donaldjledet
Senior Member
Here are a couple from the Nikkor 85mm 1.8G
Advice needed on a new lens for portrait work
- Thread starter sam49
- Start date
donaldjledet
Senior Member
Thanks for all the great advice I have been given a lot to think about in buying this lens.
But I have been handed a solution I have managed to borrow a Nikon Nikkor 50mm F/1.8 G AF-S Lens with a view to buy it if i like it, if I don't like this lens I will certainly buy the 85mm as recommended in this post.
Thank a lot guys
PS dose anyone else have trouble typing on this site, I have used two computers and they both keep missing letters when I type, I have to type one character at a time
But I have been handed a solution I have managed to borrow a Nikon Nikkor 50mm F/1.8 G AF-S Lens with a view to buy it if i like it, if I don't like this lens I will certainly buy the 85mm as recommended in this post.
Thank a lot guys
PS dose anyone else have trouble typing on this site, I have used two computers and they both keep missing letters when I type, I have to type one character at a time
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
Are you asking about the DX Crop Factor? Because an 85mm lens has an 85mm focal length regardless of what body it's mounted on.
If you want to apply the DX crop factor of 1.5 an 85mm lens gives a field of view equal to 127.5mm while a 50mm would have a field of view equal to 75mm. That's field of view, NOT focal length; that's a critical thing to understand.
....
It depends on who's using it.
You could give me a 10,000 dollar portrait lens and I would still suck at portraits.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
Shooting head & shoulder shots with a 50mm prime will render very noticeable, very unflattering distortion while the 85mm is, for all practical purposes, distortion free. The extra focal length also creates a little more room to work making thing easier and more comfortable (at least in my opinion).
See Also: The 50mm Prime is Not a Portrait Lens
...
Last edited:
Thank you Horoscope Fish, I found that youtube video very informative. I am a relatively new photographer. In the days when everything was film, I used to use a 35mm single lens reflex camera with a built-in lightmeter and manual focus. I can't remember the brand but I loved that camera. A then moved on to a Nikon D3000 which I lazily only used in auto mode. I am now retired and thought I would get into photography a bit more and especially taking portraits of my grandchildren. I have just ordered a refurbished Nikon D5100, a second hand Nikon AS-F 70-300, and based on the information in this thread the Nikon 85mm lens. I will let you know how a relative newbie likes the 85mm once it arrives. This is a great forum.
PaulPosition
Senior Member
Although in these days of arm-length selfies, the standards of acceptability - with regards to unflattering distortion - have reached unprecedented depth.
Nero
Senior Member
Kinda starting to regret getting that lens now.
Well, I was intending to reply with quote and hit the like button.
The 50mm on DX will work for a portrait lens. I have been rolling this around in my little brain the last few days and performed some highly complex calculations
, and can report that a 50mm on DX will be fine, peachy, etc.Distance is more critical than focal length. It would be a mistake to throw a 50mm on an FX and move in closer to fill the frame, but the 50mm on DX keeps you at a similar working distance as an 85mm on FX. Distance is more critical than focal length.
The thing to remember is distance is more critical than focal length.
Nero
Senior Member
Well, I was intending to reply with quote and hit the like button.
The 50mm on DX will work for a portrait lens. I have been rolling this around in my little brain the last few days and performed some highly complex calculations
Distance is more critical than focal length. It would be a mistake to throw a 50mm on an FX and move in closer to fill the frame, but the 50mm on DX keeps you at a similar working distance as an 85mm on FX. Distance is more critical than focal length.
The thing to remember is distance is more critical than focal length.
Still doesn't deal with that pesky distortion though.
After watching that video I know it's not just shit talk too. Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 4
Still doesn't deal with that pesky distortion though.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 4
The issue with portraits is a difference in the magnification of parts of the image, like the nose and ears. The ears are greater distance from the camera than the nose and the difference in distance is enough to make the nose more magnified than the ears.
Less focal length at the same distance equals less magnification, so a 50mm lens has less magnification difference (nose to ear) than an 85mm at the same distance.
The photos in the video do not have the model in the same head position, which compromises the test, making the results meaningless.
All this means is you can achieve similar results with a DX 50mm as an FX 85mm at the same distance. Does not mean that some subjects would not benefit from a longer lens on either format.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
I'm sorry, but this simply isn't correct. The problem is not "magnification of parts of the image" it's a problem of lens distortion. To keep it simple, lets stick to DX format. I say this because form-factor only affects depth of field and and field of view so by comparing DX to FX in this context we only muddy the water.
For a head and shoulders portrait using a 50mm lens on a DX camera you need to be roughly three to five feet from your subject. At that distance the 50mm focal length causes optical distortion and optical distortion, at whatever distance and however significantly or insignificantly it occurs, is due solely to the lens. If we increase the distance between subject and camera by several feet, then yes...The distortion disappears. And while we could crop resulting image taken at that distortion free distance and get a useable portrait, all that zooming and cropping is not really a desirable solution; we've really just traded one problem for another.
Notice that to remove the distortion we had to increase the distance between subject and camera by several feet, a few inches simply won't make any noticeable difference in the degree of distortion caused. The difference in distance between the tip of the nose and the ears, likewise, will not noticeably increase or decrease the degree of distortion. To take good head and shoulders portraits you really need the extra focal length and subject to camera distance created by that longer focal length. The extra distance created by using the longer focal length also puts the camera and photographer presumably, at a distance people are more comfortable with as well. It's hard enough to get people to relax for a portrait, even less so if you're shoving a lens in their face from three feet away.
For further consideration:
How to Take Better Portraits
Boudoir Photography and the 50mm Lens
Scott Kelby's Digital Photography Tips: What Not to Shoot with Your 50mm Lens.
....
PaulPosition
Senior Member
Talk about distortion as much as you like, you really seem to know what you're talking about. But camera shyness? I'm pretty sure a almost-pancake lens at 5ft is *less* impressive than a bazooka, even a stadium away.
Horoscope Fish
Senior Member
*notsureifserious.jpg*
Well I do have some basic idea what I'm talking about, yes; but I'm certainly no expert and if I'm incorrect in my assessment I hope someone will correct me.
I'm not really sure where the "bazooka" thing is coming from. Most of the pro's on staff here at the college use a 70-200mm zoom (or equivalent) lens for portraiture. The Nikon version fits comfortably in one hand and from ten feet away looks pretty small, at least to me. The Nikon 85mm f/1.8G, another popular choice, is only a fraction of an inch longer/wider than the 50mm f/1.8G lens is and suffers none of the distortion.
....
This is unlikely.
Can you define distortion?
Field of view affects working distance.
Then an FX with an 85mm would also need to be roughly 3-5 feet from the subject. Forget either as my discussion above was using the working distance of the FX 85mm combination.
Why?
Assuming there would be distortion, we are not at 3-5 feet. We are at 7-8 feet.
DX has already cropped the image.
Covered above.
It is simply a fact that as the camera moves closer to the subject the variation in magnification between objects at varying distances grows greater. This is why noses get bigger.
I don't disagree. I would use long as opposed to short, but my preference does not change how stuff works.
These do not support the stated ideas.
==============================================================================================
In general, I agree with the idea that longer is better, because in many cases a longer lens is more flattering to the human face. One of the things that led me to the above conclusions is that we used 105mm on the long roll camera back in the day because it was a good choice to cover individuals and small groups, just as an 85mm would be a good choice for FX and a 50mm would be fine for DX.
Though I have worked this out on paper so to speak, I plan to do some test shooting, and I will be the first to report if I find different.
One more thing. I really hate long post, including this one I'm posting, but felt this was worth conversing about.