Portrait lens for good DOF

CrazeUK

CrazeUK

Messages
470
Name
CrazeUK
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi Guys.
After taking my lenses out for an official road test, i have realised i want to be able to take portrait pics and good depth of field pics.

I noticed that the lenses i have, i needed to be at a distant from the subject of focus, and for the rear object had to be some distance away to get good DOF.

So i am considering buying another lens for this purpose, especially because I will be taking shots at dinner parties etc.
Would This: Nikon 50mm f1.8 D AF Lens lens be ok for my D7000, or is there another you would reccomend?
Thanks
 
CrazeUK said:
Hi Guys.
After taking my lenses out for an official road test, i have realised i want to be able to take portrait pics and good depth of field pics.

I noticed that the lenses i have, i needed to be at a distant from the subject of focus, and for the rear object had to be some distance away to get good DOF.

So i am considering buying another lens for this purpose, especially because I will be taking shots at dinner parties etc.
Would This: Nikon 50mm f1.8 D AF Lens lens be ok for my D7000, or is there another you would reccomend?
Thanks
Click to expand...

it would be an OK choice, but I'd possibly be more inclined to push for an 85 1.8 instead
 
85 is great, but might be a bit long. The 50 is great, but might be a bit short! Depends entirely on the location.
Both lenses are masters of low light portrature though, so either one will be a winner.
 
TCR4x4 said:
85 is great, but might be a bit long. The 50 is great, but might be a bit short! Depends entirely on the location.
Both lenses are masters of low light portrature though, so either one will be a winner.
Click to expand...

Thats what i thought when boyfalldown said the 85.

My main use for this lens will be people over the dinner table, possibly when out an about (i.e. a person, with the house of commons in the back ground).

think the subject for this lens would be about 1-3 meters aways.

I have a 55-200,f4.5 (i think) and i find it annoying how far i have to stand from the subject to take a shot that isnt too close.
 
I guess the 50mm is the obvious choice then. Even if you find it too short, its not a great outlay, and its worth having in your bag anyway.
 
"Good depth of focus" means lots of sharp from the front to the back of the picture, I don't think you actually mean that, I think you want shallow depth of focus that isolates your subject and blurs the background.

Depth of focus does not actually describe out of focus elements, it describes the extent of acceptable sharpness..:)
 
.
 
Last edited:
We all know what he means, he knows what he means, whats the point in bogging down in technicalities.
Its quite clear he wants to shoot portraits withn the background OOF.

Where does it say in his post "good depth of focus" anyway?
 
With longer lenses on APS-C you're going to have to back right off which will give you deeper DoF even if you can frame your subject sat at the table. 85mm f1.8 seems therefore a bit limited IMVHO. Maybe something around 30mm would be a better choice or at such close range maybe a 17-50mm f2.8 zoom used somewhere between f2.8-4 might give the look you want.
 
TCR4x4 said:
Where does it say in his post "good depth of focus" anyway?
Click to expand...

In the title and the second paragraph ;-)

I agree with woof woof, I've just bought a 50mm prime and I find that even that is a bit long at close quarters. You may need something with a bit more flexibility, or just something a bit wider.
 
edster said:
In the title and the second paragraph ;-)

I agree with woof woof, I've just bought a 50mm prime and I find that even that is a bit long at close quarters. You may need something with a bit more flexibility, or just something a bit wider.
Click to expand...

Says depth of field actually, but.....
 
On a crop sensor I just can't get along with 50mm.. it's either 30mm or kit lens at full stretch for 85mm. I'm convinced that the Sigma 30/85mm f/1.4 pairing would be perfect (and the 85mm is my next planned kit upgrade). For dinner party table shot's I'd recommend the Sigma 30mm. It's a wysiwyg lens, which the 50mm isn't with a crop sensor.
 
Hey guys, i thought it was Depth of Field and not focus?

Re lenses, i thought the shorter the mm (i.e 35, as opposed to 85) the closer you could take the shot?

Also i thought the lower the f stop, the better DoF
 
CrazeUK said:
Hey guys, i thought it was Depth of Field and not focus?

Re lenses, i thought the shorter the mm (i.e 35, as opposed to 85) the closer you could take the shot?

Also i thought the lower the f stop, the better DoF
Click to expand...

It is depth if field. I don't know where people keep getting depth of focus from, although I suppose it means the same.
The shorter the focal length, the physically closer to the subject you will need to be to fill the frame.

Lower f stop (smaller number) = less DOF (DOF meaning the parts in focus) Which means only a small portion is in focus, the rest is blurred, which is usually desirable for portraits.
 
TCR4x4 said:
It is depth if field. I don't know where people keep getting depth of focus from, although I suppose it means the same.
The shorter the focal length, the physically closer to the subject you will need to be to fill the frame.

Lower f stop (smaller number) = less DOF (DOF meaning the parts in focus) Which means only a small portion is in focus, the rest is blurred, which is usually desirable for portraits.
Click to expand...

this is exactly what i am looking for.

So aside from the more expensive lenses wouldnt the 50mm 1.8 lens be a good balance between cost and my desire?

there is the Nikon AF-S 35mm f1.8 G DX Lens
 
CrazeUK said:
this is exactly what i am looking for.

So aside from the more expensive lenses wouldnt the 50mm 1.8 lens be a good balance between cost and my desire?

there is the Nikon AF-S 35mm f1.8 G DX Lens
Click to expand...
Yes, the 50mm f/1.8 is a great little lens. I take it out with me a lot for 'across the dinner table' shots. I also have the 30mm f/1.4 Sigma and whilst it is brilliant in low light, very sharp, I feel for 'across the dinner table' it is a bit too wide.

Here are two with the 50mm f/1.8 on my D7000

1. My daughter sitting next to me

_DSC8489 by JP de Jong, on Flickr

2. My wife sitting opposite me

_DSC8487 - Version 2 by JP de Jong, on Flickr
 
TCR4x4 said:
We all know what he means, he knows what he means, whats the point in bogging down in technicalities.
Its quite clear he wants to shoot portraits withn the background OOF.

Where does it say in his post "good depth of focus" anyway?
Click to expand...

Its perfectly clear from all previous posts that we know what he means, and I mean the OP no disrespect, we are all here to learn stuff, except you obviously.
I choose the term focus instead of field because I think for newcomers to the language of photography it has a far more obvious meaning than field, but it is the same thing, focus/field:shrug:, just trying to make it easier, lots of people read threads.
Photographers wanting good depth of focus want the exact opposite of what the OP wants, I'd like to think that if I was asking a question I was using words that made sense and that I wasn't just repeating terms I'd read else ware.
I don't care whether you think that is helpful or not, you are not asking the question.
 
dejongj said:
Yes, the 50mm f/1.8 is a great little lens. I take it out with me a lot for 'across the dinner table' shots. I also have the 30mm f/1.4 Sigma and whilst it is brilliant in low light, very sharp, I feel for 'across the dinner table' it is a bit too wide.

Here are two with the 50mm f/1.8 on my D7000
Click to expand...

Wow great shots, Having looked at all thats said, i think for me the price / desire ratio has settled on this lens :D

I have seen one advertised for £70, obviously used.
Would this be a good price?
 
joxby said:
Its perfectly clear from all previous posts that we know what he means, and I mean the OP no disrespect, we are all here to learn stuff, except you obviously.
I choose the term focus instead of field because I think for newcomers to the language of photography it has a far more obvious meaning than field, but it is the same thing, focus/field:shrug:, just trying to make it easier, lots of people read threads.
Photographers wanting good depth of focus want the exact opposite of what the OP wants, I'd like to think that if I was asking a question I was using words that made sense and that I wasn't just repeating terms I'd read else ware.
I don't care whether you think that is helpful or not, you are not asking the question.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you've lost me.

The op seems happy with my advice, and agrees that it's depth of field that makes more sense so that's all that matters tbh.
 
TCR4x4 said:
I'm sorry you've lost me.

The op seems happy with my advice, and agrees that it's depth of field that makes more sense so that's all that matters tbh.
Click to expand...

To be fare to TCR4x4 as a newbie, I would use 'Depth of Field' because this is the term I have heard through discussions and read, which is what inspired me to get that particular affect. Also its the term I would search for in Google, to make sure I got the most appropriate information.

Saying 'Depth of Focus' threw me a little, because I thought either I had the wrong term, or was referring to a different technique. But didn't want to knock the response.

As a newbie, Sometimes i may not know the reference to a particular technique, but in my head i would have the desired affect, and try to describe it in the best way possible (usually i am the worst at it lol), with the hope other users could help me by giving the technical term, so i can try self helping through Google, so that forums users can focus sharing the skills and details through interaction that i cant do by reading.

All in all, all of you guys have helped me come to a conclusion, that I feel less confused and content with, and will post results back too :D
 
Just a quick opinion on the lenses...

I think on the crop that the 50mm is too close. But that is me :D

However only you'd be able to tell whether it is too close or not so:

If your kit lens goes to 50 (or the 85 that was mentioned) get yourself in the place you are likely to be taking the pic and try out the different mm's.

See which gives you the sort of picture you want and go for that.


Personally it'd be the 30mm sigma 1.4 (around 300ukp?) or a nikon 35mm f1.8 (180ukp ish).


For the blurry (bokeh) background you need a low f#, lots of blades (preferably). Usually these are pretty steep in price as the lenses are better constructed. (Again my opinion).

There are some links in the sig for the 35mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.4 if you want to browse. But try the kit lens at the mm's and perhaps pop to a shop to handle/test the lenses. Then look around for a good deal :)

Good luck!
 
A 50mm has just gone for £65 in the classified (posted) and I just got one from fleabay for £62.

I'd have preferred to get one from here but typically there wasn't one listed!
 
edster said:
I agree with woof woof, I've just bought a 50mm prime and I find that even that is a bit long at close quarters. You may need something with a bit more flexibility, or just something a bit wider.
Click to expand...

Hmm, for typical portraiture I find 50mm on FX and 35mm on DX far far too short. Personally I'd start with around 70mm (35mm format equivalent) and get longer from there.
 
Last edited:
"Good depth of field"

I'm not sure what the fuss. In landscaping a 'good depth of field" is a big one, in portraiture it's a small(ish) one.
 
I have a 50mm lens on crop body, but I prefer to use 28mm or 85mm.
Sometimes I feel 50mm is "too short and too long" at the same time...
 
CrazeUK said:
I have a 55-200,f4.5 (i think) and i find it annoying how far i have to stand from the subject to take a shot that isnt too close.
Click to expand...

As a 50mm is only going to get you an extra 5mm of distance is this going to be enough for your purposes? Do you have a kit lens that starts at 18mm ie 18-55 18-105? You can use this to work out your required distance.

From what you have written here I think you might find a 35mm more useful (or something wider). Alternatively, you could look at a 17ish-50ish 2.8 zoom that might also work for you. It won't give as much 'pop' as a 1.8, but is still pretty good and has the advantage of being a zoom. All of these suggestions will cost you more than a 50mm 1.8, but ones from the like of Tamron and Sigma have decent reps and aren't going to need a second mortgage.

Try having a look on Flickr at images from some of the options.
 
I've just got a 50mm AF-D f/1.8 for my D7000 and so far I'm really liking it.

I'm just getting used to where I need to stand to fill the frame nicely! Other than that, it would probably fullfill your needs perfectly, as it'll throw the background out of focus nicely when you're using a larger aperture, and you can stop right down to f/22 for super sharpness from back to front (although you'll probably never need to go further than f/11, or f/16 in reality).

It's perhaps a little too soft at f/1.8 for portraits, but even just stopping down to f/2 makes a difference and at f/8 it's ridiculously sharp (but you'll need to have your background further away to throw it out of focus).

Just remember, it'll be the equivalent of 75mm on a crop sensor camera such as the D7000.
 
redddraggon said:
"Good depth of field"

I'm not sure what the fuss. In landscaping a 'good depth of field" is a big one, in portraiture it's a small(ish) one.
Click to expand...

For me, if i have a friend say stood on the bridge in front of the house of commons, i like to have the friend sharp with a good width of the background out of focus. (not sure if i have accurately described what i am trying to achive.

Also, When your at a restraunt that isnt too brightly lit, with a number of people i want to be able to take a pic, without the flash, but for it to be as natural as possible.

The shots by dejongj above are the type of thing.

PitaDaVespa said:
I have a 50mm lens on crop body, but I prefer to use 28mm or 85mm.
Sometimes I feel 50mm is "too short and too long" at the same time...
Click to expand...

Can you show me some pictures of what you mean with all 3 lenses?


Northstander said:
I've just got a 50mm AF-D f/1.8 for my D7000 and so far I'm really liking it.

I'm just getting used to where I need to stand to fill the frame nicely! Other than that, it would probably fullfill your needs perfectly, as it'll throw the background out of focus nicely when you're using a larger aperture, and you can stop right down to f/22 for super sharpness from back to front (although you'll probably never need to go further than f/11, or f/16 in reality).

It's perhaps a little too soft at f/1.8 for portraits, but even just stopping down to f/2 makes a difference and at f/8 it's ridiculously sharp (but you'll need to have your background further away to throw it out of focus).

Just remember, it'll be the equivalent of 75mm on a crop sensor camera such as the D7000.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by too soft? (sorry i am just getting used to the terminology)

Do you have any pics from the 50mm. Including soft ones lol.

I still havent fully got my head around the whole DX thing and how lenses are different to when on a FX lol. (my age is making me really slow at abosribing i think :S )
 
Last edited:
CrazeUK said:
For me, if i have a friend say stood on the bridge in front of the house of commons, i like to have the friend sharp with a good width of the background out of focus. (not sure if i have accurately described what i am trying to achive.

Also, When your at a restraunt that isnt too brightly lit, with a number of people i want to be able to take a pic, without the flash, but for it to be as natural as possible.

The shots by dejongj above are the type of thing.
Click to expand...
tbh bud, you really can't go wrong with the 50mm f/1.8. It should be in any owners kit bag :) Yes you 'zoom' with your feet, but you'll soon get used to that. To me, I have the 30mm f/1.4 also, I find the 50mm much better useable for portrait as the 30mm (or 35mm) becomes rather intrusive (as in having to be really close to the subject) in order to fill the frame.


CrazeUK said:
What do you mean by too soft? (sorry i am just getting used to the terminology)

Do you have any pics from the 50mm. Including soft ones lol.
Click to expand...
I'd love to see the soft ones as well, I find it hard to imagine this lens being soft other than because the focus is missed. For example my examples earlier I think were at f2.2 as at f1.8 it just wouldn't be right.

CrazeUK said:
I still havent fully got my head around the whole DX thing and how lenses are different to when on a FX lol. (my age is making me really slow at abosribing i think :S )
Click to expand...
I'd just not worry about it too much :) It will become clear and tbh isn't that important. It is what it is on DX...
 
Does anyone have any images from a 85mm, 50mm and a 35mm lens?
What are the major differences between the 3 image wise.

I had decided firmly on a 50mm f1.8D lens.. but now wondering the differences/
 
Last edited:
CrazeUK said:
Does anyone have any images from a 85mm, 50mm and a 35mm lens?
What are the major differences between the 3 image wise.

I had decided firmly on a 50mm f1.8D lens.. but now wondering the differences/
Click to expand...

The images should be very much the same, just how much is in the frame changes.

Here is a pic to show how much of a difference between the three, ignore 18mm bottom right


Compare Carl Zeiss Lenses: 85, 50, 35, 18 @ f/4.8 ISO 200 by Raymond Larose, on Flickr

So imagine using a 85mm at a dinner table, it will just about fit the side of someone's head in whereas a 35mm would get a good group shot from the same position
 
IanAshworth said:
The images should be very much the same, just how much is in the frame changes.

Here is a pic to show how much of a difference between the three, ignore 18mm bottom right


Compare Carl Zeiss Lenses: 85, 50, 35, 18 @ f/4.8 ISO 200 by Raymond Larose, on Flickr

So imagine using a 85mm at a dinner table, it will just about fit the side of someone's head in whereas a 35mm would get a good group shot from the same position
Click to expand...

That is Awsome thanks for that.
And the analogy!

p.s. I cant belive you just sold a 50mm, i could have collected it today too lol

I have just seen a 35mm f1.8G on the classifieds but its well above the 65ish i wanted to pay so unsure :s
 
I sold the 50mm because it wasn't auto-focus on my camera but I'm also going to move to a 35mm. I found the 50mm too long for indoor shots, any more than one person in the shot and it became too difficult, just personal preference really and what you take pictures of.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top