D7000 Portrait Lens

bmilcs

Senior Member
Ah yes. Once again, the portrait question with a cropped sensor. I started with the 35mm and love it. I use it most of the time.

Now I've heard the 50 vs 85 1.8 arguments. What do you prefer to shoot portraits with and different why??

Pics appreciated.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
For a portrait lens I'd go with the 85mm, hands down.

Why? Less of everything you don't want (chromatic aberration, distortion) and more of everything you do (it's sharper and offers a more focal length creating an easier working distance). Simply put, while 50mm is an okay focal length for shooting portraits, the 50mm f/1.8G is NOT a portrait lens.

....
 

STM

Senior Member
I agree wholeheartedly bmilcs (sorry, I don't know your name!) with on the 85mm focal length. Even though the 50mm works out to around 75mm on a DX camera, the focal length can still give you some perspective distortion if you move in closely for a head and shoulders shot. If the subject already has a prominent nose or chin, it could make them look like Jimmy Durante or Jay Leno! The general rule of thumb for portraiture is to try to stay at or above a focal length of 85mm. For headshots on 35mm or FX, I use an 85mm f/1.4 or 105 f/1.8 and opt most times for the 105mm. The only time I will go with something shorter is if it is a group and my space is limited. But you would then be far enough away from the subjects that the distortion will not be apparent.
 
Last edited:

Vincent

Senior Member
What about a 70-200?

Where I come from, I did pictures of my parents for an anniversary.
I had the 50mm f1,8 and the 70-200 f2,8 on a D7000.
Indoors I just did not have the place for the 50mm, so I had to do a lot of compromise. I had to forget the 70-200mm all together.

My conclusion was indeed, choose a site with a lot of space and go for the 85mm or the 70-200mm.
If you do not have the space, the 35mm and the 50mm will not be ideal for lens properties, but will get the best results.
 

WayneF

Senior Member
Now I've heard the 50 vs 85 1.8 arguments. What do you prefer to shoot portraits with and different why??

"Portraits" has many meanings. Head and shoulders? Waist up? Full length? Group shots?

Focal length depends on the view you want to show. Saying, of course there is no one answer.

There is however a very useful rule about perspective in portraits - to not stand too close (enlarges near noses, etc). Ideally, in every case, you want to stand back at least 6 or 8 feet from the subject. That makes 50mm too short for head and shoulders (70 mm would be DX equivalent of the classic 105mm for FX and 35mm film - speaking of head shots).

But of course, a wider lens is necessary for wider views. Still stand back a few feet for proper perspective.

If you have a zoom, you can use it to study the views you get from 6 or 8 feet, and consider the usefulness of that focal length for various subjects.
 

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
On D7000, the 24-70 2.8 can serve as a great portrait lens. Specially for the creamy bokeh it can produce and the versatility of the zoom.
 

bmilcs

Senior Member
Thanks for the input guys.

What I mean by portraits is head/shoulders.. maybe torso. I yearn for that creamy bokeh and flattering angle.

I knew that 50mm isn't a true portrait lens but on cropped, yes, it's 75mm. Thank you though for the input!

It just feels weird skipping out on a nifty fifty altogether.
 

Englischdude

Senior Member
check my signature and you will see I have all three. Hands down and without a shadow of doubt, if I want to shoot pure head n shoulder portraits the 85mm comes with me, all the rest stay at home. Dont think about it anymore, get the 85, you'll fall in love with it and weld it onto your d7k ;)
 

WayneF

Senior Member
The number 50 mm was only historically important, in relation to 35mm film... The film diagonal size (43 mm) was near 50 mm, so 50 mm was considered a "normal lens" (a round number, with a field of view comparable to what the eye thought it remembered seeing there). In the old days, 35 mm cameras without interchangable lenses had 50 mm lenses on them, and the standard interchangeable lens was 50mm. Considered a "normal" view. This for 35m film size of course.

But not the same thing on DX, with a 29mm diagonal, which would imply about a 35mm lens would be much more useful "normally".
The 50mm is a mild telephoto lens on DX.

There are new lenses available now for DX.
 
Last edited:

bmilcs

Senior Member
Thanks fellas. I set my zoom to 85 and it is a great perspective for taking head and shoulders no doubt.

The quality of my zoom is really bad compared to my primes so it's hard to picture it performing like my 35mm.
 

Vincent

Senior Member
Thanks fellas. I set my zoom to 85 and it is a great perspective for taking head and shoulders no doubt.

The quality of my zoom is really bad compared to my primes so it's hard to picture it performing like my 35mm.

I guess you got the idea, you can see with this if 85mm is a workable focus length for you, you will never be able to see the effect of quality of the 85mm.

I did a quick Nikon lens simulator:
35mm.jpg50mm.jpg85mm.jpg

It is quite a jump from 35mm to 85mm, but it might work for you
 

bmilcs

Senior Member
So, I went ahead and picked up a used 50mm 1.8g. The AF seems to be off a bit but after nailing the fine tune, it seems to be a great lens. Much like my 35mm 1.8g. The BOKEH is undoubtedly better. Gorgeous :)

The 85mm is still in my scope but I'm leaning more towards lighting now. I'd love to invest in a nice lighting setup for small product photography.

Would umbrellas and speedlights improve my small product shots --- moving away from my $15 lightbox made @ Walmart with static daylight bulbs?
 

bmilcs

Senior Member
I can definitely see why 50mm 1.8g was not recommended for portrait photography. I wanted the 85mm but I didn't have the funds for it at the time. The 50mm feels rather awkward on APS-C as stated above. The used price tag was too much to bear on the 50 1.8 but I'm regretting the decision and plan on selling it.

Your suggestions were spot on fellas. I will be looking into the 85mm sometime soon.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
I can definitely see why 50mm 1.8g was not recommended for portrait photography. I wanted the 85mm but I didn't have the funds for it at the time. The 50mm feels rather awkward on APS-C as stated above. The used price tag was too much to bear on the 50 1.8 but I'm regretting the decision and plan on selling it.

Your suggestions were spot on fellas. I will be looking into the 85mm sometime soon.
The Nikon website has 85mm f/1.8G refurbs for just under $400, if it helps.

....
 
Top