Best indoor lens

[justine_mooney]

I own a D80 and I have been using it for indoors and have found that the lens

that it came with is not good for shooting in low lights. I would like to find

a good lens that would be suitable for indoor portraits. Any suggestions would

be great thanks.

[sam_thompson2]

50 1.8 or 85 1.8.

[Matt Laur]

Are you shooting full-body, or closer up shots? How much room do you have to step back from your subject(s)?

 

You could do very well with the 50mm f/1.8, which can be a great lens for that purpose, will work on our D80, and only costs around $100. What are you using for lighting? Meaning, if you're actually exposing the shot in very low light (not just focusing, etc) then you have to remember that unless you can use a low shutter speed, opening up the lens to a wide aperture will result in rather shallow depth of field.

[dave_petley2]

50mm 1.4

[keith_leonin]

No flash? THE BEST, depending on which focal length you prefer:

 

28mm/1.4 AFD

 

58mm/1.2 "Noct" -- won't meter with your D80

 

85mm/1.4 AFD

[john_campbell8]

If you have a lot of money, you might also want to look at the 85mm f/1.4.

[yeux tortu]

35 2.0 afd. 1 stop slower than 50 1.4 but better iq wide open and friendlier dof. You can almost make up the 1 stop by slower shutter speed and you will get more keepers.

[michael s.]

For approx $100 U.S. (new in box w/ warranty) the 50mm f/1.8 AF-D Nikkor is an excellent lens. It is one of the lenses I've used most on my D70.

 

With the 1.5x crop factor, it will offer the perspective of a 75mm f/1.8 lens when mounted on your D80.

 

I should clarify: It is not just an excellent $100 lens; it is an excellent lens.

[crabseye]

I just ordered the 50mm f/1.4 for that very purpose.

 

I like natural light, and the fastest lens I had was f/2.8, which wasn't quite cutting the mustard. Not that the f/1.4 will do well with mustard either, but I'm confident it will do the job for lower light indoor shots.

[hugo_vincent]

Sigma 30mm f1.4 -- all the other affordable lenses are too long for indoors.

[dan_k6]

I see people recommending the 85 1.4 and other lenses. I hope they realize the 85 1.4 is a $1000 lens and not many people may be able to afford that. Also according to Ken Rockwell,

 

"...Remember that you loose a stop or two of low-light ability compared to a 50mm or 28mm f/1.4 because of the longer focal length. You can shoot successful at slower speeds with a wide angle lens."

 

For $114, you cannot beat the 50mm 1.8D for low light. I bought one.

[dan_k6]

On that Ken Rockwell quote, he was referring to the 85 1.4

[Hector Javkin]

50mm (or 58mm) will give you a head and shoulders portrait at a distance of about 5-6 feet (a little under two meters.) 85mm will give you a head and shoulders shot at about 9 feet (under 3 meters.) I have the 50mm f/1.4 and the 85mm f/1.8, and like both of them for portraits. In a small room, neither give me sufficient blurring of the background, so that I have to choose the background carefully.

 

If you use a tripod, you can get sharp portraits of adults at very low shutter speeds, so that a slower lens will get enough light. Whether you like the look with a slower lens is something else.

[anthony_bez]

The best lens is the 85mm f1.4 AFD, but you will need some room to frame your subject. Next is the 50mm f1.4 AFD.

[elliot1]

The key to great portraits is great lighting. If you want really nice portraits, invest in lighting equipment or a good flash.

[dan_brown4]

My nod goes to the 35/2. Great all-around lens on a DX body.

[albertdarmali]

Why no one recommended 20mm 2.8? The 50mm might be a bit long in some places (eg. kitchen)

[tonybeach]

Daniel, KR must have been referring to static subjects; you cannot shooting appreciably slower with a wide angle than with a telephoto if your subject is moving, even if your subject is moving slowly.

 

Perhaps Dan can tell us if he has any experience with the Sigma 30/1.4; or Hugo can tell us if he has any experience with the Nikkor 35/2. I'm interested in getting one of these lenses myself, so I sincerely would like to hear an informed comparison from anyone that has used both lenses.

[justine_mooney]

Wow thanks for all the replys, I think I'm even more confused now hehe. I am shooting up close portrait and full body but I do have the room to back up.. I do have some natural lighting and I use a single opus k-250 umbrella light. My friend uses the AF-S ZM NIK G DX 17-55MM, but he doesnt use any lighting would that be a good option?

[squiggs77]

You can always crop, but you can't always backup.

 

I have the 50mm f1.8 and it is an AWESOME lens for the price. However, I'm currently looking at getting a wider lens such as the Sigma 30mm f1.4. I wish the 50mm was a bit wider and I would like to be able to handhold at lower shutter speeds.

[sjmurray]

The much recommended 50mm f 1.8 is fast enough to use if you didn't want to use lights, and you can always add your lights if you want to. I do a lot of portraits using available light and I find f2.8 is probably the bare minimum of aperture for available light. When you shoot at f1.8 or f2 the focusing is very critical because of the shallow depth of field, but the end result can be very pleasing if you get your subject's eyes in focus. In close quarters a lens wider than 50mm can be used, but you can't get too close to the subject because you'll distort their features. A 28mm or 35mm is nice for when you want to include some of the environment in the portrait. See my folders for examples. I guess what I'm saying is that you might find a 17-xx f 2.8 lens a good tool for your style, but only you know what that is!

[sjmurray]

Anthony, I just picked up a used 35mm f2 a couple months ago. It is a very sharp lens at all f stops (see photozone.de). Nice bokeh to my eye. Gives a similar angle of view to a 50mm on a film camera. For portraits it is nice for when you want to include some background or if there are a couple people in the photo. I have a few recent photos in my people folder with this lens. I have a 28mm 2.8 ais and it is very sharp in the portrait range, and useful for environmental shots and small groups as well. The f2.8 is handy in available light situations. My 18-70 lens is similar in performance above f 2.8.

[eric_arnold]

for low light you really can't go wrong with the 50 1.8. it's a great starter prime that will allow you to develop your low light technique for just over $100.

 

after that, look at the nikkor 35 f/2 or the sigma 30 f/1.4 and the nikkor 85 1.8.

 

if you want to cover a wider range, a fast mid-zoom like the sigma 18-50 or tamron 17-50 or 28-75 is an almost all-purpose upgrade from the kit lens that will give you a 2.8 aperture, not as fast as the 1.4 or 1.8 options, but better at that than the one you currently have in low light. you also get some nice bokeh thrown into the deal when you shoot wide open.

[walterh]

Anthony the Sigma 30mm f1.4 is a nice lens but it is (as many fast lenses) a "specialist". It is good in the fast f-stop range but noticeably looses "grip" already from f8. It is also a bit bulky and heavy. Some call it soft some like the slight creamy appearance of its images shot open. The lens offers excellent detail and nice bokeh. As you know it is usually no problem to increase contrast in PP. I personally like it for portraits wide open to f2.0. One caveat: Many think that conflicting statements about this lens are perhaps due to sample variation. If you do bench testing be aware that the focus plane is not a "plane" but curved and brick-wall shots may overemphasize border problems.<div></div>