DSLRUsers.com

I'm starting to get into more formal portrait work, leading up to studio, and I'm thinking I need a good prime. I currently have only one lens for my D80, and it's the 28-200mm film lens, which is handy for most of my shooting, but far from perfect.

It would be hard to go past the 85/1.4 - this lens is an absolute cracker for portraits.

Cheers

digitor wrote:It would be hard to go past the 85/1.4 - this lens is an absolute cracker for portraits.

That would be this one?

Nikon 85 mm f1.4 $1183.00 On Special

An absolute cracker for wallets as well.

85mm f1.4 FTW.

50% of my shots are 85mm and 28mm f1.4s.

It is expensive, but often you get what you pay for!

Cheers

Thanks guys, that's very useful to know. I'll start saving.

the 85mm 1.4 is top of the range for portraits. its a very pricey option and i find the focal length a bit limiting indoors considering 85mm on the d80 is actually almost 130mm.

the 50mm f1.8 is cheap as chips at under $100USD, tack sharp, super light and small and takes GREAT portraits. or spend a little more and grab the 50mm f1.4 for even better low light performance, narrower dof and beautiful bokeh. its also a much more convenient and flexible focal length.

Oooh, that sounds very usable until I become sufficiently skillful to justify dropping AU$1k on a lens. Something like one of these then?

Nikon 50 mm f1.4 $343.00
Nikon 50 mm f1.8 $156.00

padey wrote:85mm f1.4 FTW.

50% of my shots are 85mm and 28mm f1.4s.

That's interesting Andrew, what makes up the remaining 50% if you don't mind me asking?

Fortigurn - I don't think u can go past the 85 1.4, pricey but worth every cent.

Fortigurn wrote:

Nikon 50 mm f1.4 $343.00
Nikon 50 mm f1.8 $156.00

I've got the 1.8 version, but I've now had a good play with the 1.4 version. If you can afford it, get the 1.4 version. It's worth it.

85 f/1.4.

Currently out of stock, and the next one Poon gets has my name on it, so stand in line.

The Nikon 50 mm f1.4 is very doable, but right now I don't think I could justify almost the same money on a lens which I paid for my D80 body. I'd have to wait for my portraits to pay their way a little.

Fortigurn wrote:I don't think I could justify almost the same money on a lens which I paid for my D80 body.

You just need to get a more expensive body.

gstark wrote:

Fortigurn wrote:I don't think I could justify almost the same money on a lens which I paid for my D80 body.

You just need to get a more expensive body.

Gulp!

Gulp!

Fortigurn wrote:... right now I don't think I could justify almost the same money on a lens which I paid for my D80 body ....

That may be the case, but in three or four years time, when your D80 body is worth jack, the 85/1.4 will have a resale value very close to what you paid for it - or considerably more, should Nikon (in its infinite wisdom) choose to discontinue it.

Cheers

second, third and fourth every comment here. If you can save, beg, steal or borrow to obtain an 85/1.4, it is worth EVERY CENT. Otherwise as a budget option, you can't go past the 50/1.8 for value.

The 50/1.4 IS better, but I don't think it is better than the 50/1.8 in the same way the 85/1.4 is better than the 85/1.8, if that makes sense....

I know it isn't a prime, but my current favourite portrait lens is the Tamron 28-75. Tack-sharp, and very versatile because you can get everything from group shots to tight portraits. My second favourite lens for portraits that I currently own is the 70-200VR. IMO very close behind the 85/1.4 for bokeh. I know some others here have a very high opinion of the 200/2, but THAT thing would definitely blow my budget

The 85/1.4 IS on my list of lenses I want to get, but it'll have to wait for now..

Fortigurn, I agree with everyone here and Digitor 100%, the 85 1.4 will be worth money a long time past when the body is. I would get the 50 1.8 for now, throwaway money, then get the 85 1.4 when appropriate. The 50 1.8 is always handy and a great lens to boot.

Good advice everyone, and Glen thanks for summing it up. I'll see about getting it from Poon next month, and may have some shots to show shortly afterwards.

Another vote for the 85mm f/1.4, it is simply... the emperor of the beasts for portraits on the price you pay.

Fortigurn wrote:Oooh, that sounds very usable until I become sufficiently skillful to justify dropping AU$1k on a lens. Something like one of these then?

Nikon 50 mm f1.4 $343.00
Nikon 50 mm f1.8 $156.00

yupp. either lens is more than sufficient to get you going for a long while until you can fork out the money for an 85mm. the 50mm 1.4 does have much nicer bokeh, especially outdoors. i have found the 1.8 to be a little scary in sunlight for bokeh. indoors it is excellent though.

like i said aswell, 50mm is much more useable than 85mm aswell unless you are outdoors or in a studio / very large room. if you already have a lens now that covers both focal lengths i would suggest that you check your focal length history for portraits, that will give you an idea of what range will be suitable for your personal applications.

i think you may be better off quoting a budget when you put up a thread like this. most people seem to be thinking along the lines of what is the BEST portrait lens as oppsoed to a recommendation with budget in mind.

if you have the money and want the best then by all means go the 85mm but you will be completely satisfied with the nifty fifty if you are more budget conscious.

Don't discount the 85/1.8 for portraits. I'm sure it's no match for the 1.4 when compared side by side, but in the grand scheme of things it isn't too shabby.

Well, I'm convinced. I was going to save for an 80-200mm 2.8, but now I think I'll get more work out of a prime. I'm going to take my Dynax 5 system (28-105mm, 75-300mm, flash), and my old Canon AE2 with its 28-80mm and 430EZ, and see if I can trade them in against an 85mm f1.4.

If I can't get anything reasonable for that lot, then I'll probably buy the 50mm f1.4 and save for the 85mm f1.4.

Rooz, thanks for the advice. As a matter of fact most of my photos are taken in a very large room in a kindergarten. The room looks something like this:



You can see about half of it there.

rooboy, thanks for the advice on the 85/1.8. It certainly looks impressive from your photos. Very sharp. I might consider it if the 85/1.4 looks really out of reach, but I should be able to get the 85/1.4 one way or another, even if it takes a little time. I'm in no immediate hurry, and a month or so should see me there.

Rooz wrote:like i said aswell, 50mm is much more useable than 85mm aswell unless you are outdoors or in a studio / very large room. if you already have a lens now that covers both focal lengths i would suggest that you check your focal length history for portraits, that will give you an idea of what range will be suitable for your personal applications.

These are my usage stats according to ExposurePlot:

Geoff wrote:

padey wrote:85mm f1.4 FTW.

50% of my shots are 85mm and 28mm f1.4s.

That's interesting Andrew, what makes up the remaining 50% if you don't mind me asking?

I either go wide, 10.5+12-24 or long, 200mm f2. But mostly both.

My least used lens is my 85mm Macro PC. Rings, flowers and the odd detail here and there.

I'm not sure about that focal length chart, since my only lens is a 28-200mm. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that I'm using a film lens on a digital camera, and it is reporting the equivalent digital focal length.

Fortigurn, based on your chart, it does seem you use both ends the most, with 60mm (shown as 35mm equivalent 90mm) being third. That should help your process a litlle.

One thing to bear in mind is that, if you buy, say, the 50 1.4 as a stop gap measure to the 85 1.4, you are effectively paying in the order of $1500 for the 85 1.4 (by adding the cost of the 50 to the cost of the 85). Granted, you will have two lenses, but if the aim was to have 1 prime lens for portraiture, you have spent a lot more than you budgeted. Depending on how long it would take you to save up for the 85, it would be cheaper to whack it on your credit card and pay that off asap.

P

Glen, you're right, I'm either pulling out wide for group shots, or snapping candids at a distance. Some of the time I'm in the middle as you say, around 90mm (film), which is where I think I get my best portraits.

For example, this was at 93mm (film):



This was at 87mm:



This was at 93mm:



This was at 93mm:



Again 93mm:



These are some of my favourite or most popular shots (even though I realise they're not exactly great), and they're all falling in the 80mm-95mm range. This tells me that if I had an 85mm I would certainly use it a lot, and it's pretty much where I want to be for posed portrait and studio.

The focal length usage pattern in the chart reflects candids in a kindergarten environment, where you take the photo which presents itself, and you don't get many choices about framing and composition). Posed shots would be different.

Reschsmooth, point well taken. I would be unlikely to use the 50/1.4 after I finally purchased the 85/1.4. I'll go all out to get the 85/1.4. I can afford to wait a little.

Wow, I just checked some of my restaurant product photography, and found the same pattern (93mm, 87mm, 93mm, 93mm). Looks like the 85/1.4 is the win indeed.

the focal lengths you just quoted from that site were the 35mm equivalent. the focal lengths you used in relation to digital lens focal lengths for the d80 are 62/70/62mm.

remember the d80 is not a FF sensor so all lens must have a 1.5 crop applied to transfer them into 35mm equivalent focal lengths. ie:

the 50mm is a 75mm equivalent
the 85mm is a 128mm equivalent

Rooz wrote:the focal lengths you just quoted from that site were the 35mm equivalent.

Yes, I understood that.

the focal lengths you used in relation to digital lens focal lengths for the d80 are 62/70/62mm.

remember the d80 is not a FF sensor so all lens must have a 1.5 crop applied to transfer them into 35mm equivalent focal lengths. ie:

the 50mm is a 75mm equivalent
the 85mm is a 128mm equivalent

I knew that the D80 is not FF, but I thought the 85/1.4 was designed for a digital body with less than FF, so when it said 85mm it meant 85mm on a digital less than FF body. So you're telling me it's a FF lens, which makes me wonder if I'm back to the drawing board.

I think I should just get the lens and learn how to shoot portraits properly.

Fortigurn wrote:I knew that the D80 is not FF, but I thought the 85/1.4 was designed for a digital body with less than FF

No. The 85 is a classic lens, and has been around a long time. In 35mm terms, the range of 85 through to 135 is considered ideal for portraiture because of the flattering effect that focal length's perspective adds to the image.

The Nikkor 85 f/1.4 is a honey of a lens, and regardless of form factor, its effective viewing angle remains well within the boundaries for portraiture.

I think I should just get the lens and learn how to shoot portraits properly.

That's what the correct answer is.

You may move to the head of the class, but the back of the queue for the lens.

For those who don't want to spend a fortune you can't go beyond the 50mm F1.4 for full body portraits.

Full body portraits, that's an interesting idea. I've only tried that a couple of times, and I never managed to get it quite right.





I keep instinctively cropping, for some reason. I think it's because I usually try to engage the eyes, which means making the head the focal point.

A full body portrait can be someone sitting in a chair with one leg crossed over the other, their head thrown back in laughter, hair tumbling down over the face, eyes flashing with excitement. Some of the finest portraits I have ever seen were taken with wide angle lenses of around 35mm (film camera) so 21 or 24mm Nikon DSLR. It ain't the lens...it's the camera operator! I still think the 50mm F1.4 or F1.8 will make exhibition quality portraits...if used with some skill and vision. I have made excellent portraits with lenses from 24mm to 200mm....so don't get obsessed with lens focal length. It ain't the pivotal factor.

Thanks. Would I be right to say that the 85/1.4 is this one? It looks like I'll have to enquire after local pricing.

Yes.

50mm is a great place to start, but just a little longer is great for portraiture. If budget is $400-600, 85/1.8. If can be extended past $1000, then the 85/1.4 is dreamy, but perhaps beaten by a high grade zoom for versatility (like the 28-70).

Although, I must admit, the smoothness of the 70-200 VR, coupled by the flexibility to frame young people while shooting from bended knee, is another winner!

oh, nearly forgot, the sigma 30mm 1.4 HSM is very nice, how much...

Rooz wrote:the focal lengths you just quoted from that site were the 35mm equivalent. the focal lengths you used in relation to digital lens focal lengths for the d80 are 62/70/62mm.

remember the d80 is not a FF sensor so all lens must have a 1.5 crop applied to transfer them into 35mm equivalent focal lengths. ie:

the 50mm is a 75mm equivalent
the 85mm is a 128mm equivalent

Rooz
This is only if the lens being used is a DX lens and your trying to compare the angle of a DX lens to a D lens (Nikon) - the exif data when I take a shot is precisely what the lens is ie If I'm using the 80-400mm at full extension the exif data says 80-400mm focal length 400mm. You won't find it saying 80-400mm at 600mm because this doesn't exist. It's only a crop for the 400mm image.