Portrait Prime

S

Stolen_Souls

Messages
86
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

I'm in the market for a new lens, one that I'd specifically like to use for portraits.

It's to fit a D7100, and I already have an 18-200(VR), a Sigma 10-20mm, and a 50mm 2.8 Sigma Macro lens.

I'd like something sharp and fast, and within a reasonable budget, so I expect prime is the way to go rather than zoom. My best portraits so far are with the 50mm, but it is a little slow and it isn't the quickest/best at focusing.

I've read a bit about lenses and I'm getting more confused. I've heard that 85mm is the ideal focal length, but the issue I have is that even at 50mm I have to be quite far back from my subjects (I've 3 young kids and they tend to want to get quite close to the camera). So should I go the other way and consider something like a 35mm (will that have too much distortion?) or stick with the tried and trusted niffty fifty?

Any advice and pointers would be appreciated!

Thanks,
 
Put yur 18-200 on 35mm and and some portraits to see if you like it.

I quite like 35mm for portraits, or 85mm for longer range.
 
Putting distance between the camera and the sitter(s) is generally more flattering. Are you specifically thinking of children's portraits or adults as well? - take it as read that your wife/partner will prefer their portrait shot at 85mm rather than 30mm..
 
I wouldn't suggest the 35mm for portraits, you have to be about 1.5 foot away to get any kind of head shot with it, i'd sell your sigma 50mm and get the nikon 50mm 1.8g.

I have both the 50 and 35mm, 50mm resolves more detail, better than the 35mm does by quite a margin I would say, also the 35mm is very fussy focusing at f1.8 and can lead to frustration, where as the 50mm is little more forgiving.(imo)
 
Ivan S said:
I wouldn't suggest the 35mm for portraits, you have to be about 1.5 foot away to get any kind of head shot with it, i'd sell your sigma 50mm and get the nikon 50mm 1.8g.

I have both the 50 and 35mm, 50mm resolves more detail, better than the 35mm does by quite a margin I would say, also the 35mm is very fussy focusing at f1.8 and can lead to frustration, where as the 50mm is little more forgiving.(imo)
Click to expand...

This.

I had a 35mm and a 50mm but tended to use the 50mm most of the time.
 
I would either say upgrade your 50mm if you do really like that length or get by with the 50mm you have & get something longer to compliment it.

Personally I found 85mm too close to 50mm but I appreciate we all vary :)
 
A lot of people moan about the AF speed of macro lenses.

I think the Nikon 50mm 1.8g would be perfect for your needs. It's supposed to be a very good lens.
 
Last edited:
I use my 50mm f1.4 and sometimes my 105mm f2.8 macro lens (y)

Les :D
 
Ivan S said:
I wouldn't suggest the 35mm for portraits, you have to be about 1.5 foot away to get any kind of head shot with it, i'd sell your sigma 50mm and get the nikon 50mm 1.8g.
Click to expand...

Eh? Why?

I know "portrait" usually means a tight head shot taken with a longer wide aperture prime stopped down and I always cringe at this. A wider view including some environmental context is much more interesting IMVHO.
 
woof woof said:
Eh? Why?

I know "portrait" usually means a tight head shot taken with a longer wide aperture prime stopped down and I always cringe at this. A wider view including some environmental context is much more interesting IMVHO.
Click to expand...

And without further guidance from the OP, responders to this thread are mostly assuming conventional portraiture, rather than a wider environmental portrait. Even then, with environmental portraits I'd still go with a longer lens being better than a shorter lens - if you have the room to use it. Basically, get as close to 85mm (or longer) as the situation will allow.

But there's a lot of personal preference in portrait photography.


As an alternative, the 17-200 the OP already owns is probably fine for portraits. It might not be fast in low light, but an alternative purchase would be flash, trigger set, stand and a soft-box. Even kit lenses shine for portraits when you give them more light.
 
woof woof said:
Eh? Why?

I know "portrait" usually means a tight head shot taken with a longer wide aperture prime stopped down and I always cringe at this. A wider view including some environmental context is much more interesting IMVHO.
Click to expand...

imo it's too close for portrait's of head and shoulders and it can easily make the subject very uncomfortable, even with family I find as soon as you start to poke a dslr that close to them it will make them cringe, plus it distorts the face when in so close, you end up with longer noses, 50mm is much better as it allows about a 2 foot more gap for the same framing and less distortion.
 
Ivan S said:
imo it's too close for portrait's of head and shoulders and it can easily make the subject very uncomfortable, even with family I find as soon as you start to poke a dslr that close to them it will make them cringe, plus it distorts the face when in so close, you end up with longer noses, 50mm is much better as it allows about a 2 foot more gap for the same framing and less distortion.
Click to expand...

Well, we all have our own view but personally I find the tight head shot tiresome. I like some context and personally I'd question the point that a 35mm on APS-C causes perspective distortion.

What did surprise me more than the usual advice we see here so often to go longer and tighter was the thought of selling a 50mm f2.8 macro for a 50mm f1.8.

Ah well. Portrait isn't really my thing but personally although I may use a 50mm on APS-C for a portrait shooting wider than f2.8 probably wouldn't be a priority for me.
 
woof woof said:
Well, we all have our own view but personally I find the tight head shot tiresome. I like some context and personally I'd question the point that a 35mm on APS-C causes perspective distortion.

What did surprise me more than the usual advice we see here so often to go longer and tighter was the thought of selling a 50mm f2.8 macro for a 50mm f1.8.

Ah well. Portrait isn't really my thing but personally although I may use a 50mm on APS-C for a portrait shooting wider than f2.8 probably wouldn't be a priority for me.
Click to expand...

I was going on what the Op wanted, he likes his 50mm but finds it too slow to focus and is a slower f2.8, he wants faster focus and a faster lens, the Nikon 50mm fits into what he wants perfectly, the only other option I see is 85mm which is over twice the amount if he wants new and afs and like he says the 50mm can be too close, but the 35mm can be trouble for focus and is much more easy to miss focus than the 50mm imo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top