Best porttrait lens for D40 X

What would be the " optimal", most universal portrait lens for , d40 x - as

far quality of the portraits are concern? I have 18-55mm and 55-200mm , 18-200

mm VR among others.Thanks, raf

if you want an AF compatible lens for the D40 IMO the Nikon 105mm 2.8 AFS micro would be the "best" lens for portraits for you..

if you don't care about AF the 85mm 1.4 or 105mm 2DC are two of the best lenses I know for portraits.

There must be at least a hundred optimal portrait lenses. Unfortunately portraits are often done with manual focusing and the viewfinder of the D40x is less than optimal for manual focusing. Unfortunately the D40 does only support AF via AFS lenses. For "slow" portraits manual focus may be acceptable for you and a cheap way to get into high quality glass would be an 50mm f1.8 lens - either AF(D) or better for MF the AIS version.

 

Actually if you can live with large DOF the lenses you own are reasonably good at f8. For real "optimal" setup consider an film bases F3 or a semi pro body like the D200 used or D300 new :-)

 

What is you budget? The current micro Nikkor 105mm and 60mm lenses are AFS. You can always soften in post processing or with the aid of a softar filter.

I have a d40 and bought a Nikon 50mm F1.8D which is only about $100. It is a low aperture lens and amazing in low light for portraits - only thing is it will be manual focus as will all prime lenses on your D40 or D40x. Check out the review: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/5018daf.htm

The word portrait is often used as a single word for head-shot, and indeed head-shots are portraits, but not all portraits are head shots.

 

You can take a portrait with any moderate lens with good results. If you like environmental informal portraits, then you could do quite well with even a simple 35mm f/2.0 or 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor (which would require manual focus on your camera). They would give a field-of-view of a 50mm and 75mm on 35mm film cameras. Either of these lenses would allow for some selective focus with the person rendered in-context with the surroundings. Either of these focal lenghts would allow for a mid-chest to top of head type shot with no problems.

 

If head shots are your goal, then the newly announced 60mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor may be the thing. It would give a field-of-view of a 90mm lens (35mm eqiv) and the ability to tightly frame the face. It is also an "S" lens and would focus with your D40X.

 

I have 85mm and 105mm Nikkors (classic portrait lenses on full frame), but on my digital SLR, they are a bit too narrow for my way of shooting. I have been shooting almost exclusively with a 35mm f/2.0 and 50mm since I got my D40.<div></div>

How about Nikon 28-70mm ?

Maybe not optimal, but my Sigma 50-150 does very well with my D40. Very nice OOF rendition, IMO.

If you have time to set up for the shot, the 105 2.5 AI is fairly cheap and would give a nice result. Again, IMO.

Rafal,

the 28-70mm 2.8 AFS, AKA: THE BEAST is AWESOME. One of my favorite zooms but a little overkill to put on a D40X IMO.

 

here are two "portraits" I took last weekend with Sarah (wife) as a "model", they are with the D2Hs and THE BEAST ;)

 

http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc112/Juanjo_Viagran/DSC_0010-1.jpg?t=1202859246

 

http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc112/Juanjo_Viagran/DSC_0033-1.jpg?t=1202859264

Thanks Juanjo- eventually i will get "better" camera even though i am happy so far , for what i do with d40x. When you say overkill, what do you exactly mean, ultimately, lens is for me an investment - i can put on another body or sell it.Also, i found interesting:

Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 G AF-S

 

WHAT ABOUT THIS LENS VS. 28-70mm

I am looking for something that would give me good IQ and also shallow DOF when taking portraits and the same time having some "room", for group shots as well if need it , instead of head shots only.Thanks,raf

I agree, the 28-70mm f2.8 is an awsome lens. Kinda heavy and expensive, but worth it!

Rafal,

 

overkill in the sense that is a truly pro lens, HUGE and HEAVY, and the D40X is far away from pro.

 

but if you are planing on upgrading body in the future investing in good glass is a good investment IMO. ;)

The 50/1.8 is nice, and only about $100. Yes, you must manually focus. But you do still get

focus confirmation from the AF system.

The new AF-S Micro-NIKKOR 60mm f/2.8G ED would work well for this.

How Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 G AF-S compares to 28-70mm f2.8 ???

Which one is optically better? and does it make sense to buy it if i already have 18-200 VR that covers this range???

raf

What do you not like about the 18-200?

I do like a lot 18-200mm. I have 8 lenses , this one stays on for 90% of the time. But if i want to shoot head shots only, i was wondering if there is a " better' lens for this task. I have also 50mm 1.8 prime lens( chest and up) which i like very much.raf

My vote goes for the new 60mm macro VR or even the 105mm VR

 

http://nikonglass.blogspot.com/2008/02/nikkor-105mm-f28g-afs-vr.html