tamron 90mm or nikon 50mm

D

djnash

Messages
5
Name
Darren
Edit My Images
No
hi all im new here and newish to the photography scene.

Im looking to do some portrait photography and currently have a nikon d90 and a nikon d3100. now the question is I already have a tamron 90mm macro lens so would you use this or would you prefer to use a nikon 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 or would you use another lens if so what would it be? As im only using it to take pictures of my new born twins and other friends and family pictures so im not looking to go pro and make a living from it so my budget will be around £300.

thanks in advance:)
 
To be honest, I found the 90mm to be a bit long for portraits on a crop body - a 50mm would probably suit better. The extra stop or two would help with indoor shooting too. An older f/1.8 or even f/1.4 shouldn't be over your budget if you're willing to consider 2nd hand kit but for the D3100 you'll need a newer AF-S (or Sigma HSM) lens (which will also work well on the D90.)
 
thanks for the reply, i was looking to use the d90 as it seems to take better pictures so would you suggest the nikon 50mm 1.4d AF OR the 1.4g AF-S?
 
Yes! Buying both would be an unnecessary extravagance!!! The f/1.8 (of either variety) would be a good choice too (and a bit cheaper).
 
so if it was you and you had a d90 which one would you buy yourself? sorry for all the questions.
 
What about the Nikon 35mm f1.8 , very good for low light and kids. If you dont want a prime have a look at the Tamron 17 - 50 f2.8.

I have just bought one and am very happy with it on my D90.
 
not sure on the 35mm,i was told that a 50mm 1.4 would be better for portrait? confused on which one to go for now lol
 
djnash said:
so if it was you and you had a d90 which one would you buy yourself? sorry for all the questions.
Click to expand...

I'd buy the 50mm f1.8g af-s, as that is what I have, i'd also buy the 35mm f1.8g as both of them lenses can be had for what the 50mm 1.4g af-s costs:cool:

The 50mm f1.8g af-s is newer and seems better than the 1.4g version according to most youtube reviews of both lenses.
 
Last edited:
djnash said:
not sure on the 35mm,i was told that a 50mm 1.4 would be better for portrait? confused on which one to go for now lol
Click to expand...

That is true. The 50mm F1.8D is not a bad lens. Also it can be picked up under £100 used. Might be worth giving this a try, one issue with the D is will not auto focus on the D3100.

Do you have any shops near you to go and try out the 1.4 ?
 
djnash said:
so if it was you and you had a d90 which one would you buy yourself? sorry for all the questions.
Click to expand...

When I only had the D70 (and film bodies) I liked the perspective the 50mm gave on the crop body for portraits which was similar to that given by the 90mm of 35mm film (I had both, the Tamron 90mm and the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8). Personally, I'm not a great fan of the ultra shallow depth of field the wider f/1.4 allows but the extra 1/2 stop or so might be handy.

I still have the 50mm f/1.8 but the 90mm Tamron (f/2.8) has been sold on to make way for a Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 Macro. Not because the Tamron wasn't very (VERY!) good but because I had bad GAS late last year and it could only be put into remission with the 105 VR!!!
 
looking at the price, there is a big jump from the 1.4 and 1.8 and it does look like the 1.8 gives a better image so i may go for the 50mm 1.8 af-s so it can be used on both bodies.
 
Yup, for use on both bodies, I would go for an AF-S lens to keep AF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top