DX portrait lens suggestions

D

Dmac60

Suspended / Banned
Messages
131
Edit My Images
Yes
I current use the 50mm 1.8G as my "head & shoulders/baby portrait" lens, it's got me some great shots indoors. I'm thinking trying out the 85 1.8g for outdoor portrait and to use a mild telephoto (it would be the longest lens in my bag). Is there anything else I should be considering that would be a good step up on my 50 1.8G and is relatively light weight?
 
Last edited:
Have a look at either the 35mm F/1.8 (if you want to experiment with more intimate portraits) or the 85mm F/1.8 as you've already looked at.

To be honest, the 50mm is an awesome lens, the 85 is just as fantastic.
 
Thanks for the suggestions, I thought about the Tamron, but can't see it being much better than my 50 1.8, although the macro capability is nice.
I've tried the 35mm, but don't fancy it. The other option I'm thinking of is the 105 micro ... although probably a little too long?
 
The 105 isn't that long, on a DX it's probably quite tele, but you'll still find you're in the sharpest bits of the glass so it may be worth a shot. Just remember you're zooming with your feet, and 20mm isn't really that much!
 
farrance said:
The 105 isn't that long, on a DX it's probably quite tele, but you'll still find you're in the sharpest bits of the glass so it may be worth a shot. Just remember you're zooming with your feet, and 20mm isn't really that much!
Click to expand...

I think I probably will, my lens set would be:

17-50, 50 1.8g, 105 2.8 micro which should have me pretty well covered and give me a faster prime for indoors.

the other setup I was thinking of was:
17-50, 40 28 micro, 85 1.8 ... slower prime indoors, but perhaps a little more flexible.
 
I would personally do the first option, You'll have the ability of doing mild telephoto work with the 105, the 50 can be the portrait lens, as with the crop it does work out at 75mm and the 17-50 is the all day lens.
 
For outdoor portraits, longer is better. It provides better separation by creating less *apparent* DOF and including less of the BG in the shot. 50mm on DX is a s short as I would want to go for headshots regardless. Working any closer will cause perspective shifts (distortion).

IMO, longer is also better for macro work...so if you are looking in that direction I might suggest the Sigma 150mm macro used. It's one of very few prime lenses I own.
 
I definitely suggest 85mm f/1.8 G, it's a really nice lens, but might take awhile to get used to the distance, also i find the bokeh on the 85mm 1.8 a little nicer than the one on the 50mm 1.8.
 
This Sigma is an interesting option that I hadn't considered ... although it might be too much of a beast attached to a D5100 ... decisions, decisions - I might have to try them all!
 
Thanks - nice gallery :thumbs: Think I'll rule out MF only. The 105 looks like it might be the sensible option. Although there as some amazing images out there with the Sigma 85 1.4 and there's a used one for sale locally ... the new Tamron 90 looks interesting too, if a bit pricey. :thinking:
 
Last edited:
I ended up picking a Tamron 90mm macro - I've just got it, but it looks like it's going to be a cracking lens. It's probably not quite as razor sharp as the newer Nikon primes, but it's not far off and has beautiful bokeh. Based on reviews I'd read I was expecting the AF to be very slow, but I'd say it's no slower than the Nikon 40 2.8 ... although obviously it's no speed demon and it is loud. Thanks for all the suggestions above!
 
For my portrait work i use the 50mm 1.8d and the 85mm 1.8d im really please with both of these lenses for that kind of work. Next on my list is the 105mm macro which will be great for portrait and obversy macro.

If you want a zoom i have heard good things about the 24-120 f4 slightly longer on a dx bodie though.
 
Dmac60 said:
I ended up picking a Tamron 90mm macro - I've just got it, but it looks like it's going to be a cracking lens. It's probably not quite as razor sharp as the newer Nikon primes, but it's not far off and has beautiful bokeh. Based on reviews I'd read I was expecting the AF to be very slow, but I'd say it's no slower than the Nikon 40 2.8 ... although obviously it's no speed demon and it is loud. Thanks for all the suggestions above!
Click to expand...

The Tamron 90 mm is a great lens in all its incarnations but the latest version is a bit pricey! Last time I looked, it was almost as expensive as the Nikkor 105 VR!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top