Len for D3100

russ8585

Suspended / Banned
Messages
40
Edit My Images
No
Im a student and been working with the d3100 with a kit len (18-55mm VR Lens) for a while. Thinking its about time to move up to a better one.

My main interest is portraiture but I'd like something that's also a bit flexible and can be used for other photography too.

I don't know too much about lens yet so any advice would be great.
 
What sort of budget do you have?

Maybe a 35mm or 50mm prime?
 
For portrait I would agree with above get the 50mm afs one, the cheaper D will not autofocus on your d3100. If the is more than look at the 35mm one.
 
I use a D3100 and a 50mm 1.8D. I find the manual focus helps me on portraits as I can stop worrying about what the camera AF is thinking and trust what I see in the viewfinder. Havent tried the 1.8AFS and appreciate it can be switched to manual but nothing wrong with 50mm 1.8D IMO.
 
The first proper lens I got after the kit lens was the 50mm f1.4 AF-S and it was very very good on my D3000 although soon people want something wider, for head shots though its spot on!
 
35 1.8g for wider street shots and portraits. 50 1.8g or d for more portrait only shots. the so isnt really wide enough for street shots for example.
 
russ8585 said:
would a 35 work for full body portraits?

Depends how far away you stand. Set your kit lens to 35mm and see how things look.
 
Tunbridge said:
Depends how far away you stand. Set your kit lens to 35mm and see how things look.

This is exactly what I did when I was deciding between 35mm and 50mm. I opted for AF-S 35mm f/1.8 and have never looked back.
 
Your kit lens covers both of the usual suspects' focal lengths. Either (or even both!) look back at your previous work and see which length you use most for the type of thing that most takes yor interest or tape the zoom ring at both lengths and see which you prefer. Once you know which focal length you're after, you need to decide on the aperture you want. IMO (and I may well get shot down for expressing MY opinion!), ultra shallow depths of field don't make for pleasing portraits - I would far prefer to see the eyes and the nose in focus rather than just a mm or so of eye. Therefore, IMO, you'll be better off with an f/1.8 (or even slower) lens than you will be with an f/1.4 (or even f/1.2).

You could also consider one of the slightly slower zooms - plenty of f/2.8s available to cover the focal length range. I sometimes use my 24-70 f/2.8 Sigma for people shots (don't really do portraits as such) - plenty fast enough for my needs and enough DoF to keep most features acceptably sharp when focussed on the eyes. Far more versatile than a prime and I often find myself in situations where footzoom (moving to alter the field of view) isn't an option (can't walk through walls and I'm Nod, not god so can't walkon water...) 24mm isn't too flattering for face portraits (but can be used for slightly comedic affect!) but from 30mm upwards, it's fine.
 
Back
Top