Please suggest a good AF-S portrait lense for Nikon D40

[sun_p]

<p>Hello,</p>

<p> Can you please suggest a good AF-S portrait lense for nikon D40. I have just started out but any information would be helpful on what to look at. I am on a budget. also probably some third party lenses like Tamaron/Sigma and if they are good?</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Sunil</p>

[bart_van_der_borst]

<p>I liked the Nikkor 55-200 AFS VR on my D200</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Fixed portrait lens? The 60mm micro AF-S might be good for that. Some like the 50mm length for portraits on DX, too. Others don't.</p>

<p>Zoom? The problem with the cheaper AF-S's is that they don't manually focus very nicely, but the 70-300 VR AF-S does. Other than that, you're in some expensive territory with the 70/80-200 lenses at f2.8.</p>

<p>Tamron has no real "AF-S" lenses, although they have some with internal motors, and Sigma has some designated "HSM" for that purpose. Others may chime in on those here.</p>

[shuo_zhao]

<p>>> "I am on a budget."</p>

<p>Sunil, how much exactly can you spend?<br>

You also have to think about what foca length you would like to work with. Portraits can be taken with anything frm wideangles to supertelephoto lenses. But the different FLs have their own look and not a single FL is ideal for everything (although a lens with a normal to short tele FL would come close). A fast prime lens is often preferred to achieve subject isolation and to produce bokeh; a classic choice among them would be the 50 f/1.8, but it's not AF-S. You can look at the 35 f/1.8, the 50 f/1.4 AF-S, and the 60 AF-S micro. Longer telephoto lenses would allow you to "flatten" the look of the subject; the 55-200 VR is a good low cost choice. A normal zoom could also be nice for portraits. Try to look at some of the faster f/2.8 normal zooms. Sigma and Tamron makes a few relatively affordable choices. </p>

[paul_b.1]

the best will be the 50 f/1.4 AF-S, and/or the 60/2,8 AF-S micro, but there is a new player, the Tamron SP AF 60mm F/2.0 Di II LD (IF) MACRO 1:1, very good for people and... bugs, portraits.(no AF-S, but internal micro motor).

[akira]

<p>I think 60/2.8 Micro focuses fairly fast on D40. As Paul mentioned, the newly announced Tamron 60/2.0 seems promising, but I would doubt if it can focus as fast as Nikon 60/2.8.</p>

[rarmstrong]

<p>Paul B. <br>

Do you have any links about the Tamron 60mm f2.0 lens? Sounds like an interesting option.<br>

Dick</p>

[paul_b.1]

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0903/09032401tamron60macro.asp.

 

 

Hope the above link will help, but I'm sure, if you just Google the name of the lens, you'll find more ...

[chris_brandstrom]

<p>The Tamron SP AF90mm f/2.8 Macro is also a good choice. It is marketed as a macro/portrait lens, and it now comes in a version with a built in motor. I have one myself and it works perfectly on my D40. Its this one here:<br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/330643-USA/Tamron_AF272N700_SP_90mm_f_2_8_Di.html">http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/330643-USA/Tamron_AF272N700_SP_90mm_f_2_8_Di.html</a></p>

[rarmstrong]

<p>Paul, thanks! I did that, but there is scant information out there. Tamron doesn't even have it on their site yet.<br>

Dick</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>You can get an 18-70 DX AF-S for maybe $150 in the used market. That would be a good "budget" choice.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>your best option in terms of price/performance would probably be the tamron 28-75/2.8 BIM. it's about the same price as the 50/1.4 AF-S and gives you much more flexibility for composition due to the extended range. in general, a constant aperture lens is better than a variable-aperture lens like the 18-70 (which is good at f/8), since 2.8 gives you the ability to make the foreground 'pop'. and while macro lenses are sharp, portraits are not their intended purpose--they can be used for that, but if you're not also doing close-up photography,it's kind of a waste. OTOH, the 28-75 is a good walkaround lens (except for w/a stuff) and great for events, concerts -- and portraits.</p>

[akira]

<p>Here is more info on the new Tamron 60/2.0:</p>

<p>http://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/cda/other/2009/03/27/10551.html</p>

<p>It's all in Japanese, but you can see some pictures of the lens. Click each image to enlarge. The report says that the prototype displayed at PIE (Photo Imaging Expo) 2009 held in Tokyo now doesn't autofocus but can function as MF lens.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>ps if you can swing it, the sigma 50-150 is an even better choice for portraits on a DX body and has faster AF due to HSM. it's also about 1/3rd of the cost of a 70-200 VR, and the fact that it starts at 50, rather than 70 or 80 is a plus for portrait work.</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>and a 28-75 pic...</p><div></div>

[shuo_zhao]

<p>>> " but there is a new player, the Tamron SP AF 60mm F/2.0 Di II LD (IF) MACRO 1:1"<br>

>> "As Paul mentioned, the newly announced Tamron 60/2.0 seems promising, but I would doubt if it can focus as fast as Nikon 60/2.8."</p>

<p>the Tamron is a faster f/2 lens comparing to the AF-S 60 micro. But there's a catch: The Tamron is a DX lens; while the Nikkor is a FX lens. </p>

[paul heskes]

<p>Hi Sunil<br />The Nikon 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-S kit lens would make for an ideal portrait lens from 35mm upward. It is the best kit lens available for the money, very sharp and there are a great many available now secondhand.</p>

<p>If you are starting out and don't have much in the way of kit, this will also give you a very capable mid range zoom, light, take anywhere lens, that shouldn't give you any problems when using the D40's pop-up flash.</p>

[sun_p]

Hello Gurus,

 

First of all thank you all for taking some time out to give your opinions!! I am beginning to get an idea at what I should be looking for, but being a beginner, I am also probably a bit slow to understand, especially since I am not experienced enough. Forgive me for this basic question, but could you please explain whats the most important thing to look for while choosing a portrait, which can also take full body shots lense? In this thread of mine like is the case with other threads, people have adviced me to choose the 55-200VR which is affordable to 18-70mm f3.5-4.5 to 50 f1.4. I am sure each has their own use but I wanted to know,

1. What is a prime lense. I hear that the 50mm one is a fixed focal length one.

2. I love the Bokeh effect, so would that mean I need to opt for telephoto? the 55-200, 70-300 etc?

3. Some have indicated a wider aperture would be required.

 

In some of the google pages, I see some people mentioning that the 105mm to 135mm is ideal Focal length for a portrait lense.

 

I know many of you might be laughing at this simple question, but as a beginner with little experience, all of these are like rocket science. I do understand the concepts individually, but without experience, when one puts everything together, it gets confusing.

 

Thank you for your time!!

Have a great weekend.

Sunil

[brooks_lester]

<p>The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 AF would give you a great range of focal lengths, is very sharp, and has superb bokeh (quality of defocussed areas), which is an important aspect in choosing a portrait lens. Used on a DX body like yours, it would be equivalent to 42-150mm on a 35mm camera, which is a good range for half body to tight head shots. In terms of primes, the best cheap prime with great bokeh might be the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 AF Macro, which is also very sharp and has true macro (close up) capability. Both lenses are now available in ring motor (AF-S) version for Nikon cameras and cost under $400 from the cheapest on-line retailers. <br /> My only complaint with the non-Nikon lenses is that they have a slightly yellow (warm) cast. Some people actually like that quality but I prefer a neutral look from the glass.</p>