In need of much help for choosing a portrait lens (D7000)

<p>Hello!</p>

<p>First, I'd like to say I've been looking for this answer for days and I've read lots of threads, many in this forum actually. However, I still can't make up my mind.<br>

Here's the facts: I have a d7000, a 18-200mm and a 35mm 1.8. I want to shoot waist to head outdoors portraits mainly and sometimes inside my house. Consequently, no control over the lighting and need for wider apertures.<br>

I was recommended the<strong> nikon 50mm 1.8, the nikon 60mm 2.8 micro, the nikon 85mm 1.8 and the tamron 90mm 2.8 (all under $600, which is my budget).</strong><br>

I discarded the 50mm as it's so close to the 35mm and would not give me bokeh as good as the longer focal length ones. Same thing applies for the 60mm.<br>

I then ended up with the<strong> 85mm 1.8 vs the tamron 90mm.</strong><br>

Browsing a lot over the past days I discovered that the 85mm has some limitations, like not being sharp and having aberrations when wide open, like f1.8 or f2.0, things that would only go away at f4.0.<br>

The tamron is slower and opens only 2.8, but has better IQ, sharper and has macro.<br>

<strong>What should I do now? If I want to shoot wide open, I have to consider the aberrations and lack of sharpness of the 85mm. If I take the tamron 90mm, I'll have to shoot no wider than f2.8.</strong></p>

<p>I'm very confused right now.<br>

Please give me some thoughts that help me decide which one to take or if there's any lens that would be a good competitor in this case, please suggest it!</p>

<p>Thanks!!!</p>

<p>60mm f2 macro tamron</p>

<p>What you want is the Sigma 85/1.4 HSM. Glorious bokeh, fast AF, lovely results even wide open. It's a lens made just for the sort of use you describe. It's arguably as good looking or better than Nikon's own 85/1.4, and certainly in an entirely different league than the 85/1.8. <br /><br />But first, use your 18-200 at 85mm to make sure you actually like that focal length for this use. A fast 50 may still - despite being on 15mm longer than your 35, be what you're looking for, in terms of working distance. Use your 18-200 as a focal length labortatory!<br /><br /></p>

<p>If you've never worked with an f1.4 lens before, beware that the DoF is extremely thin. What can happen is the nose is in focus but the eyes are not. You might find f2.8 is more usuable.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I would take a close look at the Nikon 35-70 f2.8. The 35mm would give a nice full length portrait, and at 70mm on a D7000 it would give the same field of view as a 105mm on a full frame body, excellent for head shots. Perhaps a little heavy, but it has good reviews for image quality and they can be had from the auction site for well within your budget.</p>

<p>If you are considering zooms, I would add the 28-75mm f2.8 tamron and 50-150mm f2.8 sigma in addition to the 35-70mm 2.8 mentioned by Bill. I would choose a zoom if you are shooting events (more candid) while a prime would be good enough if you have more control...</p>

<p> </p>

I know you think you want first off an 85. I have the Nikon

85 1.8. I sometimes find it too tight for waist to head.

 

I suggest the Voigtlander Nokton 58 f1.4 AND the Nikon 85

1.8.

<p>You may not want to shoot wide open as much as you think you do. Otherwise, you will become the guy who comes back here after he buys a lens and shows a photo where only one eye is in focus and wonders what he's doing wrong... It happens all the time... The depth of field is just too too small, and virtually no lens is at its best wide open.</p>

<p>In a pinch, my 50mm f1.8 works well for waist-up and H/S portraits (I usually go to f2.8 - 4 on that). When I have tons of space, my old and very cheap Manual Focus 105mm f2.5 is AMAZING (I generally keep it at f4 or maybe f2.8 or 3.5). and in between, the 70mm end of my 70-300 VR zoom is wonderful wide open at f4.5.</p>

<p>I've used macros for this and they are, if you can believe it, too sharp sometimes.</p>

<p>Everything you have mentioned will probably blow the 18-200 (which is, from all reports, a bit weak on the D7000 with that camera's high resolution) out of the water. I <em><strong>loved</strong></em> my 18-200 on my D50, not as much on my 12MP D90 (I replaced it with a combo of the 18-70 - used - and 70-300VR -reburb). Can't imagine that I would want to use it on the D7000 for anything critical.</p>

<p>For flattering waist-to-head portraits the 50mm on a Dx body will do just fine. I'm going to agree with Matt that you should experiment with the 18-200 to see how the different focal lengths look and help you decide on what you want. For waist-length portraits your 35/1.8 should work well, too. Try it.</p>

<p>I find the 60mm f/2.8 Micro (G version) a superb portrait lens. Use wide open and it is sharp yet soft at the same time. It equates to a 90mm lens which is nicer than 85mm in my opinion for such purposes. Lovely colour and quiet, accurate AF.</p>

<p>The sigma 85mm 1.4 is completely out of my budget, unfortunately.<br>

<br />I wasn't really considering zooms, id rather stick with the faster ones.</p>

<p>The first time I experimentes on the focal lengths using my zoom, I thought the 85mm would be great. But I'll make some more tests and see if 50mm would go or not.<br>

<br />However, if I settle for the longer focal length, 80mm-100mm, you all agree the 85mm 1.8 is better than any other alternative?</p>

<p>It's a good alternative, but the best one is the one that comes closest to actualizing your vision, and only you can be the judge of that. Any of those lenses mentioned, in the right hands, is capable of making outstanding portraits.</p>

<p>I find my 85mm 1.8 lens to be very sharp. I use it all the time on my D3 and D3s,ether wide open or stopped down to F2.I believe this photo taken last week of my wife on a train platform was shot at 1.8. I also do not find the bokeh to not be distracting. I like using a 105mm too, for pleasing perspective when shooting head and shoulder portraits. </p><div></div>

<p>It's an aps-sized camera, right? I find it extremely unlikely that a 50mm lens would not give you exactly what you want. That's equivalent to a classic portrait focal length. The bonus is that you can use it a little more wide open than you could an 85mm lens without having just the nose in focus... because it's still a 50mm lens. It might not seem that much longer than 35mm, but it's actually a significant difference when you're talking portraits.</p>

<p>I would forget about this "bokeh" nonsense. You will get all the blurring you need, and nobody notices "quality" of bokeh except people on internet camera forums.</p>

<p>Blow up of Butterfly </p><div></div>

<p>The best bang for the buck I've seen is the Samyang built 85mm f1:1.4 Nikon chipped for $300. Their names are many but all about the same in image quality. Mine is a Bell & Howell branded but others are Rokinon, Vivitar, etc. Stunning shots at any aperture. Another shout out for the Voigtlander 58mm f1:1.4 SLII. I'd pass on the Nikkor 85 f1:1.8. I've tried many and really tried to like it but just don't like the images. Either of the two I've mentioned will knock the socks off an 85 1.8</p>

<p>If you want to shoot inside your house you need to figure out how much space you have.</p>

<p>Subject size (S), focal length (F) and working distance (D) are directly related to each other. On DX shooting verticals the relationship is D=F/24xS. Half length portraits are about 3.5 ft subject size. So with a 50mm your working distance will be 50/24x3.5=7.3 ft, so around 7 ft. With an 85mm the working distance will be around 12 ft.</p>

<p>Besides the camera to subject distance you need to have some room for yourself as well as some room for the subject. As an absolute minimum, if you are shooting someone against the wall, you need an additional 6 ft.</p>

<p>So if you want to use an 85mm indoors you need about 20 ft of space.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>For what it's worth, I never did warm up to the 50/1.8E on my D200... but I love the Voigtlander 58/1.4. It was a combination of the nasty bokeh that the Nikon 50s have and an awkward (for me) focal length. For portraits on a DX body I much prefer a 60ish lens. My favorite shots with the Voigtlander tend to be shot at around ƒ/3.2. Unless you're shooting in low light or really do want only part of your subject's face to be in focus I don't think you'd miss much by going with an ƒ/2.8 lens of any sort (zoom or prime). An 85 may, or may not, give you enough room to work with on a DX body.</p>

<p>In the 60ish range you've got three obvious contenders: CV 58/1.4 (manual focus), Nikon 60/2.8 and the Tamron 60/2. But before you start trying to narrow down the specifics, I agree with the suggestions to try out your zoom lens at the various focal lengths to see which feels like a better fit for you.</p>

<p>I have both the 50 1.8 and 85 1.8. Both are supersharp, and I am also using them on a DX body (D300). If you are very close to the object, the 50 is very nice, but many portrait models do not want a camera so close, and in those cases, the 85 on the DXb-body is perfect. Most lenses are a bit soft on their most open aperture, but will you really, really notice it unless you are pixelpeeping?</p>

<p>Hi Allan,<br>

Every single lens that was mentioned in this thread could do portraits very well... the difference is in style and in photographer's preferences. To make your choice even more difficult, my advice is to go for an inexpensive Nikon 105/2.5 AI-S. My copy really sings on D7000.</p>

<p>Guys, but if you're saying that the 50mm Smith be more usable due to being shorter, wouldn't I get almost the same results if I shot with the 35mm 1.8 and then cropped it?<br>

Oh god I'm getting more confused then when I started the thread.<br>

<br />For those recombining the 60mm, isn't slow focus a downside for portraiture?</p>

 

<p>Allan, I think what are typically labeled portraits are done with slow moving or stationary subjects. My experience is that the fast but wickedly inaccurate focus of my Sigma is more of a hindrance than the manual focus action on my CV 58. FWIW, the Sigma is known for its fast focus, the Voigtlander for its manual focus, and the Nikkor for its leisurely auto focus. I'd start to worry more about the focusing if the AF is inaccurate (like the Sigma which gives me about a 33% hit rate) or if I was shooting something fast moving (birds, sports, little kids, etc).</p>

<p><img src="http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6194/6048669070_dd1024529f_z.jpg" alt="" width="512" height="640" /><br /> Sigma 30/1.4 @ ƒ/1.8</p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4141/4776877427_ed8b5147d0_z.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Voigtlander 58/1.4 @ ƒ/2.8</p>

<p><img src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5134/5419513878_5d6f7d0dfc_z.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Voigtlander 58/1.4 @ ƒ/3.2</p>

<p><img src="http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6094/6313962986_1c8ced5041_z.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Nikkor 85/1.4 AF-D @ ƒ/1.4</p>

<p>On the D700 I would definately go the 50mm/1.4 The bokeh will be very good, the lense is sharp, the format with the smaller sensor will place it as a perfect portrait lense for what you have described. I use the 85mm and the 50mm 1.4 lenses with a D700, they are both very very good.</p>

<p>I owned the Nkon 85mm f1.8 and it was the worst Nikon lens I've ever owned. Yes, sharp enough, but on a digital body I got tons and tons of CA (purple fringe) and it was the very worst lens I've ever owned when it came to flare problems. To be fair, I was using it as a general purpose outdoor lens. It might work fine for indoor portraits. Just make sure flash isn't hitting the lens directly. Of all the lenses listed so far, I'm thinking the Nikon 35-70 f2.8 is the best within your budget. Also keep in mind that there is such a thing as too sharp when it comes to portraits. A young person with perfect skin might look OK if shot with a sharp lens, but older people don't want every wrinkle, mole, and nose hair captured in macro detail. Same for those with blemishes. The traditional portrait lenses are the Petzval, Heliar, Verito, Imagon, etc. These were all around f4 and had a deliberate soft/sharp quality to them. I still very much prefer their classic look myself, as do many high end portrait shooters. As for 50mm lenses, most of the pro wedding photogs I'm friends with have gone with the sigma 50mm f1.4, but usualy they are using their Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 for portraits as it's just a faster workflow for them. (all of them are using d3 though.)</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Hi Allan:<br>

I have the Nikon 35mm f/1.8, a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and a Sigma 85mm f/1.4 and use them on D90 and D80. The lens I use the least is the Nikon because at 35mm you need to get in too close, which is distracting to the subject. The one I use indoors most is the 50mm f/1.4. I find that in normal homes, there is insufficient distance to frame up properly with the 85mm f/1.4. The difference between a 35mm and a 50mm lens indoors may surprise you. 15mm doesn't seem like much, but it is.<br>

I have to echo what the knowledgable people before have said about DOF. Wide open, you only get inches in focus with a f/1.4 lens. I certainly do not regret buying any of these lenses; but this amateur finds them a challenge wide open.<br>

There may be another approach. You say that you have no control over lighting. Why not take some control? Have you considered a Speedlight (flash)? A speedlight is much less expensive than most lenses. I use SB600s, which have been replaced by the SB700. I got a Gary Fong Lightsphere as a freebee when I bought my last lens. It really spreads the light out so you aren't creating harsh shadows. I am pleasantly surprised by what I get when I use it on my SB600 Speedlight.<br>

I will add this caveat. If your 18-20mm is the 1st generation like mine is, it is really soft. I thought I was doing something wrong until I got the fast primes and now I can place the blame squarely on that lens. The addition of a Speedlight may not give you what you want with that lens. Hopefully you have the 18-200mm VR II.<br>

I have enjoyed the responses that you have received to your question. Great stuff.<br>

Regards, John</p>