NIKON- Best Portrait lens!?! MONEY NO OBJECT!

lukewoodford said:
Ok i have witnessed a few best portrait lens threads, alot of people say nifty 50 (i have the 1.4) but is this because it is cheap? If money was no object what lens would you have for portraits?
Click to expand...

Yes, in general I'd say that was the reason. I wonder how many people get sucked in by the hype and buy one, only for it to lie unused in their camera bag?

Personally, I'd like an 85mm f/1.4, I have the 1.8 and really like it,but the 70-200 is great for portraits too.....
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Yes, in general I'd say that was the reason. I wonder how many people get sucked in by the hype and buy one, only for it to lie unused in their camera bag?

Personally, I'd like an 85mm f/1.4, I have the 1.8 and really like it,but the 70-200 is great for portraits too.....
Click to expand...

Yeah this is what i mean, i have 18-200mm VR and 50mm 1.4, i like the 50 dont get me wrong but i have been looking at the 85 1.4 and the 70-200 as portraits and weddings are my focus. I have been recomended the 50mm alot, i dont regret getting it, however i feel some people recomend it for the price whereas im quite happy investing more money in a better quality lens.
 
I have the 85mm 1.4 and love it!..It really is a superb lens.
 
There is, as you highlighted in a previous post, a big difference in the gap between a 50mm f/1.8 and the 1.4, against that between the same aperture 85mm lenses.

I could probably rationalise the £100 or so in the 50mm case if I were to purchase one, but at the moment I can see far better places to put the £3-400 extra that upgrading to an f/1.4 85mm would cost...
 
50mm is a really unflattering portrait length.

Look at around 85mm to 105mm. The 50mm gets recommended due to folks says it acts like a 75mm on DX (which is rubbish of course)

Money no object - the 85mm f/1.4
 
puddleduck said:
50mm is a really unflattering portrait length.

Look at around 85mm to 105mm. The 50mm gets recommended due to folks says it acts like a 75mm on DX (which is rubbish of course)

Money no object - the 85mm f/1.4
Click to expand...

Unless I'm missing something then the portrait lengths on a DX using the 50 WILL be the same as a FX @ 75-80. Other than a slight DOF difference I'm not sure what's rubbish.......:thinking:
 
Yeah, the FOV is to do with the distance from the subject rather so 'equivalent focal length' in this respect does seem to apply. I think thats why the stunning voigtlander 58mm glass works so well on cropped sensors for portraits... that and the bokeh :) although its possibly not quite a 'cream machine' as it would be on FF.
 
kalibre said:
Unless I'm missing something then the portrait lengths on a DX using the 50 WILL be the same as a FX @ 75-80. Other than a slight DOF difference I'm not sure what's rubbish.......:thinking:
Click to expand...

Yes, you are missing a lot actually.

Its all to do with angles of view and not effective focal length.

Imagine taking a portrait at 20mm, on a theoretical camera with a 10x crop factor (would you say that made it a 200mm lens?) and you will see why you are missing the point. A portrait at 20mm is always going to be unflattering, no matter the crop factor.

Don't mistake angle of view with a hard crop.
 
Hmm, dude I'm pretty certain that the compression is to do with the distance between the lens and the subject while the focal length is simply how much fills the frame. I would say the effective focal length works for compression.

I should probably check up on google actually... I'll be back :)
 
Thats beside the point - 85mm is a better focal length that a 50mm cropped on DX for portraits.

Its all to do with angles, *not* the stuff thats cropped out. The crop doesn't change this.

50mm really isn't 75mm on DX - its 50mm regardless of cropped or not cropped.

There is a very good reason why most of the classic portrait lenses are from around 85mm to about 105mm. DX and crop doesn't change this.
 
I'm quite happy to prove this with my D60, D700 and Voightlander 58mm f/1.4

If I take the same image with both cameras, then *crop* my D700 image down to the same proportion as the D60 cropped image, I'd have to have had a hard bump on the head to claim it make it an 87mm lens really...
 
puddleduck said:
Yes, you are missing a lot actually.

Its all to do with angles of view and not effective focal length.

Imagine taking a portrait at 20mm, on a theoretical camera with a 10x crop factor (would you say that made it a 200mm lens?) and you will see why you are missing the point. A portrait at 20mm is always going to be unflattering, no matter the crop factor.

Don't mistake angle of view with a hard crop.
Click to expand...

Agreed, 20mm at a hard crop will leave the model with a lovely big nose if shot straight on, now thats not very flattering, unless your into that kind of thing.

Nikon 85mm f1.4 is commonly quoted as the best for Nikon for portraits, I would be interested if a newer version will be coming out at photokina, as im looking to get one of these. If a new version comes out, presumably it will be better in many respects, and a possibility for me, Otherwise the older version will be good too, especially as its prices hopefully should fall :)
 
That would be good to see actually because my understanding is totally different and I can't get my head round it atm. I know the bokeh will be lovely but if you have a 58mm and a 85mm (pretty much about perfect for this comparison) then it sounds like a good thing to do. :)

btw a 20mm on a cropped sensor still only equates to 35mm which is yuck. I would say 50mm is about the lower limit for decent portrait on a cropped sensor from my experience but then I'm not quite as up on these things as PD.
 
theory said:
That would be good to see actually because my understanding is totally different and I can't get my head round it atm
Click to expand...

Think of "angles" vs "bounding rectangles".

Unfortunately so much rubbish has been written about a 300mm lens becoming 450mm than its become "truth" while it was always garbage.

Thats not to say that DX doesn't have advantages in some cases, but thats due to pixel density... not this mythical "reach".
 
I think the "crop factor" seems to be misunderstood by a lot of people, it refers to fov (hence "effective focal length) not actual focal length. A 50mm lens is still a 50mm lens on a cropped sensor, what it does have, however, is a more restricted fov,equivalent to what you would see with lens of around 75mm on a full frame camera.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
I think the "crop factor" seems to be misunderstood by a lot of people, it refers to fov (hence "effective focal length) not actual focal length. A 50mm lens is still a 50mm lens on a cropped sensor, what it does have, however, is a more restricted fov,equivalent to what you would see with lens of around 75mm on a full frame camera.
Click to expand...

Yes I fully understand this 'crop factor' and the reach advantage etc

My problem is that I don't see how the FOV can change without changing the distance from the subject. If I wanted to take a shot of a silhouetted person against a huge sun I could use the cropped sensor to my advantage and get the FOV of a 750mm lens by using a 500mm bit of glass, although it wouldn't behave like a 750mm in other respects.

Actually your post alludes to say the same as my understanding... hmm. I think I'll step aside on this one now :)
 
I think the best lens I've used for portraits, with my wobbly hands, would have to be the 70-200 AF-S VR. This, on a DX or FX body, gives a wonderful range and great bokeh.

Of course, the 85mm (both f1.8 and f1.4) fall in this range with even better bokeh. So, for prime lenses I'd have to agree on any of these two lenses .. for zoom (cost being not a worry) I'd say the 70-200 VR AF-S.
 
OK, so I didn't reply to this thread as soon as I saw it .. and what do you know .. a debate on FOV vs. DX vs. flatenning of image.

Stick with the 70-200VR and you'd be safe .. regardless of DX or FX body :p
 
I think the 50mm is a fantastic lens, I use the 1.4 a lot, and there have been SEVERAL situations where an 85mm would have been too long, when I did the photos of the hair and Makeup models, I was against their back wall with the 50mm on FF. 85 would have made it impossible. When I got the 50mm, it had nothing to do with finances, I literally havent a clue what lenses are available - although, for 3 weeks, I have been pining for a canon and the magic f1.2 lens. Only reason I don't have an 85mm for the nikon :)

Gary.
 
Wail said:
I think the best lens I've used for portraits, with my wobbly hands, would have to be the 70-200 AF-S VR. This, on a DX or FX body, gives a wonderful range and great bokeh.

Of course, the 85mm (both f1.8 and f1.4) fall in this range with even better bokeh. So, for prime lenses I'd have to agree on any of these two lenses .. for zoom (cost being not a worry) I'd say the 70-200 VR AF-S.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply,which lens produces sharper images? And does the VR make a difference if im not going to go past 150 on the 70-200?
 
lukewoodford said:
Ok i have witnessed a few best portrait lens threads, alot of people say nifty 50 (i have the 1.4) but is this because it is cheap? If money was no object what lens would you have for portraits?
Click to expand...

If cost is no issue, you want a Canon and f1.2. Thats what I am doing, surely brand loyalty is pointless in this hobby?

Gary.
 
Well, the VR is best for wobbly hands .. for me, even at 70mm I wasn't able to hand-hold this lens steady enough to get a good image (please note that this is nothing to do with the lens, most people get crisp sharp images with this lens as it is one of the best ever to be made by Nikon .. I just have serious hand issues).

Frankly, if you can afford it, go with the 70-200 .. it is more than twice the price of the 85 f1.4 . but it gives you a huge range ..

An alternative, if you still want to get the 85 f1.4, would be to get the 80-200 AF-S (I think this is discontinued, but you can find them 2nd hand for a bargain .. about 1/2 the price of the new 70-200VR which replaces it) .. The 85 f1.4 is known as the Cream Machine .. and guess why? Magical bokeh on this lens.
 
EdinburghGary said:
If cost is no issue, you want a Canon and f1.2. Thats what I am doing, surely brand loyalty is pointless in this hobby?

Gary.
Click to expand...


I am not so sure that the f1.2 is all that's hyped to be .. of course Canon fanboys will come out in mobs to skin me shortly :p
 
Wail said:
I am not so sure that the f1.2 is all that's hyped to be .. of course Canon fanboys will come out in mobs to skin me shortly :p
Click to expand...

I have seen some fantastic stuff on FlickR with it, it really does look the business. Anyway, just saying "I have f1.2" is rock solid :D

Gary.
 
I am sure it is a fantastic lens .. I was just being envyous (sp) ... silly, I know :p .. but Lens Lust is aching me all over; and any mention of the 70-200VR hurts my ego big time
 
Wail said:
I am sure it is a fantastic lens .. I was just being envyous (sp) ... silly, I know :p .. but Lens Lust is aching me all over; and any mention of the 70-200VR hurts my ego big time
Click to expand...

Get full frame, then you wont want it until the replacement arrives ;)

Gary.
 
You have ALL missed the best lens for portraits that Nikon have ever built. They built a lens (two actually) specifically for portraiture.

The BEST lens for portraiture from Nikon is the 105 f2 DC lens. they also do a 135, but the 105 is the better of the two in my opinion.

With the Dc, you can still obtain out of focus backgrounds even if you shoot at f8 to keep the entire face in focus. There is a seperate control for the edge sharpness. Stunning - and not so pricey as to put it out of range of anyone on here. Not as expensive as the 70 - 200 VR. But, more portraite specific, which is what the original question was about. A PORTRAIT lens, not a general lens for portraiture!
 
Lensflare said:
You have ALL missed the best lens for portraits that Nikon have ever built. They built a lens (two actually) specifically for portraiture.

The BEST lens for portraiture from Nikon is the 105 f2 DC lens. they also do a 135, but the 105 is the better of the two in my opinion.

With the Dc, you can still obtain out of focus backgrounds even if you shoot at f8 to keep the entire face in focus. There is a seperate control for the edge sharpness. Stunning - and not so pricey as to put it out of range of anyone on here. Not as expensive as the 70 - 200 VR. But, more portraite specific, which is what the original question was about. A PORTRAIT lens, not a general lens for portraiture!
Click to expand...

Sounds interesting, would be good to see some examples of this in action.

Gary.
 
Lensflare said:
You have ALL missed the best lens for portraits that Nikon have ever built. They built a lens (two actually) specifically for portraiture.

The BEST lens for portraiture from Nikon is the 105 f2 DC lens. they also do a 135, but the 105 is the better of the two in my opinion.

With the Dc, you can still obtain out of focus backgrounds even if you shoot at f8 to keep the entire face in focus. There is a seperate control for the edge sharpness. Stunning - and not so pricey as to put it out of range of anyone on here. Not as expensive as the 70 - 200 VR. But, more portraite specific, which is what the original question was about. A PORTRAIT lens, not a general lens for portraiture!
Click to expand...


Yeah id love to see some examples of this lens in action. I have a D300 so would this lens be slightly long? The stuff that i do is on my website.
 
Go on the NIKON UK website and look for some - or request a brochure from the brochure hotline.

The DC bit is the trickery - it stands for Defocus Control. This is the bit that allows you to adjust the amount of out of focus background you have - clever, n'est pas!
 
Lensflare said:
Go on the NIKON UK website and look for some - or request a brochure from the brochure hotline.

The DC bit is the trickery - it stands for Defocus Control. This is the bit that allows you to adjust the amount of out of focus background you have - clever, n'est pas!
Click to expand...

Ramp it up to the max? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top