Which portrait lens would you recommend for DX?

<p>I love portraits with shallow depth of field and beautiful bokeh.</p>

<p>My next purchase is likely to be a portrait lens. At the moment I'm thinking about the 85mm f/1.8G. Unfortunately I am unlikely to be able to afford an FX system in the foreseeable future, and I'm uncertain of how effective this lens will be on DX. Are there better alternatives?</p>

<p>I currently use a D90, and my most likely upgrade path is the D7100 (or a successor to it). </p>

<p>My current lenses:<br>

Sigma 10-20mm <br>

18-105mm kit lens <br>

70-210 f/4-5.6 AF (old push-pull relic from my film days) <br>

35mm f/1.8G <br>

50mm f/1.8D </p>

<p>So those of you who use DX, what is your favourite portrait lens? I would love to see some example images.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Chris</p>

 

<p>I have an 85 1.8D that I shoot on a D7000 and I absolutely love it! 85 is a great focal length for portraits on DX.</p>

<p>Try using your 70-210 at the short end for a few portraits, and a few with the 18-105 at the long end. If those ranges work for you in terms of length and distance for shooting, the 85 should too. (The 105 might have more distortion there so it's not the results so much as how comfortable you are with it).<br>

I also use the 85 on DX and like it. May be a bit long for portraits in tight spaces though.</p>

<p>Thanks Nathan & Greg</p>

<p>How does the 85mm do at achieving shallow DOF and losing the background at normal portrait distances/framing? <br>

Are you happy with the bokeh?</p>

 

<p>Ow, that's very depending on the type of "portrait" i guess<br /> <br /> A character portrait is often 3 quarters, or a full body portrait showing the sitter in a typical for the sitter environment or with attributes , so that would require a 35 - 50mm lens , i like to use my 50mm f/1.2 for that so that i can get the sitter sharp and the environment just a little less sharp,and add a 'glow'if appropriate ( that is what this lens gives me at fully open aperture..).</p>

<p>A quarter ( shoulders and head) portrait for me mostly asks for my 60mm micro.<br /> For a "head"or "partial head" ( face and some hair mostly) i like my 85mm 1.4D a lot, but not fully open.<br>

<br /> In some more distant, situations, mainly outdoors, i switch to my 135mm F/2.0 AF DC , allowing me to gain a bit of control over DOF rendering in front or behind the sitter.</p>

<p>So no single answer here...sorry...</p>

<p>Either the 50mm f1.2 ai-s or 105 f2 dc af on D7100, depending on whether a single sitter, group or the required crop.</p>

<p>I'm an FX shooter, but I'll apply a conversion factor and try to help...<br />

<br />

Given that you've already got a 50mm, I think you're very wise to consider the 85mm f/1.8 AF-S. It's very sharp (as is the AF-D), but has much better bokeh than its predecessor. Before this lens came out, I got a Samyang 85mm f/1.4 manual focus lens - it's very good, but these days I'd take the f/1.8 AF-S for the convenience. (I don't consider either Sigma or Nikon's 85mm f/1.4 lenses to be worth the premium.) On DX, an 85mm lens is good for an upper body/head shot, similar to 135mm on FX. I used to use a 135 f/2 DC for this on my camera, but LoCA problems mean I now tend to use a 200 f/2 or a 150 f/2.8 Sigma, both of which are arguably a little longer than I'd really like - though if I win a lottery then I'll look at the Zeiss 135 f/2.<br />

<br />

Another option is to see whether you can kill two birds with one stone and get a macro in the 90-105mm range. f/2.8 won't give you the subject separation of an f/1.8 or f/1.4 lens, but if you want the whole head in focus anyway you may not care. The older Tamron 90mm is very close to 85mm focal length (its replacement is a better lens but much more expensive); the 100mm Sigma or 105mm Nikkor are also good portrait lenses, and if you want an extreme close-up, they'll perform where the more dedicated portrait lenses don't. You might also consider the Nikkor 105mm f/2 DC, since not every user of a DC lens seems to have had my colour fringing issues.<br />

<br />

There are a few manual focus classics to consider in the 100mm+ range as well. Or you could encompass the whole lot and, if f/2.8 is enough for you at the short end, get a 70-200 VR (or an 80-200 f/2.8 AF-S). Though not very cheaply.<br />

<br />

But your first choice of an 85 f/1.8 makes a lot of sense. I may get one myself at some point.<br />

<br />

If you're using it for portraits and the bokeh matters to you, you might also look into replacing your AF-D 50mm with the AF-S version.</p>

<p>Very pleased with the bokeh, and it is very good at achieving shallow depth of field for subject separation. I see no issues at all with the D other than no af-s, and I imagine the G to be even better.</p>

<p>i'd consider the tamron 60/2 macro as a portrait shooter for DX. 85 might be a bit long.</p>

I only shoot DX, and of course portraits can really be taken with any length lens, but we've discussed that at depth here.

My personal favorite for such stuff like you're alluding to is my 85mm 1.8 AF which I've had and used for years. I think the

60mm is interesting too, but different and I don't own one to add further.

<p>Re. the bokeh of the AF-D, I recommend a look at Photozone.de's review of the lenses, which include some examples that show bokeh. Their conclusion is that foreground bokeh is smooth, but background bokeh is nervous, and their sample images seem to back this up; I've generally heard the same of the f/1.8 AF-D. Of course, with the right subject you may not see this, and it gets better on stopping down. I tend to use wide apertures mostly to get rid of an unfavourable background, so I'd find the AF-S, which appears to be better behaved on background bokeh, to be more tempting. There's no doubt that the distinction is subtle.<br />

<br />

Eric: My experience of discussions of portrait lenses is that the ranges which tend to be discussed are around 85mm (in FX terms) for including most of the subject; around 135mm for covering head-and-shoulders, and around 105mm for the middle ground. While an 85mm lens used on DX (128mm equivalent) is at the longer end of "portrait", it's not unreasonably so. It's true that the first choice for a portrait lens is typically the 85mm equivalent, which would tally with the 60mm Tamron suggestion. However, since Chris already has a 50mm f/1.8, I'm not sure that the difference between 50mm and 60mm is enough that it would be my first choice here - an 85mm is a better complement. It's a perfectly good alternative to upgrading to the AF-S version of the 50mm f/1.8, though, especially since a 50mm is a bit short of the 85mm FX "ideal" for portraits. Canon users with a 1.6x crop have less of a problem here (50mm -> 80mm, 85mm -> 135mm); I'm not sure whether that was design by Canon or luck.</p>

I have never used the Tamron lens, but as Eric points out, a 60mm/f2 should make a good portrait lens for DX. I still

wonder why Nikon makes no dedicated portrait lens for DX.

<p>Chris, how much have you used your 50mm at wide f stops. I've been using DX for a number of years now and I really like the 50 at f 2.5 or so for head and shoulders. Bokeh is dependent on background features and I have no problem with the lowly 50mm 1.8 AF lens. I don't have an 85 but I do have a beautiful version of the 105 Sonnar f 2.5, which I can use if I want the longer lens effect. Truly, the 50 for me is handy because it is light and fast and easy to use with kids or candid situations. I just got a D7100 with the 18-105, which I have been using for candid portraits. I have enjoyed this lens a lot. It is fast, and sharp even at 105mm, which does give some nice out of focus backgrounds. I highly recommend the D7100! 6000x4000 pixel image size is great to work with. Closest thing to film I've used so far in digital. Please peruse my people folders for examples of what I'm talking about.</p>

<p>Here's an example using the 50mm 1.8 AF lens at f2.5. The background was pretty far away, so it is nicely out of focus. Pretty much a straight shot in late evening light with the D80.</p><div></div>

<p>Another example with the same lens and settings. Bokeh is a little more harsh here, but OK IMO.</p><div></div>

<p>Here's your 18-105 on the D7100, at 105mm, f 5.6. I think the bokeh here is smooth, even though in this shot it is more distracting (candid shot). I would play around more with the lenses you have before purchasing another lens!</p><div></div>

<p>The Nikon or Tamron 60mm f2.8 lenses are a solid choice. If I were going for an 85mm, it would definitely be the Sigma 85mm f1.4. I think the 60mm would be more versatile though.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>135mm is nice, but so is 35mm</p>

<p><strong> both 135</strong><br>

<img src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5535/9595601684_2e0e76bce9_z.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><img src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7459/9404038043_9007f90ea4_z.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p><strong>35</strong> <br>

<img src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5487/9528731082_5acd5ca425_z.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>@andrew, i dont know why, but i almost never use my 85 on DX. it just seems 'right' with FX. for DX portraits, i typically use the 70-200, 50-150 or 28-75, depending on what i'm shooting. each gives me a variety of perspective shots with excellent optical quality. for the OP, if you like a more environmental portrait, you might want to consider the sigma 18-35/1.8 as well.</p>

 

<p>Eric: For environmental framing, 85mm equivalent (~60mm on DX) is very good. I shoot a lot of candids, so while I use the 85mm (possibly less than I would if I had an AF version) I'm quite often shooting much longer to isolate the subject - though 135mm was usually enough, it's my 150 and 200mm that get used now. I'm rarely in an environment as picturesque as Ian's shots, though! (When I am, that's why I got a 70-200: so I can choose my framing and keep some depth of field control.) If I engaged more with my subjects, or if I wanted more framing, I'd probably make more of the shorter length. Back to the old "there's no such thing as a portrait focal length" argument!</p>

<p>I liked 85 on DX, and also frequently used a 105mm for more candid portraits (on FX I firmly prefer the 105mm lens). I find 50mm too short for headshots on DX, also giving a perspective that's just not as flattering as longer lenses.<br>

But as others noticed, there are many different types of portraits... Just commenting for head-only as the examples of Steve.</p>

<p>I am afraid that this sample from Steve Murray shows why the 50mm is not as desirable as a portrait lens on DX. 50mm is a little short so that you are forced to get closer to the subject than what I would considered to be "ideal." As a result, the face looks a bit distorted and the girl's cheeks look wide (although I have no idea how that girl really looks like).</p>

 

<P>

With a 50mm lens on DX, you need to stay farther away to get the "right" perspective, and you would be including a little more from the upper body. That is why I feel that a 60mm would be a better portrait lens on DX. Again, I am puzzled why Nikon does not provide a 60mm/f1.8, which does not need to be a DX lens itself, as a portrait lens for DX. People has been asking for portrait lenses for DX for years. Instead, people need to compromise with a 50mm/f1.8 or a 85mm, which is a bit long. Macro lenses tend to be too sharp for portrait and Nikon's own 60mm/f2.8 is on the slow side, although it is great for macro.

</P>

 

<IMG SRC="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00b/00bwRO-542126084.jpg">

<p>I shoot 95% portraiture on DX, and my current kit is a 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm f/1.8 G lenses. While the 85 can feel a touch long at times, I find the 50 too short for headshots. And while you can normally step back, the distortion from the 50 is not easily fixable. A fast 70 would probably work well.<br>

But to answer your question the 85mm f/1.8 G is a stunning lens, and well worth investing in.</p>

<p>Thanks for your thoughts everyone. Lovely pictures Steve and Ian; thanks for sharing :-)</p>

<p>I have had some success with the 50mm f/1.8D; example <a href="/photo/12350552">here</a>, but I'm not entirely comfortable with: the bokeh; performance wide open; and working distance. I tend to avoid using it and reach for the 35mm whenever I can (which obviously isn't best suited for head/shoulders). I guess I'm searching for something better than the 50mm on a limited budget. </p>

<p>In my film days I loved "picking people off" at events with the long end of my 70-210 - background thrown acceptably out of focus even at f/5.6 (yummy!). Unfortunately this lens is very poor on my D90 and the long end of the 18-105 just isn't doing do it for me (bokeh & focus drop off). </p>

<p>To replicate that look, I probably need to go be working at f/4 or below, but can't really stretch to an f/2.8 zoom at the moment. Besides, I do genuinely prefer primes.</p>

<p>I'm pleased to see several of you are very happy with your 85mm, so I think I'll go with that; but not until I've also taken a close look at the portrait performance of the longer macro lenses (thanks Andrew). Macro is another big gap in my current lens line up.</p>

<p>The DC lenses as well as older manual focus lenses usually come up in these threads. Are they really that good? I might look out for something in that vein on in the second hand market too.</p>

<p>Once again, thanks for all the input. Much appreciated.</p>

<p>Chris</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If I'm outside, I like around 105 for a portrait (yes, on DX), if inside, the only thing that I've been amble to make work is a 50.</p>

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