£400 in my pocket, but what portrait lens?

Farno

Farno

Messages
310
Name
Neil
Edit My Images
Yes
Shot with a D90 and have a 50mmƒ1.4
looking at a Tamron 17-50 ƒ2.8
and a Nikon 16-85 ƒ4-5.6

Not looking at anything over 85mm I'm not a Safari game hunter :cautious:
 
85mm f1.8 maybe?

ETA: I hear good things about the Sigma 70mm Macro for portraiture too
 
looked at that, and a 35 ƒ2.0 but want some think a little more flexible, so a medium telephoto is on the cards
 
Well the big brother to yout tammy is the way to go then 28-75 f2.8 it's a killer zoom, sorry i thought you wanted a prime for portraits....
 
24-70 f/2.8 Sigma? Might need to be a second hand one for that budget though.
 
You can get a 2nd hand Tamron 28-75mm (non-motor version) for around the £200 mark. A nice portrait lens for DX is the Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8. :)
 
id third the tammy had one and it was great although not perfect, bang for buck though hard to beat
 
yup
 
Sigma 70mm f2.8 cracking lens! With Macro as an added bonus.
 
Well portrait lenses are usually at the telephoto end of things and usually fast glass, so given that you already have the 50/1.4, from everything else listed so far in the thread I'd have to go with the 85/1.8. Anything else is either too slow or too close to your 50/1.4 in focal length.

I'm no portrait photographer, but here is a recent example from my first ever proper attempt at shooting portraits. This was with a 40D and my 70-200 lens at 90mm, f/2.8. This has actually been cropped a bit so all in all it's probably equivalent to a focal length of around 100mm on a Canon cropper or 160mm on full frame. On a Nikon cropper that would be around 105mm.

20090831_203711_9414_LR-2.jpg


You may not be going on safari, but with a 50/1.4 already in the bag I definitely think you should be looking to go longer rather than shorter. I'd say 85mm should be the minimum you should consider. Anything less and you could simply shoot with the 50mm and crop a bit off the edges.
 
wouldn't the 50mm 1.4 be the best anyway, as on a crop body its near the 85mm 1.4 which is popular as a portrait lens on film bodies
 
cannockwolf said:
wouldn't the 50mm 1.4 be the best anyway, as on a crop body its near the 85mm 1.4 which is popular as a portrait lens on film bodies
Click to expand...

Well, what you actually want to do, IMHO, is to be shooting from about 10-12' away, so that you obtain a nice perspective without distortion of protruding features. Then you pick the right focal length to frame your subject as required from around that distance. You do not really want to be foot-zooming, since that alters perspective.

So, on a crop body, a 50mm lens will get you a full length head to toe shot from a distance of about 12'. If you want a tight head shot you will have to get in ridiculously close to fill the frame. TBH a lens of at least 100mm, and preferaly 200mm would suit me for head shots.

This is at 200mm and it was shot from around 6' away....

20090831_204737_9445_LR.jpg


Would you want to shoot headshots from 18" away with a 50mm lens? I wouldn't.
 
cannockwolf said:
wouldn't the 50mm 1.4 be the best anyway, as on a crop body its near the 85mm 1.4 which is popular as a portrait lens on film bodies
Click to expand...

Yes, but when i'm in small rooms it can get a bit tight, and on some occasions I want full length
I dont want to go over 85mm as my stuff is normally indoors
 
Don't forget that a wide angle lens will give you a wide angle of view and that means it will capture a lot of the background behind your subject, so that means making sure you have a decent, wide backdrop or you accept that you will end up with all sorts of clutter in the photograph. Are you using backdrops or making do with whatever the room itself provides?

In my opinion it really would be better to find more space and shoot from further back, with a longer lens. For example, that first shot I posted above was taken with my girlfriend standing in the bathroom - I actually used the shower curtain as a diffuser for a couple of worklamps suspended over the bath - and I stood on the landing, shooting through the bathroom doorway. Alternatively, maybe you can shoot diagonally across a room, or even step outside the room and shoot through the doorway, as I did. Perhaps you can shoot along the hallway, or maybe in the garage, if you have one. I guess it really all depends on what sort of effect/style you want and whether these are serious portraits for clients or just fun with the family. Personally I'd definitely prefer to shoot with several feet between me and my subject, rather than move in close with a wide angle. I don't want big noses and little ears on my subjects, and I don't want the background looking sharp and drawing attention away from my subject.
 
The stuff I normally do
3918772223_e6bb2eee2d.jpg

3322241933_1cb62da563.jpg

3422274244_b6021f39a6.jpg


But sometimes a need to go a little wider, and zoomy feet sometimes isnt an option :shrug:
 
What about a Nikon 35-70 f2.8? Would this be good as a portrait lens? If so they are very good value. Just buying one myself.
 
85mm f1.8 is a super lens for portraits. I have the 1.4 now but the 1.8 produced some beautiful portraits. The macros might be great for detail, but the big pieces of glass letting in loads of light do produce superb results and the shallow depth of field give lovely soft skin tones. Try one, you will get hooked.
 
I have never tried the 85mm f1.8 but the sigma 105 macro i have been using lately is giving great results for portraits. As you say though it is a bit long for indoor use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top