50mm suitable for close-up portraits on digital?

[jay_d.]

I have the D50 and I'm looking for a fast lens to take indoor

portraits at events (weddings, parties) and at home. I think the ideal

lens would be a 70mm, which would have an effective focal length of

105mm, but that doesn't exist. So I'm considering both the AF Nikkor

50mm f/1.8D and the AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D.

 

The first thing I need to figure out is whether the 50mm is long

enough for close-up portraits (i.e. headshots). I've heard some people

say that with the 1.5X crop factor, the 50mm will be fine. Others have

said it will cause unflattering distortion around the nose.

 

It would be great if the 50mm could do the job, because it's much

cheaper, and because when I'm shooting in my apartment, I don't have a

lot of room to back up. On the other hand, I don't want to buy both,

and if the 85mm is better for my needs, I'd rather just get that one.

[ShunCheung]

If you are not sure, IMO you are better off getting the wider lens. With digital, it becomes much easier to crop and then print. Wtih print film, you'll either need to do your own darkroom work or work with a custom lab.

[david_debalko1]

I prefer a longer lens for people, it's easier to seperate them from the background

and throw that background out of focus. You also get less background since the

angle of view is narrower.

Dave

[jonb]

"Others have said it will cause unflattering distortion around the nose."

 

"...when I'm shooting in my apartment, I don't have a lot of room to back up."

 

Perspective "distortion" depends wholly on the distance from the subject, not the lens in use. If you can't get far enough away from the subject, no lens is going to fix it.

 

Personally, I use 50mm and crop a bit. You have enough megapixels to make that work.

[ottocrat]

FWIW I think it works very well as a portrait lens on digital, in dim lighting. <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3486217">Here's</a> a headshot I took in a dark(ish) pub (D70, AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8).

[jeffrey moore]

I think the 50mm works well with the 1.5 field-of-view sensors.

 

That's a mighty fine portrait, Chris.

[eric friedemann]

I have an 85mm f/1.4 AFD, which can take excellent tight shots on Nikon DSLRs. 85mm is a nice length for tight head shots with a Nikon DSLR.

 

 

That having been said, you might start with a 50mm f/1.8 AFD lens and see if it works for you. At only $100 for the 50mm, if you still want an 85mm, you can use the 50mm as a body cap.<div></div>

[sjmurray]

I've done a gajillion portraits with the 50mm lens, even with full frame 35mm. Check out my 70's folder.

[gaius1]

50mm will work, it's at the short end of the usual range for portraits, which is 85-135mm. Weirdly no-one makes a f/2.8 (or even better f/2.0) zoom in that range. But the results may be harsh due to the design of the lens. You might want to try the manual-focus 105/2.5 which has an excellent reputation for tight headshots.

[roland_vink]

<i>50mm will work, it's at the short end of the usual range for portraits, which is 85-135mm. Weirdly no-one makes a f/2.8 (or even better f/2.0) zoom in that range</i>

<p>

How about the AF 35-70/2.8? On Digital it works like a 53-105/2.8 zoom. The Tamron 28-75/2.8 also has good reviews and covers a wider range, equivalent to a 42-112 zoom.

However, for price, compactness, speed and sheer optical performance, the 50/1.8 is hard to beat, and it seems to work well for this purpose.

[lee hamiel]

Per Roland's comment along with Shun's to stay on the wide side - The 35-70 2.8 would be a great fit for you - My son has this lens & I keep wanting to take it from him. Very useful lens - very good in macro mode & the prices are very reasonable as well.

 

Essentially you would have a 52.5 to 105 zoom that due to it's makeup I feel acts more like a prime than a zoom - may be due to the short range? I don't know but well worth considering.

 

Add a 17-35 2.8 & you're all set!

 

If I were you & wanted to simply test the waters then I would opt for the 50 1.8 at this juncture.

 

Good luck

[david_h._hartman]

Jay,

 

For a tight head shots you can use an 85/1.8 or 1.4. An 85mm lens on a Nikon DX, DSLR is equivalent to a 129mm to 132mm lens on 35mm film depending on the specific camera. This is pretty much idea for tight head shots. I'm using 1.52x for D70 and D2X and 1.55x for the D2H and D2Hs.

 

All 50mm Nikkors for which I have specs for are 51.6mm lenses. We're coming up short so let's take all we can get. This works out to about a 78mm to 80mm lens on a DX, DSLR. This is close to the classic for a 3/4 portrait which is 85mm to 90mm on film.

 

You have noticed the gap in Nikon lens lineup for DX cameras. I'd love a 70/1.8G ED AF and a 70/1.4D ED AF-S but Nikon doesn't make either. The closest there is, is a 28~70/2.8D ED-IF AF-S or 35~70/2.8D AF. One of these at 70/2.8 should give results similar to a 105/2.5 at f/4.0.

 

If you feel you can spare the pixels you can shoot a bit loose with a 50/1.8 and crop to get perspective like you'd get with a 105/2.5 on film. Remember it is the distance from your point of view, the lens, to the subject not the focal length that is responsible for the perspective.

 

Given your budget a clean used 35~70/2.8D AF Nikkor might be best choice.

 

Regards,

 

Dave Hartman.

[frank_skomial]

You asked if 50mm lens for "close-up portraits"

 

Someone recommends for that: "you are better off getting the wider lens."

 

Is that suggestion agains all the golden rules of portrait photography? even if considering the 1.5x crop factor.

 

You need at least 50 mm and up to 200 mm for the "close-up portraits" - unless your defninition of close up portraits is different than mine - that is filling up the entire frame with person's face without distortion caused by too close focus.

[ramon_v__california_]

jay,

 

with your restrictins in both budget and working space, it will still be the 50mm/1.8 over the 85mm. yes, you are breaking the traditions and golden rules of portaiture, but if there is a limit, there is a limit. have fun with the arsenal that you can afford.

some of the people here that suggested the 50mm are serious photographers, if not pros. they will not lure you out of the enjoyment of your hobby.

 

but please do consider the other suggestions if you have the extra money. just bear in mind that your fun will not be lessened by being economical, at least re: the mentioned lenses.

[csuzor]

I like the 50/1.8 for indoor portraits, but more often now my tokina 28-80/2.8 is the ideal tool. A little longer than the nikon, but less sharp at 2.8 than it should be, so I select f2.8 or f3.3 for a softer shot, and f4 for sharper, and f5.6 for more depth of field in close portraits (the 50/1.8 is soft below f2.8, and DOF is too shallow anyway for head shots, Chris' photo above shows that). Similar in price to the 85/1.8, more convenient (select your perspective first, then zoom to avoid cropping or cutting off body parts), but it has its limitations. I even find some of my portraits vary between 35mm and 80mm (52 - 120) with this lens... I would have missed those shots with a prime.

[gluteal cleft]

A 50mm on a crop-factor body makes you back up more than it would on film or full-frame, and because your camera-to-subject distance is longer, you don't get as much distortion, and I find portraits that I've taken with a 50mm on a 1.6x body to be pretty decent. After all, after backing up for equivalent framing, it does give me a perspective nearly that of an 85mm lens.

 

Don't get me wrong, I like an 85mm lens better - even on the 1.6x body - but the 50 still works just fine.

 

steve