First portrait lens....50mm AF-S 1.4G or 85mm AF-S 1.8G???

manik36

New member
I have had my D3100 for a few months now. I am looking to get a sub $500 portrait lens. After doing some research I was going to get the 50mm AF-S 1.4G.. Now they have come out with the 85mm AF-S 1.8G...

Any insight on wich one would be a better pick and why?
 

manik36

New member
First Portrait lens for D3100... 50mm AF-S 1.4G or 85mm AF-S 1.8G?

I have had my D3100 for a few months now. I am looking to get a sub $500 portrait lens. After doing some research I was going to get the 50mm AF-S 1.4G.. Now they have come out with the 85mm AF-S 1.8G...

Any insight on wich one would be a better pick and why?
 

DW_

Senior Member
Re: First Portrait lens for D3100... 50mm AF-S 1.4G or 85mm AF-S 1.8G?

I was in a similar situation and wanted a nice prime lens for my 70s & 7000 and had narrowed it down to the 1.4G but someone on the board pointed out the 1.8G is a sharper lens and gave me this link - Nikon 50mm f/1.8G Review , I ended up buying the 1.8G and am very happy with it. I would say stick with the 50mm since it will act like a 75mm on your DX body and the 85mm will act like a 170mm.

Also don't forget that macro's make excellent portrait lenses. I'd go as far as to say they work better since they don't distort faces AND you have the added option of being a macro.
 

manik36

New member
Re: First Portrait lens for D3100... 50mm AF-S 1.4G or 85mm AF-S 1.8G?

I was thinking the 85 would be more like a 127mm ?
 

DW_

Senior Member
Re: First Portrait lens for D3100... 50mm AF-S 1.4G or 85mm AF-S 1.8G?

I was thinking the 85 would be more like a 127mm ?

Yes, you're right. I was thinking 2x rather than 1.5x. You know, the more I think of it the more I would consider a macro over a prime lens if it's only portraits you're considering.
 

bluenoser

Banned
In and of themselves, they are both good quality lenses and they are both very good portrait lenses. One is only "better" than the other depending on a person's circumstances and objectives.

If you are shooting in a smaller, indoor space then the 85mm has a field of view of almost 130mm given the crop factor of a Nikon DX camera like the D3100. That is to say, I think you'd find it a bit cramped and not practical in that situation. The 50mm (i.e. a 75mm field of view on DX) would work better in this situation.

The 50mm will allow you to get closer to your subject for more personal or intimate shots (this may or may not be appropriate depending on your subject or the look you're going for). The extra distance of the 85mm will allow you more working distance and perhaps give a more flattering perspective regarding undistorted facial features, etc.

Both lenses are very fast and will allow you to easily perform subject isolation and blur the background.

I would suggest you might want to save a bit of money and consider the 50mm AF-S 1.8G instead of the 1.4 (unless you *need* 1.4).

Good luck with your decision.
 

Just-Clayton

Senior Member
Re: First Portrait lens for D3100... 50mm AF-S 1.4G or 85mm AF-S 1.8G?

I was given a non AI manual 50mm/1.4 lens. I have used it quite a lot on the 3100. Got so used to manual settings that I decided not to get an af-s 50mm. As for which lens to choose. you will have to try them to decide.
 
Last edited:

Eye-level

Banned
If I ever buy an AF Nikkor...which I will someday...the very first one I will buy is a late 80s early 90s 85/1.8 AF...not the AF D...not the G...it is far superior than the China made G and the only advantage the D imparts is if you use flash...it will work on every Nikon made the only caveat being it won't autofocus on the D40, D5000, D3100, D5100, F2, FM, FE, etc...but who frigging cares! If you go back and look through my threads you will find a link to some Polish website I posted that shows a ton of pics shot with this lens...

IMHO you are wasting your time using a 50 for portraits even on a crop camera...
 

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
IMHO you are wasting your time using a 50 for portraits even on a crop camera...

I respectfully have to disagree with this Jeff. It all depends on the sensor/film size. For Hasselblad for example the portrait lens lenght was 150, for 4x5 210-260, 35mm 85. So, the smaller the film or sensor, the smaller focal lenght will give you the same angle of view. Ideally, for a crop sensor 60mm would be ideal but 50 is certainly very acceptable to me at least.
 

Dr Daniels

Senior Member
On my former DX body, I used to shoot portraits with the modest 'Made in China' 50mm f/1.8D. The results were amazing for the price you pay.
I also had the 85mm f/1.8D on that DX, and I found it to be good on close-up portraits only. But the 50mm was on my DX most of the time.

I have read countless reports of people upgrading from the 50mm f/1.8D to the f/1.4D and admit no improvements on results. The Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 should be compulsory in every photographers' bag.
 
Last edited:

Eye-level

Banned
I respectfully have to disagree with this Jeff. It all depends on the sensor/film size. For Hasselblad for example the portrait lens lenght was 150, for 4x5 210-260, 35mm 85. So, the smaller the film or sensor, the smaller focal lenght will give you the same angle of view. Ideally, for a crop sensor 60mm would be ideal but 50 is certainly very acceptable to me at least.

I respect your opinion as well Marcel. The 50mm has been used basically since the beginning of 35mm photography...Robert Capa and all those guys in the 30s and 40s used them very successfully for portraits and I am sure there are many more folks in the world on your side of this issue rather than on my side. Perhaps saying that using a 50 for portraits is a waste of time is a little over the top but here is why I say that...

If I take a 28 on a full frame camera and shoot a head and shoulders shot that wide angle is gonna distort the face big time...if I take the same 28 and put it on a crop camera guess what? It will distort the face big time...the focal length is the same! Nothing changes except for the angle of view which has nothing to do with FL or how the lens draws. Same thing goes for a 50...a 50 is a 50 is a 50 just because you are using a crop camera doesn't mean that the FL magically changes to 75...it doesn't it is still just a standard normal 50...if you make a head and shoulders shot there is little distortion of the face to "normal" human eyes because the eye "draws" in about 42-50mm...this is why the 50 CAN work as a portrait lens...WYSIWYG...and on a crop camera you have to stand a little further away than you would on full frame...Now...historically...at least with Nikon and many other brands of 35mm cameras the 85, 105, 115, etc - the short teles - have always been considered the best portrait lenses. Since they are longer they also distort faces but in a more pleasing type of fashion than wide angle.

Marcel yes you are correct in saying the smaller the film or sensor, the smaller focal length will give you the SAME ANGLE OF VIEW...but that does not mean in any shape fashion or form that it changes the FOCAL LENGTH of the lens...and any given FL will draw the same on a full frame camera as it will on a crop sensor...crop factor is one of the most misunderstood concepts in photography with the advent of digital cameras IMO...

At any rate we probably shouldn't beat a dead horse...you all can stick to shooting portraits with 50s and I will stick to 85s and 105s...after all there really are no fixed rules in how to do the job.
 

westmill

Banned
The ideal focal lengh for portraits on APSC would have to be 55-70mm. Around 85-100 on FF.
Lenses of about 30-40 are fine for more fuller lengh portraits. 50mm on FF
85mm on apsc is prob getting a bit long, along also with a comfy working distance.
Move in too close with a short focal lengh = big nose little ears
Move in too close with a long focal lengh = small nose big ears !
Has it as been said, there are no fixed rules though.... shoot with a fisheye !!!!!
 
To tell the truth, these pictures taken by a 300(three hundred)mm lens:



Miss Laotian East Coast 2012



dsc3347a.jpg





Run Up 1



dsc3368w.jpg




Run Up 2




dsc3349s.jpg





I don't remember if I ever used a lens shorter than 70mm for portrait photo!
 
Last edited:
Move in too close with a long focal lengh (300mm lens) = small nose big ears !
Has it as been said, there are no fixed rules though.... shoot with a fisheye !!!!!

You are right: moving in too close with a long focal lengh = big ear and no nose!:congratulatory:






dsc4614x.jpg





Just kidding!
I am sorry if that hurts someone: What I wanted to say is as Eye-Level said already, "you all can stick to shooting portraits with 50s and I will stick to 85s and 105s...."
That means depending on what lens/es each of us feel comfy to use. Some people like short or medium lenses, others like longer... Not a big deal. Photographers make images. Cameras and lenses don't make photographers.
 
I used to have Nikkor 85mm 1.4 Ai-S. It was a great lens for studio portrait photos because of constrains in the studio sizes. But for the outdoor portrait photos I like longer lenses better. 300mm lenses not only for the close-up portraits, they can be good for one-third or half body portraits as well:





dsc5318d.jpg








dsc7191.jpg






Some say that long focal lenses make portrait photos get flatout. That's not right. It depends on the light sources in use. Straight and directed front light make portrait photo flat. But backlight and directional light sources don't.
 
Top