Good lens for Portraits?

I noticed there was another thread on lenses but figured I wanted to direct this in a more specific direction so I apologize for the repetitiveness.

So I have a real soft spot for taking photos of people, whether they be semi professional or expressive candid shots.I don't know what it is but I never tire of taking shots of people.

So anyway, my question is; Whats a good lens/filter combo to look into for achieving great captures of people? Strengths/weaknesses or best conditions for which lens, etc.

Basically doing my homework for what to save up for in the future.

Cheers,
ZiN

I would check out the 35mm f/1.8 - it's great in low light and takes excellent photos for the price.

I second that. I use a 50mm f1.8 myself, but the 35mm is a great choice as well.

I suppose it depends greatly on what type of people shots you enjoy doing. A street photography lens is going to be very different from one used for studio/posed shots. Focal lengths must be considered to avoid lens distortion, especially for studio work. You're going to find a wide variety of recommendations for good portrait lenses, but by and large, I think you'll find these are among the most popular choices:

70-200mm
16-35mm

jdeg: That looks like a good start, the price is very attractive! I looked up a review on it and it sounds like something I'd be interested in picking up for the price/value alone. Only problem with the review was it was very broad and not portrait focused, so it explained it had issues with fringing but that appeared to be on landscape shots mostly. So it's got my attention as an option.

Anthony: I will look into those lenses next. As to your question, indoor studio type portraits are what interest me the most but I know I am far away from having access to such a setup. But basically I am looking for something that produces excellent portraits, soft yet crisp photos. I'd hope the lens would be versatile enough that it could take indoor and outdoor portraits though.

Anthony: Upon looking up those lenses, judging by price and sheer seriousness of them I think the 16-35mm would be the upgrade I'd be looking for to my current lens for an all purpose shooting experience. The 70-200mm is a bit of overkill for what I'd be doing at the moment I'm afraid, hah. But to dream a dream.

I was going to suggest the 16-35 also. Great indoor/outdoor portrait lens. As for the other choices........nothing wrong with the 35 1.8 or even the 50 1.8. Great glass for the money. I use the 50 myself for indoor portraits and, believe it or not, the 18-55 for outdoor work.
In the end, it's all a matter of personal preference really. It's what works for you, isn't it.

For my portraits, I use my 17-55 and 70-200. On primes, I love my 85mm for portraits, whether street or studio.

One of the most popular lens for portraits is the 85mm f/1.4. The bokeh is incredible. From what I've read, especially on full frame, it is the most used by professionals because you don't have to get as close to the subject as you would with the 35mm or 50mm. I would think that it would be easier to use studio lighting as well because you'd have less chance to throw a shadow.

Downside is cost. The Nikkor 1.4 "D" version is around US$1000 while the newer "G" version is about US$1700. Personally, I purchased a used 1.8 "D" from a working pro for around $300 and am very happy with it. I can still lust over the 1.4 though!

fotojack said:

...or even the 50 1.8. Great glass for the money.

Click to expand...

I second that. The 50mm 1.8D is a great lens. I've said it before, but I'll say it again: For a lens that cost about $100, EVERYONE can afford this upgrade...and it's well worth it.

I must say, thank you all for the wonderful suggestions so far. It's been a big help with giving me a starting point of what lenses to look at and read up on. After getting sometime to try an exercise that I read up on in another discussion thread on Flickr I think the 35mm would be better suited to what I like to shoot. As much as I know portrait shooting is about capturing the face I'd like the option for shooting more then just above the shoulders. So hopefully I'll be able to pick up one of those next pay day and get to shooting!

To be honest you cannot suggest the right lens without knowing the camera you are using, whether it is a full sensor or a DX. A DX sensor will apply a 1.5 multiplier to the focal length, and that will make a big difference.

I totally agree that on a DX sensor the 50mm 1.8D is a very good lens as it equates to 75mm, even the 35mm will equate to 47.5mm and so will not introduce ant distortion. However, anything less than 50mm on an FX sensor could introduce close up distortion, and for an FX sensor I would go along with the 85mm, or even up 105mm

Hope this helps and does not confuse!!

Well the D90 is a DX sensor last I checked and yes I'm aware that it makes it act like a 50mm if you were to go with a DX 35mm which is the one offered by Nikon. I just find anything larger and I wouldn't be able to back up far enough to get the shot I'd want.

As I was saying, I did an exercise with my 18-55mm lens. I set it to 35mm and took a shot, then set it to 55mm and took the same shot and made note of where I was in the room. I wasn't enjoying how far away I was to get the same shot at 55mm, so I'd rather crop the shot in post then run out of room to take it.

Isn't the Nikkor 35mm, f/1.8G AF-S lens a DX lens?, if this is the one being referred to, it is. So it would be 35mm on a DX body like the D90. The 50mm, 1.8D is a FX lens and on a DX body would be the equivalent of a 75mm. In this situation the 35mm would probably work without running out of the room to take the shot. Zin, you have gotten a lot of suggestions, all of which are possibilities, so keep us posted on how shoot works out, how you shot it, and the EXIF data. And as naja says, hope this helps and does not confuse.

Joseph, the 35mm G AF-S is a DX lens but in using it on a DX body will still have a X1.5 crop factor making it 52.5mm effectively. Actually, all lenses DX or FX used on a DX body will have this factor.

50mm 1.4 is all i use. I have had the 1.8 "cheap" version and it is decent, and a great beginner lens, but in my opinion, the 1.4 was worth the extra. It has a better build quality and tack sharp wide open where the 1.8 really isn't sharp until you hit 2 and up. 50mm 1.8 if money is an issue as it is a great bang for the price.....50mm 1.4 if your pretty serious about portraiture and want a better built lens that will be more crisp, or if your feeling frisky, spring for the 85mm....but the cost is retarded.

Ranie, I looked it up, you are correct in that this particular 35mm DX lens has a 44 degree picture angle which is the equivalent of a 52.5mm FX lens on an FX body. However a DX lens will focus a DX size image on a DX size sensor there is no x1.5 crop factor involved. The x1.5 factor does come into play when a FX lens is used on a DX body. Unfortunately Nikon has never established "standards" for comparison between the two so we are left with semantics, which also means a discussion that could go on forever.

So I was never very good at waiting... As such after making up my mind that the 35mm f/1.8 would be a good portrait lens for me to start with I went and picked it up early. I was also lucky enough to have a friend willing to be my test subject for the evening, here is the result. Not bad, I think I am going to like shooting with this lens ALOT! Thanks again folks.

Zin,. good shot. I have both the 35mm, f/1.8 and the 50mm, f1.8. I use them mostly for indoor low light work. I know you will enjoy this one.

So I was never very good at waiting... As such after making up my mind that the 35mm f/1.8 would be a good portrait lens for me to start with I went and picked it up early.

Click to expand...

Way to go, Zin, and great shot!