portrait lens for DX

[zoltan_varro]

<p>hi,<br>

Would like to know if anyone is using an 85mm prime as a portrait lens on DX? I have a D90 and am thinking of getting a fast prime to use indoors to take portraits of family, kids. Can't decide if a 50mm or 85mm is what I should get. Seems like the 50 might be too short, even on DX. I don't want to get way up close to people, kids especially, I think it's usually better to take photos when they don't realize they're being photographed. So I'm wondering if it's better to get the 35/1.8 and 85/1.8 combo instead of getting a 35/1.8 and a 50mm. Any thoughts? thanks,<br>

Zoltan</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>If you are talking head shots - by all means, 85mm. For half or full body shots, 85mm indoors might be a tad long and 50mm would be better (or still too long) - so my choice would be 35 and 85.</p>

[zoltan_varro]

<p>Actually, forget the 35 for the moment. Whether I get that lens or not is another issue, I probably should not have brought it up here.<br>

Consider just the 85 for portraits on DX... Anyone using one and is happy with it? Anyone using a 50 and wish you had an 85 instead, or vice versa, using an 85 and finding you're running out of room constantly indoors? thanks,<br>

Zoltan</p>

[eb_lim]

<p>When I use my D 70s I use the Nikon 60mm macro as my main portrait lens. Remember it acts like a 90mm on DX format, if I have to use a longer lens then the 85 F 1.8 or the 105 DC F2, depending on how far away I can be from the subject.<br>

Now I have the D 700 my 85 F 1.8 and 105 DC lens can be used as true portrait lenses like the way they were designed and intended for.<br>

My D 70s now enjoys a well deserved retirement, but is used as a back up occassionally.<br>

eb </p>

[eb_lim]

<p>When I use my D 70s I use the Nikon 60mm macro as my main portrait lens. Remember it acts like a 90mm on DX format, if I have to use a longer lens then the 85 F 1.8 or the 105 DC F2, depending on how far away I can be from the subject.<br>

Now I have the D 700 my 85 F 1.8 and 105 DC lens can be used as true portrait lenses like the way they were designed and intended for.<br>

My D 70s now enjoys a well deserved retirement, but is used as a back up occassionally.<br>

eb </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>The 60 works well. I think my 50 is okay, but I do want an 85 some day soon, too. You should get a 50mm f1.8 in any case. It's amazingly cheap and great for a lot of things. I love mine.</p>

[andylynn]

<p>85 on DX is pretty long for indoors unless your rooms are unusually large. Do you have a zoom lens? What length seems most useful to you for this sort of work?</p>

<p>I'm a big fan of the 50/1.8D and the 35/1.8DX on the D90 but for portraits I'd prefer the 50.</p>

[jorgen_udvang]

<p>I use both 50 and 85, depending on the situation, and I don't think I would be happy with having only one of them. If you don't need the very shallow DOF, you could consider a 35-70mm f/2.8 or a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. Both work well as portrait lenses on DX.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> I love my 85/1.8 for portraits on DX bodies. Very flattering. But your question states for "use indoors". At that effective focal length, unless you live in a palace or warehouse-sized dwelling, you're going to be cramped. As someone said, for head shots, or closely posed duos or triples, it will work. For any kind of normal chaotic family activity, in an average home indoors, it's too long.</p>

<p> Can it be recommended for portrait use? Absolutely. Recommended as your primary indoors family lens in a normal-sized house? No. But you can't go wrong with adding one to your quiver, even if its indoor use is marginal. It's a beautiful lens, and it will eventually make the transition to FX.</p>

<p> </p>

[bmm]

<p>Zoltan - a 35 + 85 combo on DX to me is fantastic and its what I travel with very often. Small, fast, flexible and top quality.<br>

More specifically to portraiture, 85mm on DX works a treat, especially in combination with some selective cropping. A recent example...</p><div></div>

[bmm]

<p>I do agree by the way that for smaller rooms and tight situations an 85mm can be too long and a 50mm option is useful to have.</p>

[phototransformations]

<p>Consider the Tamron 28-85 (or similar), which will give you more flexibility. The Tamron has very nice bokeh and is, in my opinion, a real bargain for what it offers. It's also an FX lens, should you move on to an FX camera at some point.</p>

[seanbreadsell]

<p>i use a 50mm but soemtimes i wish i had longer....85mm is a bit to long for my use (although i do want one still) i think around the 50-70 range is very good (hence why i want a 24-70 but thats for another discussion) i am liking the idea of the 60mm micro used by some other peoples as a go between, saying all this in my very small studio full body shots i need a 24mm</p>

[douglasely]

<p>This is a no brainer, 85mm. Mine is on my D300 all the time. </p>

<p>If you can spring for the f1.4, you will find love once again.</p>

 

[zoltan_varro]

<p>thanks for the responses.<br>

A lot of you said either a 2.8 zoom, or the 60 macro. My concern about those is the slower speed, since I want to use this lens indoors no flash. I don't think I want anything slower than 1.8. May be the 50 will be good and allow some group shots in addition to portrait. I just worry that it'll be OK for both, but not good at either. Still undecided...</p>

[paul_aylett1]

<p>Nikon 50mm f1.4D - a perfect indoor portrait lens on a DX body (unless you have a <em>very</em> large home studio).</p><div></div>

[zoltan_varro]

<p>Paul,</p>

<p>So, this would not be for studio work, rather taking candid shots of family, kids indoors. I wonder if I'd have to get up too close to people with a 50, taking away the candid aspect of the images.<br>

Any more people out there with an opinion on 50 vs 85 for portraits on DX?<br>

thanks,<br>

Zoltan</p>

[paul_aylett1]

<p>No, not really close, unless you want a full frame head shot. If anything, it may be a little long for a full length shots. I can't recommend this lens enough, it's incredibly sharp. If you have a zoom that covers 50 or 85mm, spend some time with it fixed to those lengths to get a feel for what you really need. 85mm is a 136mm equiv on full frame - that sounds quite long for indoor use but then I live in HK and apartments are smaller here!</p>

[joe_a2]

<p>Zoltan... Do you have ANY zooms that have 50mm and 85mm in their range? If so, you could spend a few minutes experimenting and you'll have YOUR answer, not OURS. Lock the zoom at 50mm with a little gaffer's tape and take some shots as you would. Then do it again with the zoom taped at 85mm. </p>

<p>You'll be able to base your prime lens purchase on the framing and distances YOU experienced.</p>

[bsd230]

<p>Paul, that is a fantastic photo. I love the 50mm 1.4D, sharpest lens I've owned.</p><div></div>

[breogan_gomez]

For portraits and candids the 50mm is the choice. Is the most versatile... 85mm (130mm eq in FX) is just too much. The 50mm will be a bit short for head shots but you can't buy a prime and expect it to be versitile.

[paul_aylett1]

<p>Thank you Brian - yup, it's a great lens and is on my D300 most of the time - it's the lens by which I benchmark all others. The only other lens I own that is as good is the Nikon 35-70 2.8D. Went out of production ages ago but you can still pick them up second hand really cheap (I paid $285 for mine). Has a great portrait range on a DX body. As sharp as the 50mm throughout the range and actually has better contrast than the 50mm - however since it was designed before many of these high tech coatings, it's a little prone to flare and haze if pointed towards the sun. However, as a studio portrait lens (which is 95% of my work), it is simply outstanding, even fully open. I rarely use the 50mm fully open as I find it a little too soft.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>if you werent taking pics of kids, i'd consider the new 58/1.4 voitglander, which is MF. IMO you really need AF for moving or fidgety subjects. as far as 50 or 85, both are 'tweener lengths on DX. i can understand a fascination with primes,and, if money was no object,a 30 (or 35)/50/85 set-up would be ideal. bernard's shot illustrates how great the 85/1.4 is for portraiture, and paul's shot is very nice as well. but those are posed shots with sitting subjects.</p>

<p>i actually like the sigma 30/1.4 for candids, since a bit of background adds context, and it has both superb low-light ability and fast AF.</p>

<p>in addition to the nikon 35-70, there are also some affordable 3rd party zooms with very good IQ which can solve the too long/too short problem, such as the sigma 50-150 and the tamron 28-75.</p><div></div>

[stephen_worth]

<p>I too use the Sigma 30 1.4 for normal candids...<br>

<img src="http://www.animationarchive.org/pics/skipcanters.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="320" /><br>

<a href="http://www.animationarchive.org/pics/skipcanters-big.jpg">Bigger Size</a><br>

and the Sigma 50 1.4 for head and shoulders shots...<br>

<img src="http://www.animationarchive.org/pics/michaelwoodside-lil.jpg" alt="" width="400" height="563" /><br>

<a href="http://www.animationarchive.org/pics/michaelwoodside-big.jpg">Bigger Size</a></p>

[cc_chang2]

<p>I have both the Nikon 50 and 85 mm f1.8. I like them both but they each have pros and cons. Overall with the 85mm, it is easy to make a head and shoulder shot with nicely blur background. With the 50 mm, however, the background does not get blur as easily and some planning to seek the right background may be needed. I read some where that the 50 mm lens is optimized for sharpness, not for portrait, and this causes its bokeh to be some what harsh. However I use it more frequently in my house to photograph my 11 mon son because its working distance is shorter so I do not have to back up as much as using the 85 mm. Thus in tight quater, the 50 mm is easier to use. </p>