Beginner Surprising my girlfriend with a lens

dating_a_photographer

dating_a_photographer

Messages
9
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all! This is my first post here. I'm not a photographer, but as my username states, I am dating one! She is a beginner, been taking photos casually for about a year or two, and I know she has been wanting to get a new lens. Her birthday and college graduation are coming up, so I figured I would buy her a lens as a gift, but I want it to be a surprise! I don't know anything about buying new lenses, so I decided that a photography forum was a great place to go for input.

The camera she uses is a Nikon D3400, and she just has the default, adjustable lens that comes with it. She photographs a variety of subjects (landscapes and portraits), but I know she has been wanting to do more portrait photography. So... that's all the info I've got. What lens would you all suggest? I don't even know where to start with looking!

As for price range, I'm thinking a few hundred dollars, but less than $1000. Maybe somewhere in the $400-600 range? (Not sure if that's reasonable or if I'd need to spend more for a decent lens)

TLDR: What is an affordable lens for a Nikon D3400, for a beginner who wants to start focusing on portrait photography?
 
Rather than the 18-105mm - which is not a bad lens - I would recommend the AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm 1:1.4 G ED N VR, which is a great lens and will stand her in good stead for when she wants a full frame camera.

There are non-Nikon lenses that are worth looking at too but I'm not so knowledgeable about those.

Hope that helps and good luck with the dating :)
 
dating_a_photographer said:
TLDR: What is an affordable lens for a Nikon D3400, for a beginner who wants to start focusing on portrait photography?
Click to expand...

Portrait photography specifically? Then probably an 85mm f1.8: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/838798-REG/Nikon_2201_AF_S_NIKKOR_85mm_f_1_8G.html

Reason - that lens will provide shallow depth of field allowing her to isolate the subject from the background, and because it's a short telephoto it will compress perspective in the image, flattering the subjects features and reducing distortion (no big noses or funny-shaped eyes). It's a well recognised lens for that type of work, used professionally and capable of excellent image quality, and if she ever moves to a full-frame DSLR then it will also be compatible.

However her D3400 camera has a 'crop' sensor, meaning that she'll need to be fairly far away from her subjects with the 85mm lens. If she is likely to want to take pictures of then from the waist up & get a bit closer then also consider something like this 50mm f1.4 lens:https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/731082-REG/Nikon_2180B_Refurbished_AF_S_Nikkor_50mm.html It won't be quite so good for tighter portraits, but it will be a more versatile lens & the wide f1.4 aperture will allow good separation of subject & background while flattering skin that's not completely perfect. This lens is again full-frame compatible.

Well done for asking a sensible question. (y)
 
I think if you asked 100 photographers this question you'd get 100 different answers! Your price range should get something which will be a big improvement over your girlfriend's current kit lens. The classic portrait lens is a 85mm prime lens (by 'prime' I mean a lens that isn't 'adjustable' and you can't zoom in and out - but typically has better image quality than one that does zoom). without wanting to get technical, the camera your girlfriend has, has a smaller sensor than a traditional camera, so an 85mm lens would actually be more like 130mm... A 50mm lens would be equivalent to around 75mm (quite good for portraits). SO.... I would recommend a 'nifty fifty' 50mm prime lens. And to be more specific, I would recommend the Nikon AF-S 50mm 1.8g - it's well within your budget, has image quality that would blow your GF's current lens out of the water, and paired with her camera, is ideal for portraits. You could use any extra money on some accessories, or trip away to somewhere!
 
Tom Pinchenzo said:
I think if you asked 100 photographers this question you'd get 100 different answers! Your price range should get something which will be a big improvement over your girlfriend's current kit lens. The classic portrait lens is a 85mm prime lens (by 'prime' I mean a lens that isn't 'adjustable' and you can't zoom in and out - but typically has better image quality than one that does zoom). without wanting to get technical, the camera your girlfriend has, has a smaller sensor than a traditional camera, so an 85mm lens would actually be more like 130mm... A 50mm lens would be equivalent to around 75mm (quite good for portraits). SO.... I would recommend a 'nifty fifty' 50mm prime lens. And to be more specific, I would recommend the Nikon AF-S 50mm 1.8g - it's well within your budget, has image quality that would blow your GF's current lens out of the water, and paired with her camera, is ideal for portraits. You could use any extra money on some accessories, or trip away to somewhere!
Click to expand...
Good suggestion! I have the 50mm and it’s one of the most great lens out there!
 
andrewc said:
Normally the 2nd lens a photographer makes is a 70-300, but if she is interested in portraiture, then an 85mm prime (non-zoom) lens as @ancient_mariner suggested. (or really splash out and get two lenses)
Click to expand...

I think a 50mm on a crop sensor is more versatile and equally good for portraits as an 85mm. That’s quite long on a crop. Also 50mm are much cheaper!
 
Well I would say the AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm 1:1.4 G ED N VR, but then again I would also say the 85mm, just depends on what she has already got.
 
I'll avoid the usual and go with the sigma 18-35mm 1.8 Art. Just so happens its also superb for video. If I was shooting apsc it's a no brainer and I don't even like zooms.
 
Last edited:
For portraits on a crop sensor I would also suggest a 50mm prime lens, although an 85mm would work as the 127.5mm effective field of view (I know you won’t understand this) you get with it does work well, but you have be stood a fair distance back if you want full body portraits.

If you want to really get brownie points but still within budget you can get the 50mm f1.4 rather than the f1.8. The Nikon 50mm f1.4g is $446 from B&H.

The wonderful Sigma 50mm Art f1.4 Nikon mount is over budget at $949 but if you’re willing to buy used or refurbished you may find one in budget.
 
Whilst 85mm might be considered a little long for full length portrait shots, someone shooting ‘portraits’ is far more likely to be shooting head & shoulders or 3/4 and for H&S 35mm or 50mm is definitely too short.

to create ‘pleasing’ portraits requires a comfortable shooting distance, 85mm on crop is perfect IMHO but then 135 was always my favourite lens in my film days (and subsequently the first lens I bought when I bought a FF DSLR).
 
Phil V said:
Whilst 85mm might be considered a little long for full length portrait shots, someone shooting ‘portraits’ is far more likely to be shooting head & shoulders or 3/4 and for H&S 35mm or 50mm is definitely too short.

to create ‘pleasing’ portraits requires a comfortable shooting distance, 85mm on crop is perfect IMHO but then 135 was always my favourite lens in my film days (and subsequently the first lens I bought when I bought a FF DSLR).
Click to expand...
Is that fact or just preference? As you know 50mm has a 75mm fov which I don’t think is too short personally.
 
snerkler said:
Is that fact or just preference? As you know 50mm has a 75mm fov which I don’t think is too short personally.
Click to expand...

I don’t want to get into an argument on this topic .... but as a preference 50mm is too short for portraits. Fov is irrelevant when it comes to pleasing portraits. Yes - it’ll give you a similar working distance - but the compression and image rendering will still be that of a 50mm - which to many - isn’t that appealing.
 
toohuge said:
I don’t want to get into an argument on this topic .... but as a preference 50mm is too short for portraits. Fov is irrelevant when it comes to pleasing portraits. Yes - it’ll give you a similar working distance - but the compression and image rendering will still be that of a 50mm - which to many - isn’t that appealing.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure this is incorrect, compression is a result of subject distance not focal length. The fact a longer focal length requires you to be further back from the subject is what causes the compression. Therefore 75mm on FF should have the same compression as 50mm on crop (y)
 
Last edited:
The Nikon 24-70mm f2.8 G ED is a great walk about lens. may be a bit over your price range

The kit lens for her camera in the UK is the 18-55mm VR lens to give some idea
 
Last edited:
Another consideration is that not everyone is blessed with masses of room or a studio. If the OP's partner just wants to shoot family portraits in their own homes there might not be enough room to shoot with an effective focal length of 127.5mm. I know in my house I struggle with anything over 85mm on FF unless I want a very tight head shot.
 
toohuge said:
I don’t want to get into an argument on this topic .... but as a preference 50mm is too short for portraits. Fov is irrelevant when it comes to pleasing portraits. Yes - it’ll give you a similar working distance - but the compression and image rendering will still be that of a 50mm - which to many - isn’t that appealing.
Click to expand...
"Compression" is a matter of distance. You get the look of the compression by FOW
A 50mm lens on apsc will have "the look" of a 75mm lens on 24x36mm but it will still have the DOF of a 50mm since that is depending on entrance pupil and distance.
 
soeren said:
"Compression" is a matter of distance. You get the look of the compression by FOW
A 50mm lens on apsc will have "the look" of a 75mm lens on 24x36mm but it will still have the DOF of a 50mm since that is depending on entrance pupil and distance.
Click to expand...
Isn't this more related to subject distance again? Assuming the same framing 50mm 1.8 on FF will have less DOF than 50mm f1.8 on crop due to less subject distance shooting this shot with FF (y) This is why I suggested 50mm f1.4 for the OP as it will give them more shallow DOF which is what most want for portraits.
 
Seems pretty clear cut for the op then....;)

OP forgive the posters who recommend super zooms or indeed a zoom that overlaps the focal length of the lens she already has.

Any large aperture prime will do, I would advice looking at the following lenses.

Nikon or Tamron 85 1.8 (Tamron is much better but more pricey)

Nikon 50 1.4/1.8

If you’ve got deep pockets the Nikon 58 1.4 is lovely on a crop camera and gives you the classic 85mm fov.

You could also look at 60mm 2.8 macro options which again will give you the 85mm fov. (Who’s counting;))
 
snerkler said:
Isn't this more related to subject distance again? Assuming the same framing 50mm 1.8 on FF will have less DOF than 50mm f1.8 on crop due to less subject distance shooting this shot with FF (y) This is why I suggested 50mm f1.4 for the OP as it will give them more shallow DOF which is what most want for portraits.
Click to expand...
Yes thats what i meant by distance. The entrance pupil is the same but the distance is Shorter with the 24x36mm.
The shallow DOF is really a subjective matter and in general not as critical as people is lead to believe, offcource also depending on background matter and the camera-subject/camera-background distance
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Brazo said:
Seems pretty clear cut for the op then....;)

OP forgive the posters who recommend super zooms or indeed a zoom that overlaps the focal length of the lens she already has.

Any large aperture prime will do, I would advice looking at the following lenses.

Nikon or Tamron 85 1.8 (Tamron is much better but more pricey)

Nikon 50 1.4/1.8

If you’ve got deep pockets the Nikon 58 1.4 is lovely on a crop camera and gives you the classic 85mm fov.

You could also look at 60mm 2.8 macro options which again will give you the 85mm fov. (Who’s counting;))
Click to expand...

A high quality f1.8 zoom is not the same thing as a slow aperture kit lens.
 
I am going to keep my advice simple.
1) you are buying a gift so don’t go overboard as it’s a surprise gift, so unless she dropped hints about a specific lens don’t spend a fortune.
2)from the information you supplied she only has a basic DSLR with the kit lens so I would be inclined to keep the cost down.
3) if you think she will be doing more portraits indoors then look for a 35mm focal length but if she is outdoors more often then a 50mm focal length.
I am not a Nikon shooter so I can’t recommend a specific lens of that brand but perhaps another reader can recommend the f1.8 lenses in this category.
 
Bobsyeruncle said:
Get her a voucher for a local camera store and she can choose the lens that She wants :)
Click to expand...
I certainly would not want someone else choosing my kit. Surprises are not always good.
 
Mintchocs said:
I am going to keep my advice simple.
1) you are buying a gift so don’t go overboard as it’s a surprise gift, so unless she dropped hints about a specific lens don’t spend a fortune.
2)from the information you supplied she only has a basic DSLR with the kit lens so I would be inclined to keep the cost down.
3) if you think she will be doing more portraits indoors then look for a 35mm focal length but if she is outdoors more often then a 50mm focal length.
I am not a Nikon shooter so I can’t recommend a specific lens of that brand but perhaps another reader can recommend the f1.8 lenses in this category.
Click to expand...
Basic DSLRs still produce excellent IQ and will still pair nicely with a good lens.
 
Self-indulgent arguments about DoF, FoV and crop factors aside, maybe a voucher would be the best idea. Or just try and get some hints!
 
Suggest buy from a local dealer on the understanding that you may want an exchange.

Assuming that by portraits you mean solo head & shoulders with nice blurry backgrounds, 85mm f1.8 looks favourite.
 
jonbeeza said:
My Basic D3300 paired with the cheapish Nikon 35mm 1.8G produces lovely photos. (y)
Click to expand...


Exactly, modern DSLRs are all excellent so lenses is where you spend the money

With the exception of a D300 and a fuji XT3 all the many many bodies and lenses I've bought over the years have been used , the savings can be quite considerable and the upside is if you want to trade up as long as you buy right cost of ownership of pro lenses can be zero

Buy a prosumer lens new and you'll lose 50% if you want to upgrade

I'd look at used, from a dealer if not having a warranty bothers you

85mm f/1.4 IMO would be the ultimate portrait lens

Don't know anything about either dealer, just googled USA used dealer

$1600 new

https://www.adorama.com/l/?searchinfo=nikon+85mm+f/1.4&sel=Item-Condition_New-Items

or

https://www.keh.com/shop/nikon-2195-85-mm-f-1-4-telephoto-lens-for-nikon-f.html

Or Screenshot_2020-04-23 Nikon Nikkor 85mm F 1 4 G AF-S Autofocus Lens {77} - Used SLR DSLR lens...png
 
Last edited:
Having had a very similar camera (the slightly older D3300), two lenses I would personally avoid, due to disappointing experiences with both, would be the 35mm f1.8 DX version, and the 50mm f1.4G. I had two of the 35mm lens, and one was terrible, the other was just poor. Pictures weren't sharp enough for my liking. The same with the 50mm f1.4G; it isn't very sharp with the aperture fully open, and not really acceptable (to me) until you stop down to f4 or so. Which makes spending all the extra money a complete waste of time really. The 50mm f1.8G version is, by all accounts, and better lens. And a lot cheaper.

For your budget, the Nikon 60mm f2.8 Micro might be a really nice surprise for your partner. It is a 'macro' type lens, meaning it can focus much closer than most other lenses, and you can achieve a 1:1 or 'life size' reproduction with it. Great for flowers/plants, insects, small details etc. Opens up a whole new word of viewing things. Plus, it's also great for portraits; it's not a 'portrait' lens, but it's very sharp, and the f2.8 aperture is sufficient to blur the background enough to make a subject 'stand out', particularly on full face shots.

Whilst others are suggesting 'faster' portrait lenses, such as the 50 and 85mm lenses, for someone learning, lenses with such large apertures, whilst desirable, are trickier to use. The large aperture means you have very little depth of field, and a smaller aperture such as f2.8 will actually be preferable, to get more DoF and sharpness; with say f1.4 or 1.8, if the subject isn't exactly square on to the camera, one eye can be in sharp focus, but the other, not. Plus noses and ears can be out of focus. So the 60mm Micro lens might actually be easier to use, and get consistently better results. It's definitely a more 'fun' lens, in my opinion.

Beyond that; a longer 'telephoto' zoom would be nice; you can still take excellent portraits with it, and the extra 'reach' makes getting 'closer' to the subject easier.
 
AZ6 said:
Having had a very similar camera (the slightly older D3300), two lenses I would personally avoid, due to disappointing experiences with both, would be the 35mm f1.8 DX version, and the 50mm f1.4G. I had two of the 35mm lens, and one was terrible, the other was just poor. Pictures weren't sharp enough for my liking. The same with the 50mm f1.4G; it isn't very sharp with the aperture fully open, and not really acceptable (to me) until you stop down to f4 or so. Which makes spending all the extra money a complete waste of time really. The 50mm f1.8G version is, by all accounts, and better lens. And a lot cheaper.

For your budget, the Nikon 60mm f2.8 Micro might be a really nice surprise for your partner. It is a 'macro' type lens, meaning it can focus much closer than most other lenses, and you can achieve a 1:1 or 'life size' reproduction with it. Great for flowers/plants, insects, small details etc. Opens up a whole new word of viewing things. Plus, it's also great for portraits; it's not a 'portrait' lens, but it's very sharp, and the f2.8 aperture is sufficient to blur the background enough to make a subject 'stand out', particularly on full face shots.

Whilst others are suggesting 'faster' portrait lenses, such as the 50 and 85mm lenses, for someone learning, lenses with such large apertures, whilst desirable, are trickier to use. The large aperture means you have very little depth of field, and a smaller aperture such as f2.8 will actually be preferable, to get more DoF and sharpness; with say f1.4 or 1.8, if the subject isn't exactly square on to the camera, one eye can be in sharp focus, but the other, not. Plus noses and ears can be out of focus. So the 60mm Micro lens might actually be easier to use, and get consistently better results. It's definitely a more 'fun' lens, in my opinion.

Beyond that; a longer 'telephoto' zoom would be nice; you can still take excellent portraits with it, and the extra 'reach' makes getting 'closer' to the subject easier.
Click to expand...
I’ve heard the Nikon 50mm 1.4g isn’t as good as the 1.8g, which is excellent.
 
AZ6 said:
Having had a very similar camera (the slightly older D3300), two lenses I would personally avoid, due to disappointing experiences with both, would be the 35mm f1.8 DX version, and the 50mm f1.4G. I had two of the 35mm lens, and one was terrible, the other was just poor. Pictures weren't sharp enough for my liking. The same with the 50mm f1.4G; it isn't very sharp with the aperture fully open, and not really acceptable (to me) until you stop down to f4 or so. Which makes spending all the extra money a complete waste of time really. The 50mm f1.8G version is, by all accounts, and better lens. And a lot cheaper.

For your budget, the Nikon 60mm f2.8 Micro might be a really nice surprise for your partner. It is a 'macro' type lens, meaning it can focus much closer than most other lenses, and you can achieve a 1:1 or 'life size' reproduction with it. Great for flowers/plants, insects, small details etc. Opens up a whole new word of viewing things. Plus, it's also great for portraits; it's not a 'portrait' lens, but it's very sharp, and the f2.8 aperture is sufficient to blur the background enough to make a subject 'stand out', particularly on full face shots.

Whilst others are suggesting 'faster' portrait lenses, such as the 50 and 85mm lenses, for someone learning, lenses with such large apertures, whilst desirable, are trickier to use. The large aperture means you have very little depth of field, and a smaller aperture such as f2.8 will actually be preferable, to get more DoF and sharpness; with say f1.4 or 1.8, if the subject isn't exactly square on to the camera, one eye can be in sharp focus, but the other, not. Plus noses and ears can be out of focus. So the 60mm Micro lens might actually be easier to use, and get consistently better results. It's definitely a more 'fun' lens, in my opinion.

Beyond that; a longer 'telephoto' zoom would be nice; you can still take excellent portraits with it, and the extra 'reach' makes getting 'closer' to the subject easier.
Click to expand...
I think based on discussions from other threads your 50mm f1.4 was likely a duff copy tbh.
Tom Pinchenzo said:
I’ve heard the Nikon 50mm 1.4g isn’t as good as the 1.8g, which is excellent.
Click to expand...
In terms of sharpness it’s fractionally behind the 50mm f1.8G but as we all know there’s more to a lens than sharpness. Both are very good lenses but the reason I would suggest the f1.4 on a crop body is that f1.8 on crop body doesn’t offer ‘that much’ subject isolation.

If you want sharpness then the Sigma Art 50mm would be the one to go for, but it’s twice the price, and it’s pretty heavy.
 
We have to remember here lads, the OP is not a photographer, and barring ruining the surprise by throwing all this info at her and asking her preference, it's best to keep it very simple. The person he's buying for is also a beginner - so something like a 50mm 1.8 is ideal IMO. I suggested this, and if he is willing to use up the whole budget a new camera is a good idea to go with - I know when I started out a new camera meant more to me than the lenses I used, that comes with time and more experience. If this works out, and I think the initial surprise would be more effective, then she can sell on the 3400 and buy another lens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top