Which lens for portrait

[vincenzo_corbo]

<p>Hi,<br>

I'm an happy owner of a D300 (btw I'm not in business).<br>

My lens are a 50/1.4, the 18-200 DX, and the old&cheap 28-80 and 70-300 bought with my F80.<br>

I'm now looking for a portrait lens, I was thinking of a fixed lens like the 85mm, which actually comes in two version 85/1.8 and 85/1.4. Different in price is not negligible (450$ vs 1200$), and could be an issue.<br>

Which version do you recommend? Or is there any other lens that will meet the following requirement?</p>

<ul>

<li>affodable price < 1000$ (I know that the 85/1.4 cost more but seems to be a very good lens)</li>

<li>portability, decent weight</li>

<li>good performance (bokeh and sharpness) </li>

<li>speed lens.</li>

</ul>

Thanks for any comments and suggestions.

Vince

[joseph_leotta]

<p>IMHO I always like the 105 for a portrait on an full frame camera. On a DX camera the 85mm woild be my choice.<br>

I have a 85mm 1.8 and am extremely happy with it.</p>

[jyoungman]

<p>What kinds of portraits do you want to do? Environmental? Full length? Half length? Head and shoulders? </p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>I could go on about how good the 85 (both versions) 105/2, 135/2 or even the 50/1.4 are for portraits. But essential what matters more in portrait photography is you ability to handle the light (natural and/or artificial) and your post-processing skills. For Nikon I just tend to pick my 50/1.4 or 85/1.8 for portraits of one or two persons, since these are smallish, easy to handle, sharp and have fast AF. In other words they are pretty hassle free and let me concentrate on the light and subject.<br>

I do also prefer medium format for portraits when possible, but that's another story...<br>

And the 85/1.4 offers an extremely pleasing portrait rendition, but the 85/1.8 is razor sharp, costs much less and the pics look extremely good with it. But like I said, the light is more important than the lens.</p>

[tommyinca]

<p>My 2 cents,</p>

<p>If you are just looking for reasons (agreement to justify) for buying the 85/1.4, just buy it. Don't look back. That one is a sure hit plus money will come back :-)</p>

<p>If you are looking for longer focal length and just as sharp (to the 50/1.4) plus fair bokeh, check Tamron 90mm macro.</p>

<p>If you want another look to the 50/1.4, check the new micro Nikkor 60/2.8 AF-S</p>

<p>If you want something shorter at a good price check 35/1.8 DX</p>

<p> </p>

[bgelfand]

<p>When you write that you want a portrait lens, do you mean for formal portraits - the camera mounted on a tripod, the lighting controlled, formal backdrop, the subject cooperating - or informal, candid portraits - hand held camera with perhaps a flash?</p>

<p>For the former, probably the 85mm f/1.4. For a more informal setting, your 50mm f/1.4 should do well; on the D300 it is the equivalent of a 75mm lens on a 35mm body. A lens that I find very helpful on my F100 film body is the 35-70 f/2.8D. On your D300 it would be an the equivalent of approximately a 50-105mm lens on a full frame camera. That covers the normal portrait focal lengths. Here are a few informal portraits I have taken with it.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3973455">http://www.photo.net/photo/3973455</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3712100">http://www.photo.net/photo/3712100</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3712092">http://www.photo.net/photo/3712092</a></p>

<p>It rivals the 50mm f/1.4D in sharpness.</p>

<p>Since your D300 is capable of using manual focus lenses, you can also consider the classic Nikon portrait lens, the 105mm f/2.5. Be sure to purchase the AI or AIS version of the lens for your D300.</p>

 

[rick_m.]

<p>If the choice is between the 85 F1.8 and the far more expensive 85 f.14 it looks simple to me. The 14 is $1250.00 and the 1.8 is 450.00. That is an $800.00 difference... Buy the F1.8. </p>

<p>If you really want to get into portraits get the $450.00 f1.8 and the Alien Bees Digibee light set. That will give you:<br>

2 400 ws monolights<br>

1 carrying bag<br>

2 light carrying bags<br>

2 10' light stands<br>

1 48" shoot through umbrella</p>

<p>1 48" Silver white umbrella.</p>

<p>Now. If you really really want to be a great portrait guy and must stick dogmatically to the $1K do this. Forget the lens and spend the $450.00 on 4 or 5 portrait workshops.</p>

<p> </p>

[vincenzo_corbo]

<p>Thanks everyone for your answers.<br>

For sure I don't want to set up a studio, at least now. I'm not interesting in light set. I really like the look of portrait in natural light, also in dim one, hence the choice for a fast lens.<br>

My idea is to use it for kids, weddings, travel and events (as Brooke says candid portrait)<br>

I understand that those are different subject but seems to me that this kind of focal lenght (80mm) is the best compromise.<br>

Tommy Lee is right, I'm trying to find good excuses to buy the 85/1.4, but if the other version gives the same (more or less) results I'll be very happy to save same money for the next buy.<br>

Thanks again.</p>

[pictureted]

<p>If you are looking for reason to spend more money I'd look into one of Nikon defocus control lenses. The best portrait lens I ever used was the old Nikon 85/2 (bought used), one of the worst lenses I think Nikon ever made, but it made most people look better. Other than for corporate work, a lot of the shots involved soft focus filters and screens to help people look their best.</p>

<p>I love the 60 and 105 macros, but they are just to unforgiving for most people. You can only control the light so much.</p>

<p>You already have a zoom with all the focal lengths. I'd forget the lens and buy stands of very high quality and reflectors and backdrops and then lights. If you're in the studio, you don't have any background you need to throw out of focus, just straighten out the wrinkles in the backdrop. Unfortunately lenses are more fun to buy, unfortunate because they're usually the worst decision. (I know, if I had it to do over, I'd have one more tripod and one less lens.)</p>

[mark liddell]

<p>I would look at the Sigma 70mm f/2.8 macro (seriously). SLRgear reviewed it and said it was one of the sharpest lenses they have tested to date and sharp corner to corner even at f/2.8.<br>

Take a look at the review: <a href="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/964/cat/30">http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/964/cat/30</a></p>