portrait lens for DX

[george_peng1]

<p>I think they're both fine - distance is probably your primary criterion as to which ot use. I typically use a 105mm f/2.8D outside, although it means that my subject is like 15 ft away. That said, the sharpness and bokeh are excellent, so the lens, which was purchased for my F100 back in the day, still excels at its original purpose, even for DX.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>"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."</p>

<p>that's true. its very noticable if there's a lot of distance between main subject and background, somewhat less so the closer that gap is. it's not a 'bokeh' lens but it can produce <em>some</em> bokeh. the sigma 50 is supposed to be better than the nikon 1.4 af-s in that regard.</p><div></div>

[mjferron]

<p>Paul what a stunning model.</p>

[paul_aylett1]

<p>Thank you Michael - she's a looker that's for sure. I hope to work with her again soon.</p>

[mjferron]

<p>After some head scratching I just purchased an AFS 60 macro for multi purpose portrait/macro/short telephoto work on my D90. 2.8 might not wipe out the background like 1.4 will but for me I'll get more use out of the 60.</p>

[zoltan_varro]

<p>Michael,<br>

Don't you think that the 2.8 aperture on the 60 macro is too slow for indoor portrait shots if you want to shoot without flash?<br>

Zoltan</p>

[bsd230]

<p>Paul I agree, 1.4 is best stopped down a little. Mine is pretty sharp even wide open, but the DOF is so shallow that it makes it the photos look soft. The above picture only his eyes were razor sharp so it really didn't show how sharp the photo was.</p>

[paul_aylett1]

<p>I concur - actually I kinda regret using the word 'soft'. It's not really soft, I think slightly 'hazey' is a better description - as though you were shooting through some ultra fine nylon stockings (sorry but it's difficult to explain and not nearly as bad as it sounds). I think some would find this works well for portraits. I prefer having things tack sharp and then dialling down if necessary in PP. </p>

[sjmurray]

<p>I think for shooting kids indoors with available light an 85mm on DX is too long. Kids move fast and a shorter focal length lens is easier to keep them in the finder. I have used everything from 24mm to 200mm for portraits, both full frame and DX. There is no "special" format IMO. In the film days I use the 50mm for head shots in low light just fine. Check out my 70's folder. With DX I find the 50mm lens very nice for portraits.</p>

[sergio_leal]

<p>I am no expert in lens, but I think one should also consider not only the focal lengh but the d.o.f. specific for each lens.<br>

The d.o.f. you get from a 105mm lens is not the same you get from a 50mm or a 35mm with a 1,5 crop factor, so most of the time you have to shot wide open to make the d.o.f shallower.<br>

The 35mm lens, no matter what the final focal lengh is after croping, is and will always be a wide angle lens with a large d.o.f and this is not goot for portrais....<br>

It may work well for portraits when used wide open but always will have this limitation.</p>

[sergio_leal]

<p><img src="../photo/9267693" alt="" />This is an example of a portrait taken with a 17-55mm/2.8 Nikkor lens (at 55mm/2.8).<br /> For tight crops and shoting always wide open, smal focal lenghs work fine.</p><div></div>

[leighmcmullen]

<p>The Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 HSM is the perfect DX Candid lens, and probably the single greatest point of regret I have on leaving DX for FX.</p>

<p>When the D400 (or whatever) comes out... I will probably re-buy a used D300 and this lens for daylight street photography.</p>

 

[pcnilssen]

<p>I have both the 50 and the 85 1.8 Both are super sharp lenses, and I can recomment both to all kinds of photo. For portraits, it depends on how much you want to include in your pictures.</p>

<p>I guess the 85 is my most used lens, except for the 18-70 which is my walk-around-lens.</p>

[phototransformations]

<blockquote>

<p>Don't you think that the 2.8 aperture on the 60 macro is too slow for indoor portrait shots if you want to shoot without flash?<br />Zoltan</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think the OP is a little obsessed with speed -- perhaps at the expense of utility -- for non-studio, candid shooting.</p>

<p>For instance, I use my Tamron 28-75 2.8 for indoor shots all the time. It is about as sharp, at 2.8, as my 50 1.8 at 2.8, and the DOF of the 50 1.8 is too shallow for most portraits, as it's hard to get more than one part of the person's face in focus. For me, anyway, the convenience of being able to adjust the focal length to what may be fast-changing circumstances outweighs the slightly more than one f/stop advantage of the 50 1.8 over the Tamron 2.8.</p>

<p>In the bad old days of Tri-X 400 as the fastest "ISO" I had access to, a 1.8 or faster lens was essential for indoor candids. Now, with fairly clean ISOs up to 800 on even the entry level DSLRs, and up to 6400 on the high-end DSLRs, the extra f/stop of speed seems unimportant, and even at 2.8 the DOF is very shallow when shooting portraits.</p>

<p>But, YMMV.</p>