DX portrait lens, is the 50 f/1.8 D a good choice?

<p>After much reading it seems the obvious choice for a portrait lens is the 50mm focal length which gives a field of view of 75mm. Used on a young lady friends D80 which would you choose and is f/1.8 fast enough for portraits? Based on B&H prices the f/1.8 D is $107 grey market and the G is $216.95. In a portrait session at an upcoming wedding would the G lens be preferred or would both do essentially the same job? Is the D a good choice on a tight budget? The lens will compliment her 18-135 kit lens and SB-600.</p>

<p>It is mostly a good budget choice, and very sharp etc. It has one problem though, harsh background bokeh. If you have a busy background, it tends to look nervous rather than smoothly blurred.</p>

<p>First question (completely unrelated) - Is she the primary / paid photographer for the wedding? If she is - a D80, sb 800, and a slow kit zoom are the major worries - not a 50 mm f1.8. </p>

<p>If she is just doing some informal portraits at the event as a favor then what she has will be sufficient. The 18-135 has fringing and distortion at both ends, is sharp in the middle zoom area, but is not a classic portrait lens. </p>

<p>The classic portrait lenses are the 85 mm F1.4 / f1.8, the 50mm f1.4, the 105 f2 dc, and the 135 f2 dc. A lot of people - myself included - use the 70-200 f2.8 as a portrait lens because it is fast enough for low light, sharp, and provides separation of subject and background. </p>

<p>The 50mm will work fine - she will need to be 10-15 feet away to get 6 feet of subject in the frame on the dx body. If she is closer - she will get some nice head and shoulder shots. </p>

<p>The D is a great choice - you can find it even cheaper locally on CL or ebay. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>The D is a good choice but the G is a much better choice.</p>

<p>If you can swing the budget the 1.8G is better then the D. Better sharpness across the frame and better background blur. I had both and gave the D away.</p>

Field of view is only a part of the

equasion. DOF, Bokeh are much more

important to me at least. Even with dx I

can move back a few more steps and

I'm happier with the 85 than the 50 at

around f/2 or 2.8. Try both if possible.

With a tight budget you might consider

checking KEH for an AI or ais lens.

Wonderful glass available dirt cheap.

Manual focus but so what? Won't

meter? Again so what? Easily solved

with a little practice.

 

Rick H.

<p>Yes the D is a good choice, but as Elliot says, the G is better. You say that you will be using someone else's D80. D80's have focus motors so you are ok with the D. However you can't use someone else's camera forever. The D does not have an internal focus motor so it will not autofocus with several of Nikon's cameras, the G will focus with all of them. Just something to consider for the future.</p>

<p>the D is okay, but it doesnt really get sharp until 2.8, and the bokeh is fugly. for the extra $100, i would get the G.</p>

50mm on dx is too short for portraiture.

<p>It is okay, a compromise, but not a horrible one. I like the 70mm end of my 70-300 much better, but need more space, obviously.</p>

<p>The G has noticeably improved optics, so if you're going to buy one, it's worth getting the f/1.8G over the f/1.8D. The only issue with 50mm is that it's just a tad short for portraits, with the classic portrait focal lengths being 85mm-135mm, which comes out to about 58mm-70mm on a DX camera.</p>

<p>If all of this is for a wedding, I'm not sure how much they are paying you, I know it's not about the gear, but if you were going to be using a D80, 18-135mm, and 50mm f/1.8D to cover a wedding I was attending, then I'd expect to see a degree from a very prestigious photography/journalism program, or a tenures-hip as a museum fellow, etc. You should consider just renting a 24-70mm f/2.8. The wide end is still moderate enough (back in the manual focus days with the F2 and F3, the bread-and-butter wedding and event lens was 35mm), and it will go all the way to decent enough for portraits on the camera.</p>

<p>Henri Cartier-Bresson did scores of famous portraits with a 50mm on a 35mm camera, so the 50mm -- in the right hands -- is easily capable of top-notch portraiture. The (effective) length of 75mm perhaps works best for bust-length portraits or longer. Closer and the perspective is not so flattering.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Henri Cartier-Bresson did scores of famous portraits with a 50mm on a 35mm camera, so the 50mm -- in the right hands -- is easily capable of top-notch portraiture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While that may be true, your photography style could be totally different from Cartier's. Generally speaking, 50mm is a bit too short for portraits on a DX format camera. If you move closer to compensate, the face will look wide and distorted. 50mm could be great if you prefer "half body" type portraits.</p>

<p>The main issue is how far you (or the camera and lens) are away from the subject.</p>

<p>f1.8 is plenty; most portraits are anyway shot stopped down and if you want a thin bokeh look, then make a tight composition at the largest aperture. The main advantage of the newer version is the better autofocus, which comes in handy. Sharpness may be better with the new version, but it's not such a big deal for portraits.<br>

What I chose, when I shot DX, was a 60/2.8G micro. It's a little bit longer and thus more comfortable to use in headshots (longer working distance, less distortion) and the bokeh and overall image rendition is very pleasant at every aperture. It's almost as if portraits had been a design goal of the lens, but I don't think I about it too much, I just use it; it works. It's, however, much more expensive than either of your choices, but in my mind well worth the money.</p>

<p>I just got the AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D not long ago (<a href="../modern-film-cameras-forum/00ajZ7">link</a>) to shoot on some of my on-going series on early AF cameras. I had heard the report of "bad bokeh" but I have to say that it didn't seem too bad to me in the one shot I made specifically to test the OOF situation.</p><div></div>

<p>It's alright if stopped down a bit. The G lens is much better opened up. </p>

<p>Here's a comparison I posted some time ago:</p><div></div>

<p>Shun, I do not disagree with your conventional wisdom. I have done many, many portraits in the studio and on location and am keenly aware of the strengths and weaknesses of an effective 75mm focal length (50mm on Dx) and said so in my post:</p>

<p>"The (effective) length of 75mm perhaps works best for bust-length portraits or longer. <em>Closer and the perspective is not so flattering.</em>" </p>

<p>Glad to see you agreed about moving closer.</p>

<p>Andy L. I would say your demonstration about wraps it up, like they say a picture is worth a thousand words and those (2) pictures speak volumes.</p>

<p>Just so people can se for themselves what portraits with a 50mm look like on full frame and Dx cameras, here are 50mm portraits at Flickr...</p>

<p>

<p>It's funny that the trivial difference in the bokeh in Andy's comparison shots means so much, and no one remarks that the 1.8D shot has more flare and therefore less contrast and apparent sharpness. Meanwhile if you stop down to the f/2.8 that everyone says is just fine on the 70-200, you wouldn't have any of these complaints anymore. I have no doubt the G is a better lens and a bargain at $216... but the bokeh alone is a faddish reason to change one for the other. Those same Cartier Bresson portraits mentioned above were likely shot at his preferred f/5.6. The lavish attachment to the quality of bokeh increasingly -- the more I learn and see -- strikes me as a fetish. The greatest portrait photographer of the 20th century in my opinion was Richard Avedon and you'd be hard pressed to find an out of focus loose spec of dust in his photographs. </p>

It's not just the bokeh difference - though that does show. Look at the camera in the shot. The D lens is noticeably less

sharp, even at this small size, and see the drop in contrast? It's got a subtle veiling flare in bright light that the G lens

doesn't. Now the D lens is still capable of great shots, don't get me wrong, and at the prices you can buy one at I'd call it a

steal - how are you going to do better for $100? - but I'm still taking the G lens. It's still not expensive, and since I use

these things at wide apertures often I consider the upgrade worthwhile.

<p>Here are portraits by Cartier-Bresson, the vast majority done with the 50mm on a 35mm Leica....</p>

<p>http://www.npg.si.edu/exh/cb/index-int2.htm</p>

<p>http://www.utata.org/sundaysalon/henri-cartier-bresson-the-portraits/</p>

<p>https://www.google.com/search?q=henri+cartier+bresson+portraits+images&hl=en&tbo=u&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=LQClUMXsD5OK9gSfqICgDQ&ved=0CC4QsAQ&biw=1024&bih=496</p>

<p>However, it must be said that weddings, with which the OP is concerned, are usually in parallel with fashion trends, where portrait-like images are commonly made with much longer lenses than journalistic or art ones.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks, Luis G, for the convincing verification that 50mm works on DX.</p>

<p>The bokeh of the Nikkor 50's tends to vary on aperture. Not sure about the latest G version, but if it's important then worth checking out. I'd put more emphasis on stopped down performance; most portraiture will happen there and getting perfect focus at f1.8 will not happen on every shot.<br>

Andy's comparison is interesting. I think both lenses could be made to work for different looks.</p>