a light stand and an umbrella? Look here for some suggestions.

Briggie

pathfinder wrote:

Shoot a lot with your 50mm.

If you want a different lens, the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Di is a great value. It was the first lens I bought when I first purchased my 10D. It is sharp, with nice contrast, small, and modestly priced. It will cover most of the ranges needed for portraiture.

Portraits are created by subjects and lighting, the lenses needed are rather simple. Lots of fine portraits can be captured with simple cameras and good lighting.

Rather than a lot of money for a new lens, how about a more modest sum for an off camera flash system with a light stand and an umbrella? Look here for some suggestions.

Sound advice!! i have an SB600, very interested in the Tamron already, and have started looking at some background supports to try out some "windowlight" portraits for now!... i guess i was heading in the right direction after all! all i need now are victims!!

Cheers Pathfinder! thanks for the info!
B

SloYerRoll

pathfinder wrote:

Rather than a lot of money for a new lens, how about a more modest sum for an off camera flash system with a light stand and an umbrella? Look here for some suggestions.

In the same token (and from the same author) look here to see how you can use one speedlight as three lightsources. *the third light source is how bright the background is.

NOTE:
Be ready for ALLOT of really good reading when you go to Pathfinders and my links. David Hobby (blog author) is all about lighting on the cheap w/o sacrificing spectacular results.

Briggie

SloYerRoll wrote:

In the same token (and from the same author) look here to see how you can use one speedlight as three lightsources. *the third light source is how bright the background is.

NOTE:
Be ready for ALLOT of really good reading when you go to Pathfinders and my links. David Hobby (blog author) is all about lighting on the cheap w/o sacrificing spectacular results.

Yeah, i skimmed through the website! a veritable fountain of information!! Great reference site! thanks for the link!!

Brige