I need a portrait lens for D200

[patertech]

I thought I could get away with my 18-200vr lens but it's not exactly what I

was looking for.

I would like to be able to set focus on subject's eye and have --> nose and ear

out of focus naturally and not to use Photoshop.

Which lens would you recommend based on your experience. I'm debating between

50, 60, 85 or 105 - never shot any of them.

Thank you for your response.

[mawz]

The 105's probably too long, unless you have a lot of room to work with.

 

My recomendation would be the combination of a 50 (nice short portrait lens) and an 85 (nice long portrait lens). I like the 50's for full length portraits, and the 85 makes for good headshots or half-torso shots.

[Ed_Ingold]

You need a wider aperture to control depth of field. IMO, a 50/1.4 is a little short for head and shoulders photography, even with a DSLR. The 85/1.4 is an extraordinary lens for portraits, though perhaps on the long side with a DSLR. In between, the 28-70/2.8 AFS is very sharp and adaptable to both individual and group portraits (and is my preference). The new Zeiss 85/1.4 ZF (Nikon mount) lens would definitely be worth a toss.

[bwcombs]

Nikon 60mm Micro. You won't have to sharpen those images in PS.

[lilly_w]

Jesse, the widest available aperture (within reason) will deliver the effect for which you're striving. f2.8 on the 60mm Micro Nikkor will pale, loosely speaking, in comparison to a 50/1.2, 50/1.8, 85/1.4 or 105 (f1.8, f2 or f2.5). Various contributors to this forum have mentioned the out-of-focus delivered by the 50/1.4 is less than pleasing.

 

Three significant factors in determining the depth-of-field are: 1) focal length, 2) aperture and 3) shooting distance. For minimum DOF: long lens, wide aperture at minimum focus distance. Have a look here to give you a flavor for DOF:

< http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html >. You'll notice that your variable aperture 18-200mm VR defaults to a narrower aperture as you zoom from 18mm to 85mm, resulting in more DOF...contrary to your wishes.

 

The top-shelf (and top-price) lenses for your purposes: 85/1.4 and 105/2 DC. Several of us sing the praises of the 105/2 DC. The DC (De-focus Control) permits you to exert even more control over the DOF via the DC ring on the lens. Next in line (in no particular order): 85/1.8, 105/1.8 or 2.5, 50/1.8. If I knew your budget I could be more precise. You may find the 105 length to be a bit long on a DSLR, depending on your working distance. But for tight head shots...!

 

You likely know you're not limited to AF lenses for metering on the D200. Thus, consider the AI / AIS lenses as focusing is best done manually for such portrait work anyway. Also consider just how tight your intended portrait-framing will generally be: ﾾ length, head and shoulders, head, or tight head, which will dictate, to a large extent, the more appropriate focal length. Godspeed.

[patertech]

Thank you Lilly,

 

Perfect explanation, I definitely like tight head shots. I really like DC option on 105 but may consider 85/1.4

Would I be able to get less DOF with any of the above than on this shot.

thank you all.

[dan park]

Thats funny. I need a D200 for my portrait lens. Maybe we could do a timeshare thing??

 

Dan

[tristanlaing]

Answer: you need a 50 f1.8. It's just as sharp in any real world situation as the 60 2.8 micro,

costs 1/5th as much, and is over a stop faster. Get this one first, and then if you decide you

need something longer, look at the 85mm 1.8.

[rcoder]

<p>I have, and adore, the 85mm f/1.8D:<br/>

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img

src="http://static.flickr.com/49/137743829_0f00ae32e3_m.jpg" width="240"

height="159" alt="who wouldn't trust this man?" style="margin: 8px; border: 2px solid

black;" /></a>

</p>

 

<p>The 50mm is nice, too, but you just can't get the same tight shots without shoving

your camera right into the subject's face. With the 85mm, I can be standing or sitting at a

normal, comfortable distance from someone -- say, 5-10 ft. -- and still capture a nice

head-and-shoulders portrait. Closer than that, you get shots like the one above, which

beautifully accent the eyes and let everything else fall away.</p>

 

<p>If I could afford the f/1.4, I'd pick it up in a hearbeat, but that full-frame DX fisheye is

singing its siren song to me right now...</p>

[walterh]

Jesse you need to decide on the focal length and you need to decide how much you can or want to spend. We can not tell you this. If you decided this - a lot is decided about the 105DC or the 50mm . These lenses are worlds apart in price and effect.

 

All the lenses you list are good lenses - each with own specialty. Since you ask this question so broadly there is one recommendation. Get the 50mmAFDF1.8 for less than 100 US$ and shoot the hell out of it. After 1000+ images you will know exactly what you need next. You will never learn and get a good lens at the same time so much for so little money^^.

[BernardMiller]

There are many very good recommendations here, but I'm going to suggest another, little different possibility.

 

You might want to see if you can find a 35-70 2.8 zoom. Those suckers are terrifically sharp, fairly cheap right now, and offer the wide aperture that you're looking for, if not so wide as to be ideal.

 

The zoom range is very nice, too, for digital; at the short end, you can do mid-body portraits, while the long end is equivalent to a 105 on film. They make great walking-around lenses, too, so you can get more general use out of them than you might with some of the more traditional portrait lenses.

 

I use one quite often with either studio or natural lighting and get quite nice portraits with it.

 

Here's one:<div></div>

[twmeyer]

I seccond Bernard's observation re: "<i>You might want to see if you can find a 35-70 2.8 zoom.</i>". If you like your portraits tight, 2.8 is plenty thin enough. This lens works great for couples, small groups and for tight hreadshots and is available for bargain prices. (otherwise, I favor the 85 f1.8 and the 50 f1.8, both <i>considerably</i> cheaper than their f1.4 associates... t

[ilkka_nissila]

I recommend the 50/1.8 ... brilliant optics, very nice contrast and color rendition, excellent for portraits IMO. The 85s are good for longer shots, myself I like the 105 DC for outdoor portraits.

[chris_leck]

"Would I be able to get less DOF with any of the above than on this shot."

 

You may even be able to do better with an f/2.8 zoom, such as the 28-70. With the 105 DC, you should easily be able to get the eyes sharp and the ears out of focus.

[tom_nj1]

DOF is a function of lens f and camera to subject distance. I use a 85mm f1.8 ... I love it. If you have the money, get the f1.4. It's always nice to have that extra stop.

[lilly_w]

Minor clarification to the above comment...DOF is a function of <lens f (aperture)...camera to subject distance> AND focal length. The difference between f1.4 and f1.8 is 2/3 of a stop. f1.4 to f2 would be a full stop.

 

Jesse, re: <less DOF with any of the above than on this shot>. Yes. The DOF of the 85mm at f1.4 at minimum focus distance = the thickness of a well-worn credit card.

[photos by kiem]

I have a Tamron 90mm Di Macro lens that I'm thinking of using for tight headshots on the D200. Anyone use this lens for such?

[marker]

I Use a 80-200/2,8 (old-pp model)I love it for portraits.

 

This is taken 3 days ago on my D70.<div></div>