I'm a photo hobbyist and I'm wondering what might be a suitable lens for basic portraiture work. I would be doing this with a full frame camera and have been considering the 50mm 1.4G lens. I'm sure there are better choices however I'm thinking that this might be a good lens to start with. Any advise would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
If you are talking about indoors with not a bunch of room to place between you and the subject, an 85mm prime or the 105 DC is a great lens. If you are shooting outside i tend to like longer lenses it compresses things a bit more which tends to be more flattering for portrait work.
I personally use a 200 2.8 (right now I use Canon). I had the Nikon 180 2.8 and it was a stellar lens for portrait work.
You can always get the best of both worlds and get a 70-200 or 80-200 2.8. I used to own the 80-200 2.8 push/pull. Old school but cheap and rendered amazing files.....My 2 cents
I kind of miss it over here in Nikon land....might have to do something about that.
A 50mm will work well for portraits of couples, but for a single person the 85mm length is the classic. The very best 85mm out there at the moment is the Sigma 85mm f1.4. Not only is the price great, it gives you a bit more flexibility with f1.4 instead of the consumer grade f1.8. For what it's worth, almost ALL of the full time pro photographers I know are using the 70-200mm f2.8 as their portrait lens. It's very fast, image quality is superb, and it has much more flexibility than a fixed lens. If I were doing portraits full time, that's definitelhy what I'd be using and I would just skip the 85mm.
I have the 85 1.4 G, but, for the price the 85 1.8G is a good choice. You might also consider the 105 2.8 VR Micro. It has great IQ and gives you the versatility of a macro lens.
Two23 wrote:
A 50mm will work well for portraits of couples, but for a single person the 85mm length is the classic. The very best 85mm out there at the moment is the Sigma 85mm f1.4. Not only is the price great, it gives you a bit more flexibility with f1.4 instead of the consumer grade f1.8. For what it's worth, almost ALL of the full time pro photographers I know are using the 70-200mm f2.8 as their portrait lens. It's very fast, image quality is superb, and it has much more flexibility than a fixed lens. If I were doing portraits full time, that's definitelhy what I'd be using and I would just skip the 85mm.
roland hale wrote:
They were referring to the 1.8G, which is on sale for $396. The Sigma beats the Nikon 1.4G in price, but not the 1.8.
I stand corrected. If best-bang-for-buck is the criteria, well, yeah, I'd have to concede that it'd be harder than an 85mm f/1.8.
But having the extra almost full-stop of f/1.4 vs. f/1.8 is nice. If I didn't make my living from this, though- well, it would depend on how secure my employment was.
rovin47 wrote:
I'm a photo hobbyist and I'm wondering what might be a suitable lens for basic portraiture work. I would be doing this with a full frame camera and have been considering the 50mm 1.4G lens.
What are you shooting (lens wise) today? What sort of portrait style are you considering?
I'm sure many of us are responding with a slightly longer focal length given you framed the question as basic "portraiture" which sounds more formal than candids or environmental portraiture. That's not to say the 85 on FX can't be used for candids:
If you are shooting full frame, my feeling is you'll be happier you bought the Nikkor 85/1.8G over the 50mm 1.4G.
The 85/1.8 is a great lens and available at Canadian retailers like Aden Camera for ~ 435.00 CAD. Not quite the deal currently available in the U.S. but better than what they usually sell for in the U.S.
I briefly owned a 50/1.4G and returned it, and returned a second copy - I wasn't happy with how it performed wide open. I have no complaints whatsoever about the 85/1.8G.
