Inexpensive portrait lens for Nikon body

[Alan Gales]

I run into the "you need an 85mm-135mm lens for portrait argument on FB (digital groups) all the time. I then post a photo of a great portrait shot on a Pentax 6x7 with the 45mm. [not my photo, but did get permission]

That lens is a bit wide being close to a 24mm lens on a 35mm camera but of course it can be done. I've seen fantastic portraits done with wide angle lenses.

Personally, I prefer primes for portraiture but I have used zooms. I shot my wife's corporate photo with a dslr and zoom lens. It's now on the company's website.

 

[John_Nikon_F]

If the AF requirement can be lifted, I have a fairly decent 85/1.8 that I'm selling here on APUG for $150, plus shipping. Has the factory AI ring installed. Final version of the 85/1.8 non-AF version with rubber focusing ring, multicoated glass, etc.

-J

 

[skorpiius]

You need to decide which focal length you want first. An 85mm, 105mm and 135mm all give a different look due to the varying amount of compression. There is no right or wrong answer. Just which you prefer. Also consider how much room you have to work with. Indoors with a 135 can get cramped depending upon the amount of room you have.

http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm

Useful site.

I have to admit that I prefer 200mm+ in that line up. I wonder if 85-135 has been selected as 'Portrait lens' due being the perfect focal length, or if it was more a compromise that was decently flattering without you having to be too far away from the subject?

 

[removed account4]

its too bad the OP hasn't returned back to the thread ...

 

[Alan Gales]

Useful site.

I have to admit that I prefer 200mm+ in that line up. I wonder if 85-135 has been selected as 'Portrait lens' due being the perfect focal length, or if it was more a compromise that was decently flattering without you having to be too far away from the subject?

I used to use my 180mm for shooting little kids playing outdoors. I was far enough away that they didn't pay attention to me. I've seen video of pros shooting women on the beach using long lenses like you do.

For the traditional portrait indoors with studio strobes you don't usually have enough room for those long focal lengths though. I think you are right that this has something to do with the 85-135 being considered the perfect portrait length. Also many think the amount of compression is more pleasing.

Some photographers like to be more intimate with their subjects and some like a little distance to breath. Some like the more roundness you get with a shorter focal length and some like to flatten their subject more. It all comes down to personal preference and which looks better with your subject. Truth be told, any lens can be used as a portrait lens.

 

[skorpiius]

^^^ I was just reading an article about portrait lenses and yes it indicates the fact that 200mm requires far too much distance in a studio is one reason it's not part of that range, as well they tend to be pretty big and heavy. Great for outdoor shots though. I'd be curious how much of an improvement a 85, 100, or 135 image quality would be compared to my 70-200 2.8 zoom. The zoom is a beast though...

 

[Alan Gales]

^^^ I'd be curious how much of an improvement a 85, 100, or 135 image quality would be compared to my 70-200 2.8 zoom. The zoom is a beast though...

On a tripod I would say none. If it's a beast though it is harder to hold steady when shooting hand held.

 

[M Carter]

Just one portrait lens and got no money? I'd say the Series E 100 2.8. Not a perfect lens by any means but a sleeper for the $$. I wouldn't want a 3.5 lens for those kind of shots (sure, I might shoot something at F4 or 5.6, but I'd be more likely to want 2.8 or 1.8).

I've been very happy with the 85 1.8 AF. Maybe I got a good sample, but it's a good performer. It's my go-to interview (video) lens on any camera I can get a Nikon mounted. I see them under $300 used.

An 80-200 push-pull can be found for under $200 these days. Lens has some mojo. No problems handheld if you can get the shutter speed up; I tend to extend my tripod and just lean my lens-hand on the head. (And man... its another killer video lens, though I guess I'll get myself banned in a minute if I keep that up... probably shouldn't go into how amazing 1960's FL lenses look on a modern Samsung NX1 in 4K... but mercy, it's gorgeous. I need an 85FL stat...)

 

[flavio81]

The inexpensive answer is use a Canon FD body like an AE-1 program or a FT QL/FTb specifically for portraits. No AF, but you can use either a FD 135 2.5 lens on it ($60 for the lens) or a really, really good FD 85 1.8 ($200). Trust me, I tried every Nikon lens from 85 to 105 known to man and none of them were as good as these Canons, which are pretty close to the Leica R.

Momus,

You should not write these kind of posts or you'll drive the Canon FD lens prices up. Greeting from a Canon FD/FL/R fan which of course owns the 135/2.5.

Now, to be honest, I can recommend some lenses on the Nikon system that are, in terms of image smoothness/bokeh/portrait quality, as good as any Canon counterpart, so the OP can stay within the Nikon system, an excellent brand with so many great camera bodies. Besides the 105/2.5, which has a deserved reputation, i would suggest:

- The pre-AI 50/2.0 lens. Here Nikon > Canon at least in doing a 50mm lens that is )1) sharp, (2) small and and (3) with great bokeh. The Canon FD/FL system's standard lenses give you only 2 of these 3 qualities at a given lens.
- The pre-AI 135/3.5 is just great, and I prefer the 135mm length for portraits, after having spend good money on a Canon EF 85/1.8 (which is as close to a PERFECT lens can be), and a Canon FD 100/2.8. Those two are perfect lenses but at the end i find the 135mm focal length better than the 85 and 135 for portraits, once you can get enough physical space to be able to use it.
- The pre-AI 200/4.0 has amazing bokeh. I now own the 200/4.0 AI version which is damn sharp, but it is a bit more expensive.

There is a fourth Nikon lens that is the Nikkor manual standard lens with the best bokeh ever, but I will not mention which lens it is, because I don't want prices to go up.