Which portrait lens would you recommend for DX?

<p>Sorry but I don't see distortion in the blonde girl's face as shot by Steve with the 50mm. Shorter working distance might be a drawback, though.</p>

<p>Like C, I don't see distortion as such in that (charming) picture but rather the perspective of a viewer who is quite close to the child's face. That perspective works well for pictures of little kids since we often interact with them at close range.</p>

<p>Most of my portraits are indoors; I use the 50 on DX. Love the shots posted above, especially Steve's first one (B&W). When I'd rather have a 60 instead of the 50, I just crop. </p>

<p>I like the 50 f/1.8 G better than the 1.8 D. </p>

<p>Chris, the equivalent of your 200mm shot at f/5.6 would be 135mm at f/4 on DX. That makes a 105 or 135 manual focus lens sound pretty interesting.</p>

<p>Actually, I cannot see any distortion either. This is what she looks like! I think 60mm would be a great lens too, but honestly, I don't think you would be able to tell the difference in a lot of shots. My other shot of the red head girl was done exactly the same way. The OP could experiment with his 18-105 and shoot at different focal lengths to gain some idea of what he would like, then go after a lens with wider aperture if he so desires. I used a 50mm in many portraits with film on FF cameras with no problem back in the day. Here's a shot of a child using a 35mm lens for comparison, just to play Devil's Advocate.</p><div></div>

<p>I really don't see any distortion here either, even though its a 35 mm lens. I think the thing you get from longer lenses is, of course, more out of focus backgrounds. I find that on DX the longer lenses you have to watch for the flattening and widening of faces, which I find more objectionable.</p>

<p>Chris, I think your example is very nice! I guess I like closer working distances when possible, so that's another reason I like shorter focal length lenses for portraits. We each have our own preferences though!</p>

<p>There's no way to see the "distortion" Shun speaks of unless you shoot the same face at both 35mm and, say, 85mm to compare.</p>

<p>Then, I think you'd see it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is a Voigtlander 58 out there, I hear good things about it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i was going to recommend this, until i read that the OP has a d90. the CV 58/1.4 is a manual focus lens, and the D90 is not as capable at manual-focusing as higher-end Nikons. i'm not sure if the d7100's superior AF also has the focus-dot confirmation arrows as the D3/d700 series.</p>

<p>interestingly, Fuji has announced a 58/1.4 for its X-mount cameras which will be AF. so shun's point about nikon not serving DX users with what would seem to be an essential focal length for DX portraits is spot-on, and somewhat puzzling. while there would be little use for a 60/1.8 FX lens, nikon could easily make a 60/1.8 DX lens at a lower cost for DX users.which brings me back to the tamron 60/2 recommendation -- this seems like a versatile piece o' kit, since its both a portrait and a macro lens, and has a fast aperture, making it more useful for blurred backgrounds on DX than a 60/2.8. incidentally, i almost never shoot DX portraits with my 50/1.4, which always feels a little too short. i much prefer 50 on FX.</p>

<p>D90 has live view, making manual focus a snap for this kind of thing in my experience, unless you are shooting totally wide open, when you'll have issues with anything but the person who stands totally still.</p>

<p>that said, that Fuji is one of the many reasons I am sorely tempted to switch to their system.</p>

<p>Eric, the Voigtlander 58mm 1.4 is a manual focus lens with CPU, so it does work the meter on a D90. (I have the lens and have used the combination.)</p>

<p>On DX the 58 is a great portrait lens, IF you're comfortable with manual focus on a DX camera. Personally I find it difficult. I like the lens on a mirrorless with focus peaking or a film or FX camera but haven't been able to get good results at large apertures on a DX SLR without resorting to live view and magnification, which isn't ergonomically so great if shooting handheld.</p>

<p>Oh, also, the proposed Fuji lens is a 56/<em>1.2</em> (which is a nice bump up from the initial announcement but probably brings the price up).</p>

<p>Also, as others suggested, there's no one "portrait" focal length - it depends on what you're doing and what you want it to look like. Not all portraits are very traditional head-and-shoulders shots.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>D90 has live view, making manual focus a snap for this kind of thing</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i dont really find live view practical for shooting things that aren't perfectly still, like static landscapes. wouldnt be my first choice for low-light candids, which is when you'd typically want a fast prime, but YMMV. and while the 58/1.4 will meter on a D90, the d90 doesnt have the focus-confirmation arrows which make precise MFing easier. i would tend to think that Andy's experience would be common. too bad, because the 58/1.4 makes more sense as a DX lens, but the implementation of manual focusing is much better on FX. for FX shooters, the CV 40/2 pancake makes more sense; 58mm is kind of an odd focal length for FX.</p>

<p>Perspective distortion comes from the perspective, not the lens.</p>

<p>The perspective depends on the camera to subject distance and nothing else. Nose will be look bigger because it's closer to the camera. How much bigger is relative to how close you are.</p>

<p>It's the same thing without a camera except that our brain tricks us into not seeing it as obviously as we would when looking at a photo.</p>

<p>Focal length is just magnification. A 50mm lens magnifies the image roughly twice as much as a 24mm lens does.</p>

<p>I shot a lot of tight head and shoulders portraits with 105mm f2.5 on DX. That gives a decent subject distance (about 6 ft or so) so it looks good. Using the same lens shooting full length portraits would mean an much increased subject distance and the perspective would look totally different.</p>

<p>If I wanted to keep the same 6ft subject distance and shoot a full length shot I'd have to go to a 20-24mm lens. Again a totally different look due to the change in perspective.</p>

<p>I suggest having a look at flickr or somewhere else where the exif information is available. Most people who love creamy backgrounds shoot full frame, use f1.4 or f1.2 lenses and some use exotics stuff like 200mm f2. But browse through these to find images you like and then check what gear was used.</p>

<p>I'll add that usually portraits in a studio using strobes is not shot wide open but rather stopped down to get enough DOF. Having large aperture lenses would not be so important in that situation.</p>

<p>I use the CV 58mm f1.4 and most of the high end Nikons have focus confirmation, the lens<br>

is a type P lens, so its chipped. I also have the 105mm VR AFS macro between the two<br>

you can get what you want. Oh I forgot I have the 85mm f1.4 D its about 128mm efl<br>

on DX so you can do portaits 58 mm (87mm efl); 85mm (127mm efl;or 105mm about(165mm) efl<br>

something for everyone. I only carry the 58 and 105, the 85 is sometimes used for occasional<br>

film camera use. The 58 is a nicely made small lens and sharp with nice colors.<br>

Originally it was designed for the Topcon camera. <br>

Portrait many people like to use their AF cameras in MF especially on a posed subject.<br>

Using Leicas for many years and a Pentax 6x7 I never missed AF for portrait photos,<br>

AF is no big deal for that or landscapes. </p>

 

<p>There are lots of different types of portraiture (I like close-ups with wides, personally, like the 35 example above). The OP has the 50 though and seems to be looking for something longer with narrow depth of field (somewhat large maximum aperture) and good bokeh.<br>

The 85 is a good choice if that focal length works. The simple way for him to figure that out is to practice taking portraits and see which FL range comes up most often. Tip: whatever program you're using should be able to show which focal length is used for each photo - so go back to the portraits you like and see which ones correspond (ignore the backgrounds for these purposes, just look at which get used most often for those that 'feel right' in normal working conditions). Try to get a lens that is closest.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I use the CV 58mm f1.4 and most of the high end Nikons have focus confirmation</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the d90 is not a high-end nikon, so the OP would have to upgrade the body to make the most of this lens. that's what i was getting at earlier.</p>

<p>The D90 does have focus confirm. All the DSLRs - from the last several years at least - do. But on the lower models (D90 included) there is "play" in the AF confirm dot's tolerances that makes focus at large apertures difficult, and the small finder isn't much help.</p>

<p>As an aside, some low end models (since, I believe the D60) do have the ability to set the exposure indicator to appear as a precise digital rangefinder (in the setup menu); the D3200 can still do this, though I've not checked the full range. This functionality seems to be missing from the D90, and it's certainly missing from the high-end models I own (D700, D800) even though I'd actually find it useful. The three-segment AF found in the high-end models (including the D7100 but not the D300 or D300s, interestingly) is helpful for speed, but not necessarily for everything - it won't tell you how far off you are. It's unfortunate that the D90 lacks either solution. But then I still have envy of Canon's A-DEP "light up all the sensors in MF mode" solution.<br />

<br />

It's been observed as part of attempts to calibrate lenses that the AF confirmation light on at least some Nikons is appreciably more sloppy in manual focus mode than if you use AF mode with focus-on-AF button. Not that this will help much with a manual focus lens (except an after-market chipped one, the only kind that will trap focus on a D800, not that I'm bitter) but I mention it in case it helps out.</p>

<p>the whole point of shooting portraits with a fast prime is to be able to get subject isolation and shallow DoF/bokeh. at wide apertures, focus accuracy is critical. if you aim for the eyes but get the nose instead, your composition might not be as good. that's why AF is useful to have on those lenses, and also why i initially recommended the Tamron 60/2 over the CV 58/1.4. the tamron isnt as sexy, nor well-built, but i'd rather have a sexy model in perfect focus than a sexy lens which has focus accuracy issues. YMMV.</p>

<p>ideally, nikon would adopt focus peaking as Sony does on the NEX, but then that's probably a feature which requires a full-time live view or an EVF, which makes more sense for mirrorless cameras. if you have a lot of MF lenses, the Sony NEX makes a lot of sense for that reason.</p>

<p>The 50mm f1.8D makes a nice portrait lens on DX, but the 85mm f1.8 afs is much, much better! I have a portrait taken with this lens on my blog here: <a href="http://thephotophile.blogspot.se/2013/08/the-nikon-85mm-f18-af-s-g-is-my-new.html">http://thephotophile.blogspot.se/2013/08/the-nikon-85mm-f18-af-s-g-is-my-new.html</a> and there are a few more portraits taken with the 85mm currently showing on the homepage of my blog as well.</p>

<p>I almost bought an 85mm lens for DX but when I tried it out, it seemed so similar to my 105 I chose not to buy it. Like the 85, the 105 is a nice portrait focal length as well. My example here is an older manual focus Sonnar f2.5 version (AI'd). </p><div></div>