Nikon Portrait Lens options

DoctorJ

DoctorJ

Messages
332
Name
David
Edit My Images
Yes
I am struggling to find one of Nikon's new 85mm G lenses anywhere and am looking at other options for portraits, I have a nifty but sometimes want to be a little more candid so need more reach. I was looking at another thread at the 16-85 but it seems it isn't fast through it's focal length (f/5.6 at 85mm).

So I am wondering about my options. Are there any third party lenses that fit the bill, ie fast at 85mm or shortish zoom lenses that are fast throughout their focal length (without spending thousands!)?

Budget is around £500 and needs to be available from Jessops as I have a load of love2shop vouchers to spend and Jessops is the only photographic outlet I can find that takes them.
 
The fastest you will find a zoom is f2.8, which may or may not be fast enough for what you imagine portrait should be...

How about the Sigma 85 1.4? 750 quid or thereabouts?

Personally, I'd just try and find one of the old Nikon 85 1.8's - they are lovely, never had a problem with focus speed or sharpness...
 
Kim's covered the 85mm options pretty well. There is also the manual samyang 1.4 or Nikon's older AF-D 85mm 1.4 though that'll really test your budget.

Why not also look at macro lens options? The nikon 105mm 2.8 VR immediate springs to mind.
 
boyfalldown said:
105 f/2 dc or the 135 f/2 dc best portrait lenses Nikon has ever made
Click to expand...

Indeed, but I tried to keep it within the guys budget :)

The 400 2.8 VR is also quite good for portraits, you just need a decent working distance LOL
 
boyfalldown said:
105 f/2 dc or the 135 f/2 dc best portrait lenses Nikon has ever made
Click to expand...

Well they're both excellent lenses but they don't live up to your hyperbole.

The term 'portrait lens' is outdated. Portraits are no longer subject to the restrictions of the studio and the set styles of the time as they were when the nomenclature first appeared.

The fact is any non-specialist lens can be used to shoot portraits. The majority of my portraits are taken with either the Nikkor 24-70/2.8 or the Nikkor 70-200/2.8. The only prime I used with any regularity for portraits is the Nikkor 200/2.

Any lens choice carries a compromise. The compromise of choosing a prime is the restriction of field of view, the compromise of zooms is a slower maximum aperture. I find the versatility of zooms is far more useful (and profitable) than the perceived advantage of shallower depth of field.

For portraits, I would go for an f/2.8 zoom first every time, and when you have covered the 24-200mm range then look to primes. Whether to go for the 24-70 first or the 70-200 would depend on the style of portraiture you prefer. The former is better for location, environmental and group portraits, the latter head shots and three-quarter length shots.

Edit: I missed the OP's budget too, but the above still stands. Given the £500 limit, I'd be more inclined to spend the money on lighting than a lens, simply because it will give greater variation.
 
Last edited:
NorthernNikon said:
Well they're both excellent lenses but they don't live up to your hyperbole.
Click to expand...

its an opinion ;) which your 'hyperbole' about fast zooms doing the job as well has done nothing to change. Recognising that we're all different though, any zoom would be the last thing I'd chose for any form of portraits
 
As I think we've discussed many times, "portrait" can mean different things to different people.

To me, its a posed studio setting, probably head and shoulders. In this instance, the choice of lens is 100% governed by available working distance.

To others, its any photography involving human subjects indoors, quite often just photos of friends and family around the house/pub. Probably needing to stand a fixed distance away and arrange the backgrounds nicely isn't something thats going to happen, so a f2.8zoom probably is the puppy here, and probably no longer than 70mm (on DX) unless you happen to live in a mansion.
 
boyfalldown said:
its an opinion ;)
Click to expand...

Then it shouldn't have been staed as fact. :razz:

which your 'hyperbole' about fast zooms doing the job as well has done nothing to change.
Click to expand...

Where's the hyperbole in my post?

Recognising that we're all different though, any zoom would be the last thing I'd chose for any form of portraits
Click to expand...

Yes, we're all different, and that's why it's important to put reasons behind statements of either fact or opinion so that others can make up their own mind.

It also helps to avoid hyperbole. I doubt very much that zooms would be "the last thing you'd choose for any form of portraits" but if I'm wrong perhaps you'd explain to the panel why you'd choose, say, a Reflex-Nikkor 500mm f/8 over an f/2.8 zoom?
 
Hiya. I had exactly the same issues with my D90. I mainly (ahem) shoot the kids! For about a year I shot almost exclusively with the 50mm f1.8, which was great, but then wanted more!! Have been through a few things!!

:plus1: for the samyang f1.4 (I figured it was worth it for 239 new despite being manual focus)

Samyang test shots

I also got a 70-200 f2.8 which is also good but doesn't get as much use as the 50mm/85/mm.

I also got some speedlights - just got a cheap stand and brolly yesterday and had a play with the 18-105 kit lens and the 50mm 1.8. Still learning about using the strobes but adds another dimesion (well, if I get it right!)

first play with a lightstand/brolly

Hope that helps?

S
 
The new Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.8 G Lens is £470 in Jessops and worth a look when/if you can find it, or the old one as mentioned is pretty good too.
 
NorthernNikon said:
Then it shouldn't have been staed as fact. :razz:

Where's the hyperbole in my post?

Yes, we're all different, and that's why it's important to put reasons behind statements of either fact or opinion so that others can make up their own mind.

It also helps to avoid hyperbole. I doubt very much that zooms would be "the last thing you'd choose for any form of portraits" but if I'm wrong perhaps you'd explain to the panel why you'd choose, say, a Reflex-Nikkor 500mm f/8 over an f/2.8 zoom?
Click to expand...

Did you get up this morning after an argument? Seriously :) cause your last statement is, as I'm sure you know a little daft:). Maybe youd suggest a 14-24 its a 2.8 zoom after all, but sensible points never lie in extremes. Your post was as full of hyperbole as mine

Anyway I can't be bothered with a row this morning, so I've stated my opinion, it's different from yours that's all
 
Last edited:
desantnik said:
As I think we've discussed many times, "portrait" can mean different things to different people.
Click to expand...

I don't see how. The term predates photography and merely describes a representation of a person/persons. People can't just ascribe their own definitions to terms with commonly held definitions without causing anything other than confusion.

Two people might both have different ideas of what constitutes a chicken based meal, but whether it's KFC or something Heston Blumethal has conjured up at the Fat Duck, they're both chicken dishes.

It's the same with photographic portraits. You could have a formal studio shot by Rankin or one of Crewdson's cinematic grand scenes, but as long as they're both representations of people they're both portraits.
 
NorthernNikon said:
I don't see how. The term predates photography and merely describes a representation of a person/persons. People can't just ascribe their own definitions to terms with commonly held definitions without causing anything other than confusion.

Two people might both have different ideas of what constitutes a chicken based meal, but whether it's KFC or something Heston Blumethal has conjured up at the Fat Duck, they're both chicken dishes.

It's the same with photographic portraits. You could have a formal studio shot by Rankin or one of Crewdson's cinematic grand scenes, but as long as they're both representations of people they're both portraits.
Click to expand...

Am I being really silly or have you not just confirmed Kim's point?:thinking:
 
boyfalldown said:
Did you get up this morning after an argument? Seriously :) cause your last statement is, as I'm sure you know a little daft:).
Click to expand...

Of course it's daft. It's purposefully daft to show how daft your unsubstantiated statement was.

Maybe youd suggest a 14-24 its a 2.8 zoom after all, but sensible points never lie in extremes. Your post was as full of hyperbole as mine
Click to expand...

You obviously don't understand the meaning of the word hyperbole then.
 
NorthernNikon said:
Of course it's daft. It's purposefully daft to show how daft your unsubstantiated statement was.

You obviously don't understand the meaning of the word hyperbole then.
Click to expand...

It's no more daft then the idea of using a 14-24 f/2.8 for portraits.

Clearly I get the term as well as you.

Barney if you want a fight my I suggest you look elsewhere :)
 
Sir SR said:
Am I being really silly or have you not just confirmed Kim's point?:thinking:
Click to expand...

Not unless I've completely misinterpreted it.

I read it to be restrictive, one person would see only one type of portrait as being a portrait, another only a different type. Thus, neither would see what the other held to be a portrait as a portrait.
 
boyfalldown said:
It's no more daft then the idea of using a 14-24 f/2.8 for portraits.
Click to expand...

I never suggested using 14-24/2.8. Any sensible person having read my posts would infer that I was referring to the 24/70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8. Having said that, if given a 14-24/2.8 I could use it for portraits and get them published. I'd have a much harder job doing that with the 500/8 Reflex-Nikkor.

Clearly I get the term as well as you.
Click to expand...

Well it's not clear to me, you accused me of it yet failed to quote any examples in my posts.

Barney if you want a fight my I suggest you look elsewhere :)
Click to expand...

I'm not looking for a fight, an argument or any such thing. All I'm doing is refuting inaccuracy.
 
NorthernNikon said:
Not unless I've completely misinterpreted it.

I read it to be restrictive, one person would see only one type of portrait as being a portrait, another only a different type. Thus, neither would see what the other held to be a portrait as a portrait.
Click to expand...

Well, like portaiture, I interpreted it differently - that it meant different things to different people! I suppose that proves the point that everything is open to interpretation!!

Back to the OP, having recommended the Samyang, I'm not sure you can get it at Jessops?
 
NorthernNikon said:
I never suggested using 14-24/2.8. Any sensible person having read my posts would infer that I was referring to the 24/70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8. Having said that, if given a 14-24/2.8 I could use it for portraits and get them published. I'd have a much harder job doing that with the 500/8 Reflex-Nikkor.

Well it's not clear to me, you accused me of it yet failed to quote any examples in my posts.

I'm not looking for a fight, an argument or any such thing. All I'm doing is refuting inaccuracy.
Click to expand...

Ahhh I see so I don't get the benefit of a sensible person making inferences about the lenses I prefer. They're just unsubstantiated points. Good to see you allow a degree of sense when you're making points but not when I make them. I thought this wasnt you arguing? You've not really refuted anything cause I gave an opinion, which for some reason you wish to fight all the way
 
Thanks all - didn't mean to start a fight! I can see all sides of the argument, it is incidentally nice to read a 'debate' on here demonstrating correct use of the English language, not the esperanto I sometimes see used...
Shaheed, I like the look of the Samyang, the Jessops thing is not a show stopper, just ideal so I can spend these vouchers.
The Nikon 85mm G is on Jessops website but just not available in any London or Surrey branches yet, I may wait or have a look for the older version. Also the 105mm might well do the trick, will look at that too.
Macro lenses? I hadn't even considered the option to be honest.

Thanks again.
 
DoctorJ said:
Thanks all - didn't mean to start a fight! I can see all sides of the argument, it is incidentally nice to read a 'debate' on here demonstrating correct use of the English language, not the esperanto I sometimes see used...
Shaheed, I like the look of the Samyang, the Jessops thing is not a show stopper, just ideal so I can spend these vouchers.
The Nikon 85mm G is on Jessops website but just not available in any London or Surrey branches yet, I may wait or have a look for the older version. Also the 105mm might well do the trick, will look at that too.
Macro lenses? I hadn't even considered the option to be honest.

Thanks again.
Click to expand...

Forgot to mention that I also have the old 105 f2.8 micro nikkor. A bit long for me and the AF is slow but does a good job and great for macro! The newer VR is supposed to be better but I reach for th 85mm/50mm/70-200mm first!

I got my samyang from uk digital. What I did before I commited to getting it was to manually focus the 50mm f1.8d. That way if I couldnt get on with it, I wouldn't waste my money!

Good luck and happy hunting!!

ps this is just my opinion!!! :naughty::exit:
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
Ahhh I see so I don't get the benefit of a sensible person making inferences about the lenses I prefer. They're just unsubstantiated points. Good to see you allow a degree of sense when you're making points but not when I make them. I thought this wasnt you arguing? You've not really refuted anything cause I gave an opinion, which for some reason you wish to fight all the way
Click to expand...

As I said previously, you stated your opinion as fact. As I also said previously, the same opinion was, and remains, unsubstantiated. Feel free to explain why you hold your opinions, then others can either learn something from them or at least decide whether to value them or disregard them.

Either way, I've no wish to fight your opinions, but don't get your knickers in a twist just because someone questions them, especially when they're expressed so poorly.
 
NorthernNikon said:
As I said previously, you stated your opinion as fact. As I also said previously, the same opinion was, and remains, unsubstantiated. Feel free to explain why you hold your opinions, then others can either learn something from them or at least decide whether to value them or disregard them.

Either way, I've no wish to fight your opinions, but don't get your knickers in a twist just because someone questions them, especially when they're expressed so poorly.
Click to expand...

They're not in a twist (y) I do wish youd practice what you preach cause I've not seen a single sensible point back why you think I'm wrong :)
 
Thanks Barney - that could be just the thing, as you say 90mm equivalent, in budget and in Jessops. The lens is referred to as a Micro lens on their website, I'm not sure if that actually makes a difference other than an ability to focus very close up if needed. I guess that in 'normal' usage it behaves like like a 'normal' lens.
I have the 35mm and do think it is a great lens for the money.
 
boyfalldown said:
They're not in a twist (y) I do wish youd practice what you preach cause I've not seen a single sensible point back why you think I'm wrong :)
Click to expand...

Well if you're your knickers aren't twisted something else must be skewing your logic. How can I think you're wrong when I don't know why you think the way you do? Nothing you say is back up by any reasoning or explanation. If it were, there would be something of substance to actually agree or disagree with.

See, I am practising what I'm preaching, offering an explanation along with my thoughts. Try it, it's not hard to do and you may even surprise yourself.
 
DoctorJ said:
Thanks Barney - that could be just the thing, as you say 90mm equivalent, in budget and in Jessops. The lens is referred to as a Micro lens on their website, I'm not sure if that actually makes a difference other than an ability to focus very close up if needed. I guess that in 'normal' usage it behaves like like a 'normal' lens.
Click to expand...

Nikon use the terminology "Micro" for their close focus lenses instead of "Macro."

Historically "macro" was applied to lenses that produced an image on the focal plane larger than life-size. Today it tends to be applied to the final image rather than the focal plane, and few Macro lenses are true macros in the historical sense.

Irrespective, by all the accounts the 60/2.8 is a fine performer for general photography as well as close up work.
 
NorthernNikon said:
Well if you're your knickers aren't twisted something else must be skewing your logic. How can I think you're wrong when I don't know why you think the way you do? Nothing you say is back up by any reasoning or explanation. If it were, there would be something of substance to actually agree or disagree with.

See, I am practising what I'm preaching, offering an explanation along with my thoughts. Try it, it's not hard to do and you may even surprise yourself.
Click to expand...

Erm do you know how little sense that makes? You clearly take issue with my preference for primes over zooms, but still haven't said why? But then suggest two primes, Go figures
 
Nikon's micro lenses are macro lenses. They all allow 1:1 image reproduction. Your sensor is 25.1 × 16.7mm in size so if you were to encounter a wasp that was 25.1mm in length it could occupy the entire frame (though you might be more inclined to run away, quite fast). In all other regards a macro lens will behave like any other prime other than that they're typically slower to focus because they have such a big focal range to hunt through and usually slightly narrower max. apertures.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top