What is the best Nikon portrait lens for the money?

What is the best Nikon portrait lens for the money? I will consider

Nikon or third party. Money is not an object, but if I can do the

same thing with a cheaper lens then great.

If you don't need autofocus, I think that the 105 f/2.5 lens is outstanding. It should also be quite reasonably priced.

105MM F/2 AF-DC.

Yep, the 105 f2.5 is the classic, perhaps the most

revered portrait lens ever made. There are other

nice portrait lenses, but none that is better

overall than the 105 f2.5. And it's not very

expensive these days, since so many people insist on

autofocus.

It depends. You might say the 50/1.8 is the best portrait lens for the money.

If you are into autofocus, want a new lens, are looking for something tighter than a 50mm, and are on a budget, I would opt for the 85mm f/1.8 D-AF.

 

If you are willing to spend more money, carry a larger / heavier lens and still want autofocus and a new lens, I would opt for the 135mm F/2 D-AF DC or 105mm version of the same (depending on your taste in perspective).

 

I would suggest that the 50 f/1.8 D-AF is the best value that one could find in today's Nikkor line (dirt cheap by Nikkor standards coupled with excellent performance), and depending on your vision of portrait photography could be the answer. Not my first choice for solo non-environmental portraits, however.

 

I like AF in 35mm (if I want manual focus and have the time and suitable subject / depth-of-field / lighting combination, I pick up an RZ). Thus, I cannot comment on the MF Nikkor line. I have never been drawn to the non-Nikkor lenses, but that comes more from gut reaction than reasoned thought.

For the money I'd say the 85/1,8 AF-D.

Michael,

 

I agree with advice already given, especially if you consider a portrait lens to be in the range of the classic 85mm to 135mm lenses.

 

For manual focus: 105 2.5 AI or AIS. You can pick up older 105 2.5 lenses at camera shows by the dozens. Prices range from about $125 to about $225 for a decent one. They've changed a good bit over the years, but I understand they're all very good. I like the recent ones with the telescoping hood. Combined with a FM3a this would be about the perfect setup.

 

For autofocus: 85 1.8 AF-D. Pretty recent lens, so not that many for sale used. New they are a tremendous buy, particularly if you buy grey market from a place like B&H. Used I've seen them in the $250 area, give or take a few dollars. Screw on hood is included in box with new lens, so it should also come with a used lens. Very fast focussing little lens, very well made, balances well with just about any of the Nikon medium weight bodies (8008, N90/80/100), and has a very nice manual focus feel.

 

If you like longer focal lengths, the 180 2.8 AI (or earlier) can be easily found for a little more money. And the 50mm (1.4/1.8) are also great portrait lenses if you like shorter focal lengths.

 

Good luck, Sergio.

The 105mm f2.5 is a bit long for my taste (& studio size),Id opt for the 85mm F1.8 manual focus lens.These are awesome portrait lenses & sharp as tacks!Shot wide open at close range,the background can be thrown out of focus.In the studio stopped down,they are perfect for head shots.My chrome barrel c1969 model is so sharp,I never use it w/o a soft focus filter!

85/1.8 AFD is the best bargain if you want an AF lens. In MF, the venerable 105/2.5 AIS is very good, as is the (sometimes overlooked) 75-150/3.5 series E.

What about the 105 f2.8 AF-D Micro? Let's say that I'd use it 50% for portraits, 25% for street photography and 25% for macro work.

 

I've always heard people say that using a Micro lens for general work is a waste of money (i.e., more lens than you need). But in this case, the other AF 105 has defocus control and costs $220 more than the micro lens (B&H Photo grey prices). I know that defocus control is a good thing for portraits, but as you can see, I'd be using it 50% of the time for other uses.

The long-discontinued 100mm f2.8 Series E lens is a superb portrait lens, very nearly the equal of the 105mm f2.5 lenses in optical quality, and can be found for a fraction of the cost of a 105.

 

If you need or want autofocus, go for the 85mm f1.8 AF

Another vote for 85/1.8; compact, fast and sharp. 105 Micro is a bit bulky and costly option.

Well as it is about value for money i second Mikes suggestion of the 50mm nikkor, more specific the 50mm 1.8 Ai. It gives you more backgrond to play with and more 'macro' for closing up. The 85/1.8 MF is an oldy (85 Ai(s) is f2.0 or f1.4), great preformer though, it focusses to 1 meter. The 50mm Ai, or the early 50mm 1.8 Ais focusses to 45cm which gives more room to play with different angles. Both 50 and 85 can be well used wide open, the 50mm has slightly nicer bokeh i think, at least mine does. My 50mm did cost $20........

 

Greetings,

My 2 cents worth... The 85mm lens is just too short for flattering results on a head and shoulders portrait. My vote would go to the 105/2.5 lens : any model.

Try it for yourself : compare the rendition of the two focal lengths and view the results in a "blind test"..

I am in a hurry, but I can answer the question somewhat

inaccurately, on the fly.

 

Portrait lenses:

 

The ones that i have had success with are:

 

300 mm APO Sironar, 300 mm Wollensak [sp], 150 mm CFi

[blad], 90 f2.8 M [Leica], 105 f 2.5 Nikkor.

 

If I wanted to be sure about a photo and was using 35 mm, I

would use the Nikkor.

 

Art

I am going to agree with all the responders that choose the 105mm.

I have tried lots of lenses including up to 400mm. For the weight and the money I like the 105mm. I used a f1.8 for years then switched to the (a bit expensive) 105DC AF. That is a great lens. That focal length is short enough to let you have some intimacy with your subject so you can talk soft. I have also been using Nikon's 35-105mm and its sharp, not to expensive and really light. Don't put it down cuz its a zoom. Its a great lens.

The 50mm f/1.8 (I had the MF version) is OK as a portrait lens so long as you don't shoot your subject too close, as it will distort the subject's face in close-up like a wideangle lens (not quite as bad, but definitely noticeable!). I think the best portrait lens for the money is AF 85mm f/1.8 D. It's very light and compact too (especially when used without the metal hood)--I find that important shooting handheld.

I wouldn't rule out the 80-200 f2.8 AFD. The price is not too bad, you get more flexability with the zoom. The lens is sharp as a tack, although that shouldn't be to much of a concern, anything sharper than this lens would be counterproductive for a portrait lens(anything too sharp brings out facial flaws). Well that's my $.02

Julian

I have to agree with the Nikkor 80-200 2.8. I have used it numerous times for weddings and the sharpness is right on yet not so sharp as to be unflattering to the subject. You have flexibility for problems of distance and it balances well even though it is a little large.

I recently got a cosmetically challenged 85mm f1.8 (MF) for less than 100

Euro (including shipping) on eBay. The optics are still in perfect condition.

Note that this is not the popular AF lens. It is pre-Ai and known for its

sharpness and pleasant out-of-focus areas. This lens was the predecessor

of the 85mm f2 Ai, which is supposedly soft wide open at close distances

and which usually goes for almost 300 Euro on eBay here in Germany

(similar in price to the 85mm f1.8 AF). The best of all is that my new old

85mm f1.8 shares the 52mm filter-thread of my other MF-Nikkors.

I must have a lemon, i have a AI'd 85mm f1.8 MF, and it is not so

consistently sharp, it flares fairly easily, and it just is no where

near as sharp as my other fixed nikkors. It performs ok in

excellent light. Maybe i just have a bad lens. I do love my macro

105mm f4. It is every bit as good as the f2.8 version except it has

a max f4 aperture. perhaps that is a reasonable lens to

purchase instead of the f2.8. i could not be happier with it. I

would not want to shoot a macro at f2.8, there is absolutely no

depth of field there....I think 135mm is a perfect focal length for

portraits, but 105mm is workable. 135mm is much better for

tight head shots, no question about that.