Need some input on my next lens purchase

[omar_suljic]

<p>I am wanting to get more into portrait photography. I currently have a Nikon D90 paired with the 35mm AF-S f/1.8 lens. I love the lens, but I would really like a longer focal length.<br>

I'm trying to decide between the 50mm AF-S f/1.4 or the 85mm AF f/1.8. The 50 1.4 is obviously a bit faster, but which lens is better optically? And which of the two would be a better lens for portraiture?</p>

<p>Thanks in advance!</p>

[t37traveler]

<p>I would suggest a lens that will allow you to fill the frame and get some distance between you and the subject; I have found that the farther back I stand from my subject (within reason), the more comfortable they are and the better the photos turn out. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I would suggest not to worry about which lens is "better optically." First pick the angle of view that works best for your photography and then select the focal length that can provide that angle of view on your camera.</p>

[raczoliver]

<p>They are both good optically. I find the 50 mm focal length slightly short for portraits on DX. The 85mm might be more suitable. I think the 60-70 mm range would give the ideal field of view for portraits on a DX camera. I wonder why there are no fast primes in that range, considering that the 85-105 mm range is so popular on FX. If you have a zoom lens, you can just experiment and see what focal length you prefer, then make your choice.</p>

[thomas_k.]

<p>50mm is not that much longer then your 35mm. I would go for 85mm lens. I think a 35 with 85 is a nice portrait combo.</p>

[lisae]

<p>A slightly different perspective: I have the 50mm for my D5000. If you are wanting to take more formal portraits and have some room to move around, then I'm sure the 85mm is a better length. But if I'm indoors taking casual shots of my kids and their friends, the 50mm is about perfect. (As an example, I sometimes find myself crawling under the table to get enough space to capture a picture of my daughter sitting in the sunny living room reading a book. The 85mm would be too long.) So you might think about what kinds of portraits you want to take and how much room you will have.</p>

<p>edited to add: I just spotted Thomas' comment about the combination of 35mm and 85mm and think he is probably correct. My point is just that we don't always have nice large spaces. For most of what I do, the 50mm is ideal.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>two issues here:</p>

<ul>

<li>1) you have a DX camera.</li>

<li>2) 50 and 85 straddle both ends of the portrait range on DX. 50 is too short (barely), 85 is too long (just).</li>

</ul>

<p>solution:</p>

<p>a tweener focal length (as Oscar suggested). some of the nicer options here include</p>

<ol>

<li>tamron 60/2 macro</li>

<li>sigma 70/2.8 macro</li>

<li>voigtlander 58/1.4 manual focus</li>

<li>tamron 28-75/2.8</li>

</ol>

<p>all three of those will work great as DX portrait lenses with your 90 and all are tack-sharp. they'll also work better for portraits on DX than either a 50 or an 85 in most situations. you'll probably get the most overall use out of the 28-75, but the other three all have their plusses as well--the tamron 60 and sigma 70 will both be very sharp wide open, if that matters. and all have good-to-above average bokeh.</p>

<p>as far as the question you asked, both the 50 and the 85 have good IQ, but i think neither would be 'better' for portraiture on a DX camera.</p>

<p> </p>

[owen_omeara]

<p>I own both of those lenses and the 50/1.4 is the better choice if you are looking at IQ as a criteria for choice. It is simply superior for portrait work.</p>

<p>-Owen</p>

[gary_mayo1]

<p>A portrait lens is something that makes people (face) look good.</p>

<p>The longer the lens, the more slimming effect you get from it. I will save everyone here the boring reasons why (that song has been sung here and on many forums before)</p>

<p>The best lens you have listed (and I own both except my copy is 85mm 1.4) is the 85mm.</p>

<p>Do not be afraid of a long lens, if you have the room to use it. Many 200mm f/2 VR lenses are used for portraits. Lots of photographers do portraits with a 300mm f/2.8.</p>

<p>Another perfect portrait lens is the Nikkor DC lenses, in 105 & 135mm. That is what they are really made for. </p>

<p>The 85mm on a DX lens is perfect, if you have the room to get away from your subject. The extra room has far more advantages than disadvantages.</p>

[aaron l]

<p>You'll get great head shots with the 85. The 50 will be good for torso-up shots. I'd go with the 85mm so you get a wider reach compared to your 35mm.</p>

[raczoliver]

<p>I was also thinking of mentioning the Voigtlander 58mm lens, but for some reason I thought it had a smaller aperture. Now that I checked it really is a 1.4 lens. If I was planning to stick with DX for a long time, I'd buy it. Since I'm planning to switch to FX soon, I'll probably skip on it. Also, the D90 <em>will </em>meter with the SLII version, unlike most manual focus Nikkor lenses. Nikon seems to not have lenses in this range, and I don't think the further you are the better it is. You need some sort of interaction with the subject. The 105 and 135 are good focal lengths for FX, but slightly on the long side for DX in my opinion.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>What Shun said, completely true. In my view, for portraits, lenses can easily be too sharp (unflattering for less-than-perfect skins).<br>

For the focal length, can you use another lens to determine what would work for you? If you have the 18-105VR kitlens for example, check it on 50 and 85mm and see what suits you best? There is a lot of personal preference in it, some people like 50mm, some find it too short, some like 85mm, some find it too long.... In the end, you need to get what <em>you </em>like, and we cannot tell you what you like ;-)</p>

[carl_becker2]

<p>I agree with Shun. Your working distance and FoV needs should determine the focal length.</p>

[ray_rg]

<p>my 0.02cents... if you are looking for prime only then as Eric mentioned Tamron 60mm. It's sharp wide open and it's macro lens. sample attached</p>

<p>sorry! for the little oversize image</p><div></div>

[Two23]

<p>I have the NIkon 85mm f1.8D and don't like it. It's sharp enough, but I get tons of CA when using it on either my D80 or D300. The more modern Sigma 85mm f1.4 does not have this problem. Of above suggested lenses, a 60mm f2.8 macro is the most interesting. It would split the difference, giving you a nice lens for both single and couples shots. Gary above is right that the longer the lens, the better it seems to treat faces. Many pros I know now use their 70-200mm f2.8 lens as a portrait lens. All lenses mentioned will be more than sharp enough. Are you even using a tripod? From my own personal experience I think far too many people worry too much that one lens might be a tiny bit sharper than another, and then don't use a tripod anyway! And for portraits, for the past 150 years many if not most pro shooters are actually looking for soft focus lenses, not razor sharpness.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p> </p>

[benjaminm]

<p>AF 85/1.8</p>

[szrimaging]

<p>If you are working indoors or tight situations, listen to what Shun said. If you are outdoors and have lots of room, listen to Gary. I find my favorite portraits are shot (full length included in this) at over 100mm. If doing primes only, I would go for at least an 85mm, but a 105mm or 135mm would be even better. Personally I use zooms in that range (bulk issue) and have a70-200 f2.8 Sigma and a 70-300 f4.5-5.6 VR Nikkor (just got it yesterday). I have not used the Nikkor for any serious portraits yet, so I cannot comment on it's results, but the Sigma has extremely good optical characteristics.</p>

[paul_hodgson2]

<p>On a DX camera the 50mm will certainly be long enough having an effective fov of around 75mm. And on many occasions shooting close to wide open produces images that are just beautiful.<br /> I use an older D Nikkor f1.4 model which is terrible at 41.4 but sharp by f2.<br /> Here's a portrait of a friends pooch to give you an idea of my 50mm use.<br>

And if you need to fill the frame or add to the frame, move your legs.</p>

[nikofile]

<p>If you had the 70-200 in the mix (either version) that would be my choice because you get a nice range variety, and it is good everywhere, plus it has VR for hand-held shooting. You can't really go wrong with either lens you mention, but it would be nice to have both. The 85mm 1.8 is incredibly sharp, but you can always soften the image in post processing if you need too. "Too sharp" is a better problem than "not sharp enough". All the 50mm Nikkors are sharp as well. You are going to be happy with either lens I'm sure. As one poster mentioned, the 50mm is nice for indoor stuff because you don't need so much room.</p>

[dbcooper]

<blockquote>

<p>And which of the two would be a better lens for portraiture?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Full, half, head/shoulders, singles, couples, families - what kind of portraiture do you mean?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would suggest not to worry about which lens is "better optically." First pick the angle of view that works best for your photography and then select the focal length that can provide that angle of view on your camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Me too.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have found that the farther back I stand from my subject (within reason), the more comfortable they are and the better the photos turn out.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In my view, for portraits, lenses can easily be too sharp (unflattering for less-than-perfect skins).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've found it easier to soften a sharp lens than sharpen a soft one in post.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Another perfect portrait lens is the Nikkor DC lenses, in 105 & 135mm. That is what they are really made for.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This should tell us something. While there are no rules, a reasonable 'rule of thumb' for portraits is to use the angle of view of around a 100mm lens with FF as a minimum for distortion control, flattering faces, etc., and then there's the issue of subject discomfort from getting in too close with short focal lengths. In the end, though, only the photographer knows what's appropriate to their intent.</p>

[hakan_arli]

<p>My reccomendation for you would be 85/1.8.... 50/1.4 is a good alternative but again the differnce between 50 and 85 is one step front or back that you would need to take. but given the chacteristic of the two.. 85mm is more suitable for tight head shots then 50mm would... so go for the 85mm .... Myself I own 85/1.4 D and also have 85/2 AIS along side with many other good portrait lensses like 135/2 DC and 105/2.8 Macro. I am much into ourdoor portraits and my favorite old and cheap portrait lens is 75-150/3.5 Series E lens.... Sharp as can be....</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>that's a really nice shot, ray. sharp but not 'too sharp.'</p>

<p><em>On a DX camera the 50mm will certainly be long enough having an effective fov of around 75mm.</em></p>

<p>well, actually... maybe you weren't paying attention to what's been said already, but 75mm is just outside the 'classic' portrait range, which is why i recommended the 58mm and 60mm lenses on DX. there's a reason why 85mm lenses are considered portrait lenses. unfortunately, on DX, the 1.5x crop takes them to the far end of the portrait range, where they are closer to 135mm. that could be a problem indoors, while the 50 might be just a bit too short. IMO it works in a pinch but less than compeltely ideal for portraits on DX.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I was also thinking of mentioning the Voigtlander 58mm lens, but for some reason I thought it had a smaller aperture. Now that I checked it really is a 1.4 lens. If I was planning to stick with DX for a long time, I'd buy it. Since I'm planning to switch to FX soon, I'll probably skip on it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the VL 58/1.4 has long been on my 'lens lust list'. after seeing some of Alex Z.'s shots, i may just get it anyway, for use on DX and FX. i'd pick it over the VL 90/3.5 APO-Lanthar which is just too slow at max aperture, and the VL 40/2, which looks interesting but is kind of a weird FL on both DX and FX. if i only had DX bodies and no plans to upgrade, the tamron 60/2 would be MUCH more appealing, but the fact the 58 can work on both formats is a plus. at this point i'm trying not to add any more DX-only lenses; i'd rather have glass which makes sense on both DX and FX.</p>

<p>btw, for portraits on DX, i'm currently using the tamron 28-75, sigma 50-150 and nikon 70-200 VRII. there's little to no downside from using these modern, digital-era zooms for such applications, plus you get the benefit of being able to go from wide (full body) to close-up instantly.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>and up close</p><div></div>

[ray_rg]

<p>@ Eric: forgot to mention earlier, that image out of the camera :)</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Classically, portrait lenses were considered between 85 and about 115 short tele's. Doesn't mean so much to a lot of shooters now, but given that the 85 is a good length on either a DX or FX camera. 50 would be good on either a Dx or Fx for more coverage. Depends on what coverage you want, and what tradeoff's of perspective you want. </p>