kristy_ketterman Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 <p>I will be purchasing my first DSLR, the D90, very soon. I plan to go with the kit lens and then was thinking about a prime for use with portraits.<br /> <br /> These would be both indoor and outdoor portraits; which would be better for this? The 35mm 1.8 or the 50mm 1.8? Or, do you have a different suggestion for indoor/outdoor portraits that would be better than these?<br /> <br /> Thank you in advance!</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wouter Willemse Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 <p>For head and shoulder portraits, the 85 f/1.8.<br> The 35 f/1.8 is an extremely useful lens, full body portraits but also a wide range of other applications. So if you only get one prime, I would go with the 35.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heimbrandt Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 <p>What kit zoom are you referring to, the 18-105 or the more expensive but much better 16-85? Either way, I suggest that you wait with your portrait lens decision until you have gotten the camera in your hands. As only you know what type of portraiture work you will do, only you can tell what focal length would be best for you in addition to your zoom lens.</p> <p>The standard zooms cover the focal lengths of interest and would therefore be your best guide to help you decide if you are best served getting a 35mm, 50mm or an 85mm prime.<br> The 35mm is a great lens, but for portraits its more for "creative" portraits than more traditional ones. It would be OK for full figure work, not for more conventional head shots. The 50mm would give you a better and more flattering perspective for head shots.<br> Another option is the 85mm 1.8, which is an excellent lens.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trevans Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 <p>For what it's worth... for portraits on my D40, I always use my 17-55 at 55mm, and usually I wish I had a longer lens. Were I shopping now, I'd probably get both the 85 and the 50, since the 50 can be had so cheap. Having said that, I have neither of those lenses and in fact own the 35/1.8, which is an adorable little lens, but it's just not what I like for intimate portraits. The 17-55 is serving its purpose well for now.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Laur Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 <p>I agree, let the kit zoom help you figure out what focal lengths work for you creatively, and <em>then</em> get a prime that lets you have more control over depth of field and renders nicer looking backgrounds.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwrtertbsratbs5 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 <p>Buy a 50/1.8 for about $100.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_drutz Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 <p>The Nikon 85mm f/1.8 is $450 new. keh.com has a used one for $399. The 35mm f/1.8 is a nice lens but too short for head shots. The 50mm f/1.8 is very inexpensive and at 75mm with the crop factor, it's good for head and head and shoulder shots. A zoom in the 24 or 28 to 70 f/2.8 range is a good portrait choice, but they are not inexpensive. You could look for a used Sigma or Tamron, but a good one will not be cheap.</p> <p>What do you consider affordable? Does it have to be a prime lens?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carl_becker2 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 <p>Pick your focal length then look at the availability. IMHO a 50mm is a bit short and the 85mm possibly a smig long. I would go for a 85mm f1.8 AF-D but its 3 times the cost. A Nikkor 35-70mm f2.8 zoom may give better results because of range but lacks a very narrow DoF. That may not make a difference depending on your needs.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_smith3 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 <p>I have both the 50mm f 1.8 AF and the new 35mm f1.8 DX AFS that I use on my D 300. I much prefer the 35mm for its much faster AF. The "problem" with both of these lenses is that if you want head/shoulder shots you have to get close to your subjects. You have to decide what you mean by "portraits" and the tolerance your subjects will have for how close you will be to them. If I were doing mostly head and shoulder shots I would get the 85mm f 1.8 lens. The features of the face and body tend to get distorted as you get closer to the subject and this could be a drawback to the 35mm and maybe the 50mm lenses. Experiment with a zoom lens if you can and then decide. Or rent a lens before you buy it.<br> Joe Smith</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 <p>Actually typical consumer zooms have considerable focal length shortening at the long end when focused to portrait (head and shoulders etc.) distances so they <em>will not</em> accurately guide you in selecting the appropriate prime for this application, quite far from it in fact.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_a2 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 <p>Kristy.... Get the 50mm 1.8D. Can't go wrong with that in your camera bag. Then use your zoom to find "your" focal length after you've shot awhile, as Andreas and Matt suggest. The 50mm might work for you, or you may want 85mm or more. But the 50mm 1.8 is handy for many reasons, and it's one of the best $125 you can spend.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glenjo Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 <p>50 f/1.8D is best bang for the buck.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 <p>I've used the 50 for portraits to good effect, but it's too short (although at 130 bucks --from some sources-- you can't go wrong to have one. The 85 would be better. It's next on my list.</p> <p>The 35 is absolutely useless imho for head shots, but it lives on my camera for a LOT of other stuff...</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 <p>All good advice, but I'd just note that the 85mm is a regular telephoto on this camera, so the 50mm f/1.8 recommended by Robert & Glen is a more "traditional" choice for a portrait lens here - coming in at an "equivalent" focal length of 75mm on the smaller sensor.<br /> It's also by far the most affordable low-light and short telephoto you can get for your camera. So do as Matt suggests, and in the meantime enjoy low light and portrait work with the fifty.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
albert_lee1 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 <p>my vote is also for the nikkor 50mm 1.8 AF-D it is only $130 brand new.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kludge Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 <p>Start with the 50/1.8. It's an absolute bargain and one of the nicest lenses ever made. Then if you decide you need something tighter, get the 85/1.8. No fast zoom is going to be "affordable", unless you go used and are a hardcore bargain hunter, and even then, the 50 and 85 are going to mop the floor with the expensive zoom due to their speed (and light weight).<br> That said, my favorite portrait lens is a vintage Tamron 90/2.5, which is manual focus and manual exposure all the way. I wouldn't recommend that route unless you really like manual.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 <p>for the price, you can't really go wrong with the 50/1.8, although its limitations are accurately noted above.</p> <p>a 35 (or 30mm) lens is IMO better on DX for general candid photography and street shooting. i use it much more outdoors than the 50. one can do "portraits" on it, but you'll have more background than with a 50 if shot from the same distance. IMO an 85 on DX would be the least useful of the three.</p> <p>here's a sample taken with the sigma 30/1.4:</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eric_arnold Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 <p>and one with the 50...</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cc_chang2 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 <p>If you want to go slowly to expand your collection of lenses, I suggest that you get the 35/1.8 because it is such a versatile lens and can teach you a lot more about photography than those more specialized lenses. You can use 35/1/8 to do "portrait" but it is not the best choice for head shots. This is an example of what it can easily do to photograph my son:<br> I have a Sigma 50/1.4, which is better in taking head and shoulder shots:<br> http://www.flickr.com/photos/40275177@N08/sets/72157621933781653/<br> However the 50mm on a D90 is a bit too long as a walk around lens. I can go out and shoot all day with just a 35/1.8 but I don't think the 50mm can be as useful. 85 is indeed better for head shots, provided that that is want you want to shoot, but it is too long as a general walk about lens. </p> <p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_smith3 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 <p>Here is an indoor head shot sample image recently taken with the 35mm f 1.8 DX lens on a D 300. Shooting data: ISO 320, f 4.5, 1/160, +.3 EV, no flash, hand held. Joe Smith</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_smith3 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 <p>Here is an indoor head shot sample image recently taken with the 35mm f 1.8 DX lens on a D 300. Shooting data: ISO 320, f 4.5, 1/160, +.3 EV, no flash, hand held. Joe Smith</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_smith3 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 <p>Here is an indoor head shot sample image recently taken with the 35mm f 1.8 DX lens on a D 300. Shooting data: ISO 320, f 4.5, 1/160, +.3 EV, no flash, hand held. Joe Smith</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph_smith3 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 <p>Here is another uncropped image, 35mm f 1.8, D 300. Shooting data: ISO 320, f 4.5, 1/250, 0EV. Joe Smith</p><div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ussorca Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 <p>Kristy, thanks for puting up this post. After much reading, I went with the 50mm f/1.8, from Adorama at $135 with free shipping. The comments you elicited make me feel better about my choice. Good luck.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwrtertbsratbs5 Posted August 20, 2009 Share Posted August 20, 2009 <p>The 50/1.8 is a traditional portrait focal length on DX. Yes, you could go wider if you want to make environmental portraits. But I'd avoid tight head shots with normal or wide lenses unless you're striving to create distorted perspectives.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now