What is a good portrait lens for a d3100
- Thread starter bub307
- Start date
A little long for my taste in DX, but for the price and the macro features go for it. The other lens that is simply brilliant for portraits in the DX format is the famous 50 1.8 G.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
I like shooting portraits at 85mm, minimum. The 85mm f/1.8G is great for head and shoulders portraits indoors or out; it gives you a good, comfortable working distance and no perceptible distortion. If I'm shooting outdoors, and have some room to work with, I really prefer to shoot at 100-200mm for better compression.
....
....
Could I see some pictures?
Patrick M
Senior Member
I use the AF-S DX NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G
It's a nice lens, quite light in weight, and as a newby I wanted something not too expensive. That was 3 years ago and on a D80....then on my D3100 and now on my D7100.
I've been pretty pleased with this little lens....never felt the need to get anything better.
It's a nice lens, quite light in weight, and as a newby I wanted something not too expensive. That was 3 years ago and on a D80....then on my D3100 and now on my D7100.
I've been pretty pleased with this little lens....never felt the need to get anything better.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
Just to clarify, when I say the 50mm is not a portrait lens I'm referring specifically to shooting head, head & shoulder shots on up to about half-body portraits. It wouldn't be my first choice for three-quarter body shots either but it's passable. Anything beyond that, as in full-body shots or wider, sure; use your "Nifty 50" (with alacrity!)
The main reason I say this, again, is because the 50mm focal length simply does not create enough compression. That lack of compression creates perspective issues and introduces unflattering distortion, especially in head/H&S shots. The other issue is working distance. To get good H&S portraits with a 50mm you need to be about six feet away from your subject and that's simply not enough. It's awkward for the photographer and it's too "all up" in your subjects personal space. Using an 85mm you should be able to get good H&S shots ten or twelve feet from your subject; a much more comfortable working distance for all.
...
The main reason I say this, again, is because the 50mm focal length simply does not create enough compression. That lack of compression creates perspective issues and introduces unflattering distortion, especially in head/H&S shots. The other issue is working distance. To get good H&S portraits with a 50mm you need to be about six feet away from your subject and that's simply not enough. It's awkward for the photographer and it's too "all up" in your subjects personal space. Using an 85mm you should be able to get good H&S shots ten or twelve feet from your subject; a much more comfortable working distance for all.
...
Just asking new to this why wouldn't the 90mm work are they that much difference?
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
90mm would be fine. At nearly twice the FL of the 50mm, I'd shoot portraits at 90mm in a heartbeat.
....
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
No, that's not what I'm saying...
I'm saying 90mm is a perfectly acceptable focal length for portraits; I'm not suggesting a particular lens. I don't know enough about the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 to comment on it specifically but assuming it's a good, sharp shooting lens with no issues (distortion, CA, etc.) then it sounds like it would be a fine choice. I am partial to lenses with faster apertures like f/2.8's and such. The Nikon 85mm f/1.8G would be my first suggestion for a portrait lens if I had no other information to go on, but that's not meant to imply I'm ruling out the Tamron.
....
Depending on the condition of the lens, $250 is a good price for a used tamron 90mm f2.8. I paid $300 for mine. It is a very good lens.
Check out the photos in here: https://www.flickr.com/groups/tamronsp90/
And like HF, I would recommend the 85mm f1.8g for portraits.
Check out the photos in here: https://www.flickr.com/groups/tamronsp90/
And like HF, I would recommend the 85mm f1.8g for portraits.
Last edited:
I fully agree, the one important thing for portrait lenses is to choose the lens that lets you stand at least six feet away. Eight or ten feet is better. Four feet is too d*** close.
Standing closer than six feet causes perspective distortions (noses appear too large, etc), and there is simply no reason to do that to your portrait subject. The subjects won't like the results.105mm was classically considered the portrait lens for 35mm film, because even for head and shoulders, it simply forced standing back that far. The DX equivalent is 70 mm. Of course, we do need a wider lens for full length portraits, and of course groups, but the rule ought to be "always stand at least six feet back". This, and the view that you seek, determines the lens focal length you need to use.
The word portrait can mean many things... from tight head shots to standing full length, or even groups. Use the lens that simply gives the desired view when you always stand at least six feet back. Eight or ten feet back is better.
With camera up on end in portrait orientation, a lens with 35mm focal length on a DX camera at six feet has a frame view of four feet. Is a four foot height of view your goal? If not, you need a longer lens. 60 or 70 mm will be better for "waist up" portraits. 70mm DX has a portrait height view of two feet (standing at six feet).
Here is some good information:
https://www.photoflex.com/liteblog/...he-face-controls-perspective-a-lighting-tutor
Two clarifications it needs:
1. This shows a "35mm camera", i.e., FX. A DX camera equivalent would be a shorter lens, this focal length / 1.5 (i.e., 70mm DX or 105mm FX).
2. The lens focal length does NOT determine perspective. The lens merely shows what it sees.
Where the camera stands is what changes and determines perspective (how large the noses look, etc, and at least six feet is a good thing).
The lens focal length merely determines where the camera has to stand. Use the lens that allows you to stand where you need to stand, at least six feet back for portraits.
Last edited:
Congratulations! It should work well for you!
I agree with HF. It's because you have a DX body that makes 85mm-90mm more difficult to use in small areas, but I'd go with it over a 50mm for a portrait lens, too.
Here's my take on it...in general, 85mm-105mm tend to be the classic focal lengths for portraiture. And there will be people who disagree. 85mm *should* be the minimum focal length for portraits. Here's why...50mm is considered a normal lens. Anything lower then 50mm will start to bring in perspective distortion. Most likely you've seen some caricature photos...the ones where people's noses are two sizes too long for their faces, haven't you? When you get a little too close with 50mm or lower focal lengths, noses start to resemble Pinocchio's nose.
That's why telephoto lenses work better for portraits than wide angle lenses. And when you start going too long...such as 200mm or more, then you get into too much compression and the perspective distortion starts to become the opposite of wide angle lenses.
Now here's the problem you may encounter with your DX camera coupled with the 90mm lens: it will produce awesome portraits...you just need to be sure you have enough working distance between you and your subject. Because it is a DX body, the portrait will fill the viewfinder so you need to back up more than if you were using an FX camera. So I'd say the biggest disadvantage to using a DX camera is that you need more distance between your subject and your camera than if you were shooting with an FX body. That said...I'd choose the 90mm lens coupled with a DX body over a 50mm or less lens any day for portraits. You made an excellent choice. Now have some fun with it.