portrait lens for wedding

[michael_k.1]

<p>Hi,<br>

I'm looking for a good portraits (and more) lens.<br>

I use the D3 with the 300usd sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 (shame on me)... but trust me it works well when light is there and subject doesn't move.<br>

What would be the best choice between :<br>

-85mm 1.4 (or 1.8 ?)<br>

-135mm f2<br>

-something else except tele-lens ?<br>

thanks for your help<br>

Mike</p>

[alex_alvarenga]

<p>I dont shoot Nikon, but what about a nifty fifty?</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>I usually use f5.6-8 anyway for portraits in order to get enough dof for the face to be in focus, so what's wrong with the lens you've got, since you already like the IQ?</p>

[benk]

<p>Along with many others I love the 85 1.4.... it may not be the most flexible/easy to use choice but it stays on my d3 a lot during bridal prep and portraits. The biggest plus for me is not absolutely having to use on camera flash in dark rooms or the last light of the day. For a few pics from a dark and rainy day wedding done mostly with this combo (often at iso 2000 and f2)--sassstudios.com/blog/shain-and-tash/</p>

<p>Hopefully you have a second body, and by putting a wide prime or zoom on this the 2 setups will work for most situations :)</p>

<p><strong>Moderator Note:</strong> Ben, frequent links to one's own website and blog are against guidelines for forum posts. You should have them listed on your member page, and point people to the couple or wedding you want to highlight.</p>

[mark liddell]

<p>The general convention if that ideal lengths break down to:</p>

 

<p>50mm for full length<br>

85mm for 3/4<br>

105mm for head & shoulders<br>

135mm or longer for a headshot</p>

 

<p>Since 50mm is covered by my normal zoom already, I have the 85mm f/1.4 and 105mm f/2.8 macro. You can get away with a headshot with the 105mm and the macro functionality is useful to have for close focus distance as well as shooting details.</p>

 

<p>As far as 85mm is concerned, the f/1.4 vs f/1.8 is done to death on the nikon forums monthly but I bought the 1.4 since I find the 1.8 bokeh very ugly - not what I want for a portrait lens despite the price difference.</p>

 

<p>Some people just by the monster 70-200mm f/2.8 which covers all bases</p>

[bill_clark___minnetonka_mi]

<p>I use an 85 f1.4 Zeiss for Portraits on my Canon. This lens is also available for a Nikon. It is manual focus & I operate the camera in manual.<br /> For my Hasselblad I use a 150 Zeiss Sonnar f4.0 lens. It is manual focus and manually operated camera.</p>

<p> </p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>Regardless of whether or not it's for portraits, or isolation, or just a little reach, I have to go straight out with and 85mm. I used to use the 85 f2 Ais, then I switched to the original 85 1.8 AF when I got my N90. I still use that today on the crop bodies where of course it's a little tighter, and it's never let me down. Some folks say the 1.8 is a little flat looking contrast wise. I think it's more neutral, but if you want to bump it up some use a B+W KR 1.5 filter. It's very mild, has outstanding optical quality and will give great results. </p>

[wedding-photography-denver]

I use an 85 on FF, or a 70-200. On occasion I will use a wider lens to bring environment in. The 1.4 is nice, but the 1.8 is

a bit quicker to AF.

[michael_k.1]

<p>Thanks for your help...<br>

thank you Mark for the complete answer, it helps !<br>

bye<br>

Mike</p>

[chris_gampat]

<p>The 85mm F1.4 would probably be your best bet. Otherwise if you plan for total versatility then the 24-70mm F2.8 ED is probably your best bet my friend.<br>

The 85mm F1.8 and 50mm F1.4 I feel are very specialized for this. 50mm is usually a bit too wide for portraits although it can be very useful in cramped conditions where composition can be difficult. The 85mm offers a flatter perspective and so distortion is less likely to happen. In conditions like that the 24-70mm F2.8 has saved my life a couple of times.</p>