50mm 1.4 or 85mm 1.8 fashion photography

[richardsnow]

<p>Purple -</p>

<p>What you are asking about are two different tools in your tool box. I still don't know which camera you are using so I'll have to use my own equipment as an example.</p>

<p>I shoot a D700, (FX), so if you are on DX please understand that what I describe as wide will be normal; what I describe as normal will be a short tele, and what I describe as a short tele will be moderately longer.</p>

<p>I do not shoot fashion, but I do shoot portraits. As has been mentioned, there is a different philosophy when shooting fashion than there is when shooting portraits. </p>

<p>Fashion shoots want a larger depth of field than portraits and you have pretty models to take photos of... but they are there to make the clothing look good...which is also your job as a fashion photographer.</p>

<p>Portraiture is about bringing out the subject's personality and beauty in a photograph. It's about the person, not what the person is wearing. You [usually] want to isolate the subject and not let the environment become a distraction.</p>

<p>With both fashion and portraiture you want to make sure you have the right tools for the job. For me, there are many tools in my tool box and I choose the tool that will most easily help me create my vision. I have five lenses I use for portraiture. I use four of the five for events and weddings and two of the five for sports...all of my lenses have multiple uses.</p>

<p>For portraits I use the following:<br>

35mm f/1.4 - moderately wide fast prime for environmental portraiture and studio work.<br>

24-70mm f/2.8 - for difficult situations where I don't have freedom of movement or I have a moving subject that requires the use of a zoom lens, (toddlers and children).<br>

70-200mm f/2.8 - for shoots that require some working distance from my subject and head/shoulders shots.<br>

85mm f/1.4 - My initial go-to lens for portraits. Short telephoto length gives me good working distance and wide maximum aperture gives beautiful subject isolation. Add to that moderate vignetting, soft corners, and sharp center and you get the ultimate portrait lens.<br>

105mm f/2 DC - Specialty lens that I use for babies and women.</p>

<p>Lots of tools in the toolbox.</p>

<p>Now to my point...</p>

<p>It seems like right now you have one tool...and it's not a very flexible tool. I'd suggest a new tool for your toolbox. If you want the 85mm f/1.8, then go get it. I'd recommend a mid-zoom for flexibility over the 85mm...especially if you're going to shoot fashion. You'll have limited room to move and if you need more or less length then you'll have that flexibility. You need to analyze your shooting and figure out what lens will suit your needs. Just because an 85mm is one of the "classic" portrait focal lengths and many portrait photographers highly recommend this lens, it might not be the right tool for your toolbox at this time.</p>

<p>Hope this helps<br>

<br />RS</p>

[vic_canberra]

<p>richard snow <br>

thank you <br>

really comprehensive<br>

and really clear</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>To work a bit further from what Richard wrote: you stated you do not like the effect of the 50mm lens. I can fully understand that if you are using a DX camera. There is something about that combination that completely does not work for me, and I can explain you why I do not like it. But, that's my explanation, and yours could be different.<br>

What I'd urge you to do: explain why exactly you do not like the 50mm look, apart from the fact that it is soft wide open. Understanding why the 50mm isn't the right tool for your work will make you understand which other tool you do need.<br>

This is why I said earlier: you are looking for a solution without a problem. Define clearly what you want and need in this new lens (*), and then for us it becomes much easier to guide you towards other lenses. It would help if we'd also know which camera you are using. At present, do you have any other lenses than the 50mm? If yes, which? If you give us more information, we can give much clearer answers.<br>

____<br>

(*) OK, one requirement is clear: not soft while wide open - and sorry to say, but the cheaper lenses basically never are that good wide open. However, the 50mm f/1.8D is very sharp from f/2.8, and that still leaves quite a lot of background blur. Whatever lens you get, you have to work to understand the strengths and weakness of the lens. At a budget, though, you'll have to understand that there will be compromises.</p>

<p>__________________________________<br>

Just to be clear for the other bit of earlier discussion: I never meant to imply there is much wrong with the 85 f/1.8D. No idea where that idea came from; I quite like mine and never recommended against it, and I value it much higher than the 50 f/1.8D. I do think the 85 f/1.4 (D and G) are better portrait lenses (and at three times the money, they'd better be). But that's not saying the f/1.8 is a lousy lens in any way. Anyway, just to clear that up.</p>

[zack_zoll]

<p>If after reading all of this, you've decided that you really like portrait photography, some excellent suggestions have been made, and I want to repeat again that there is no better portrait lens than the 85 f/1.8 for the money, assuming that your indoor spaces are large enough for you to back up a bit.</p>

<p>If, after reading about the differences, you've decided that you really are into fashion, I'd recommend the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 as your 'one lens.' I owned the 85 f/1.4D and the 50 f/1.4G, and was extremely happy with them both. But as I moved more towards fashion, and usually had an entire body - or sometimes props or even a whole room to photograph - I found that I was usually shooting at f/5.6 or smaller, and at those apertures the 28-75 was just as good as the 50 or 85. If I had to shoot a whole scene I might need f/11 or f/16, and the 28-75 is actually <em>better</em> at f/16 than those primes, as it has ever-so-slightly less diffraction. After several months of working this way, I ended up selling my 50 and 85, even though they were technically better lenses, because they weren't better for what I was doing.</p>

<p>I suspect this difference in diffraction is why many FX photographers have switched from the 85 to the newer 105 Micro for fashion work.</p>

[mark_mitchell5]

<p>Well, as others have said, a lot depends on your vision. Back in the day when I had tons of film gear, my all-time favorite portrait lens was an 85 1.4 Carl Zeiss that I used with Contax bodies. The only lens that came close was a 75mm Summicron as I had a couple of Leica rangefinders at that time. I've owned several copies of the 85 1.8, none were that great, my lowly 50 1.8 AF-D has produced better results. Owned two 85 1.4 AF-D's, good, but not Zeiss like. A lot of this will depend on both your vision and the ability to try out different gear. Think about, if possible, renting some lenses you may consider buying first. Good luck and let us know what happens.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i would maybe add the 35/1.8 to your current kit. small, light, sharp and cheap. and good for indoor photos.</p>

[studio460]

<p>I love the AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D on a DX body, and it has nearly as beautiful bokeh as the much higher-priced f/1.4G version (I own both). The bokeh on both the AF 50mm f/1.4D, and AF-S 50mm f/1.4G, is tight, circle-ey, and ugly, in my opinion.</p>

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/v700.jpg" alt="" /><br /> AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D @ f/1.8 on a DX body.</p>

[studio460]

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/x85-1.jpg" alt="" /><br>

AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G @ f/1.4 on an FX body.</p>

[studio460]

<p>[Note: the images above are <em>not</em> directly comparable--in the first image, the background is much further away than in the second image, plus, I'm focused a little closer in the first image. Both factors, a more distant background, and a closer focusing distance, decrease depth-of-field].</p>

[studio460]

<p><img src="http://studio460.com/images/sf50-1.jpg" alt="" /><br>

AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D @ f/1.4 on a DX body.</p>

[studio460]

<p>I said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm focused a little closer in the first image . . .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Correction: I was probably focused a bit <em>farther</em> on the first image--I forgot the 1.5x crop factor for DX! However, the "longer" 127.5mm-equivalent DX focal length of the 85mm f/1.8 did also help to lessen the <em>apparent</em> depth-of-field.</p>

[sun_geng]

<p>I'm using 50mm f/1.4 & Nikon on D700 now. And I'm thinking to buy another lense for portraiture, also. I'd like to use 35mm lense if I were in Lodon's park. Because 35mm can present more information of the environment, and short the distance with model.</p>