Portrait Lens

[roxy's mum]

Hi all,

So I'm after a portrait lens. I have the Nikon d3100 and would like the new lens to auto focus, therefore I need an AF-S lens... correct me if I'm wrong??

Anyway, would love a 50mm, but what about a 35mm? Would love some recommendations on this.

Thanks all.

[kja]

50mm is generally a more flattering length than the 35mm.

The 35mm is still really nice & will work for portraits and I adore my 30mm. I find I don't use the 30mm as much as the 50mm for portraits, though. I only really use it for portraits in very specific settings...and still usually flip over to the 50 or 85

[anniek]

the 100m is noice for portraits too

[roxy's mum]

The 85mm was also on my radar. What prices would you except for the mentioned lenses. Don't forget I need to look at an AF-S lens.

[roxy's mum]

I think the 85mm afs is way out of my budget at the moment. Would love the 50mm afs, but it's still quite exxy.... grrrr, stupid need for afs!!

[kja]

Dunno, check B&H and DWI here in Australia.

Don't shoot Nikon so have no clue on the prices.

[helen]

For a portrait lens I would try to get something even longer than 50mm - if your budget is tight then maybe consider a standard zoom lens, some of the cheaper ones go to 70mm and others to 200mm, check out this page http://www.digitalcamerawarehouse.com.au/category707_1.htm

[PossumCorner]

Agree that 30-35 is often just too wide (distorting) for portraits. A fixed focal length (prime lens) can be sharper than a zoom. Look at the Tamron and Sigma range on Helen's link above. They are not as expensive as the Nikkors. I've just bought a Tamron 90mm 2.8 for portrait, it's also a macro lens with excellent recommendations for macro work as well. (We had a good deal from Camera House Croydon Vic with a new camera).

Price compare though: check B&H prices while the dollar is near parity, their service from New York is excellent.

[kja]

Be aware that the problem with going long on a portrait lens is room. If you shoot indoors at all, space is an issue and even the 85 can be too long.

If you will always have room to play with and don't mind backing up, then something a bit longer will be great.

[Linda K]

traditionally with full frame cameras, the 85 mm was considered the portrait lens of choice, any longer and you tend to get a telephoto compression effect, too much wider and you get a wide angle distortion, however if you have a cropped frame sensor (which I am guessing this one has), then you would be best off with a 50mm lens. You do also though, as others have said, need to consider the shooting space - if you are intending to shoot full length body shots indoors, then you mat=y even need to go to 35mm, and just take care in placing people so they are not near the edges of the frame. if you have the space though, would go with the 50mm 1.4G - love that lens

[PossumCorner]

Yes it does depend on the space available, the purpose and the subject, so "portrait" has too many variables to be precise about. If we do indoors at the stores for staff portraits, there is often not much space and the 18-70 is ideal. When I mentioned the new 90mm, well it's useless in a very small area much as the 85 is. But when doing dog portraits out of doors, it is great to use the 85 or 90 especially if the dog does not know you or trust the camera. It enables you to get the head full-frame and still give the dog (or person) some comfort zone, not being right in their face. And they are not huge zoom lenses so are neither threatening nor intrusive.

[roxy's mum]

Ahhh, sooo confused!! Too many choices.

Anyway, I was doing some reading and someone had said that since the 35mm is a DX format lens it's the equivalent of a 50mm in the focal length. Is this correct?

What I'm looking for is something to take photo's of my son, at home. So more than likely indoors. Hope this helps.

[kja]

Don't worry about "equivalents". the focal length is what it is for your camera. You aren't using multiple sensor sizes, so don't think about that stuff - you'll just get confused about what is really a non-issue.

As has already been said above, 35 is too wide unless you are careful with your portraits. I love my 30, but I don't use it nearly as often unless it is for a specific shot or idea. The 50 is, imho, far more versatile. With the 35mm you're going to have to get much closer to fill your frame - which is often not terribly desirable or do-able when you are out and about.

It is, of course, an option and you can make it work.

Does Sigma make a 30 1.4 for Nikon mount? Might be worth checking out as it could save you a significant amount over the Nikon 35 - and my Sigma 30 1.4 for Canon is freakin' awesome.

I would go the 50 and I'd go at least 1.8. 1.4 if you can afford it and know you're going to be shooting in crappy light. Sigma's 50 1.4 is a fabulous lens. I'm sure the Nik version is sweet, too.

[Rappie]

We have Pentax gear, but the 77mm f1.8 lens is a beautiful portrait lens. We have 35mm (macro), 40mm and 50mm primes as well, all can take nice shots with bokeh but the 77mm is awesome. It's hard to take a bad photo with it, even if the photographer is not that great

[helen]

The reason why I suggested a standard zoom is because it is more versatile, if you are on a budget it can be used for multiple uses. I know it has been mentioned prime lenses are sharper and that is what I use myself, but if your budget only extends to one lens you are IMO better off with a zoom

[kittikat]

Great thread subject ... I have the 50mm -love it!! but want one with a bit more reach and want another prime

Have been reading up on the 85mm so now just waiting until the sigma/sony release the affordable one

for my budget as it sounds like what I am looking for ...so now just have to sit & wait

BTW you guys are just awesome ....so much great info