85mm 1.8 Question.

[MrsLittle]

I have the D7000 and looking for a lens to do outdoor portraits only. I'm thinking about picking up the 85 mm 1.8, but it was also suggested to me that I get the 50mm 1.8 as well-The opinions seem based on the idea that I will be shooting indoors, which I am not. Will the 85mm cover my needs for outdoor portraits/family shots?

 

[analog.universe]

85 is a really nice perspective for portraits, but on a crop body like the D7000, you need a decent amount of distance between you and your subject. This is usually why 50mm is recommended for portraits on crop. I think for shooting 1 or 2 people outside, 85 will suit you quite well, and give you more dramatic dof effects than the 50. For larger groups of people I'd probably go for a 50. If you're looking at a 50 at all, see if the Sigma 50mm 1.4 is in your price range, it's a much nicer lens than the Nikon 1.8.

 

[MrsLittle]

85 is a really nice perspective for portraits, but on a crop body like the D7000, you need a decent amount of distance between you and your subject. This is usually why 50mm is recommended for portraits on crop. I think for shooting 1 or 2 people outside, 85 will suit you quite well, and give you more dramatic dof effects than the 50. For larger groups of people I'd probably go for a 50. If you're looking at a 50 at all, see if the Sigma 50mm 1.4 is in your price range, it's a much nicer lens than the Nikon 1.8.

Why the Sigma 50mm 1.4 over the Nikon version 50mm 1.4 g? If I was going for the 1.4, would Nikon be a better option?

 

[analog.universe]

I've not heard a comparison between those two particular lenses, but the Sigma 50 gets talked up quite a bit around here. Perhaps someone with experience with the Nikkor can chime in here.

 

[MrsLittle]

Since were on the subject of 50 mm lenses, do you think it's worth it to dive right in and go for the 1.4 af-s than the less priced fifties? I just want to get the most bang for my buck and if the 1.4g is it, then I will get it.

 

[mwcfarms]

If you are just starting out with the primes save yourself some money and try the 1.8's honestly most new photographers can't tell the difference other than in weight and body build. I have been using my 50 1.8 for a year and a half and just now am thinking about upgrading to the 1.4.

 

[MTVision]

If you are just starting out with the primes save yourself some money and try the 1.8's honestly most new photographers can't tell the difference other than in weight and body build. I have been using my 50 1.8 for a year and a half and just now am thinking about upgrading to the 1.4.

I see your point here but in fact you didn't save any money if you do upgrade to the 1.4. Instead of spending 500 on the 50 1.4 in the beginning, by upgrading you are going to around 700+. Even if you sell the 1.8 you probably won't get exactly what you paid for it.

 

[KmH]

But you would have gotten to use the less expensive lens for some period of time, kind of like a cheap rental arrangement.

For outdoor portraiture I would recommend considering the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D ED AF Zoom Nikkor Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras

Used push-pull 80-200's can be had for not much more than a new 85 mm f/1.8.

Many pros shoot portraiture using a 80-200 mm or 70-200 mm, because the longer focal lengths have some DoF advantages. Of course at 200 mm you have to be further from you subject.

 

[mwcfarms]

I can sell that 50mm 1.8 for 80 dollars to some student so I have used it for almost two years for 30 dollars. Learned if I like it enough to invest in the 1.4. Some people totally skip the 50mm and go for a 35 and an 85 or end up investing in a zoom like KmH stated. That was my point. Primes take some getting used too. Some people love them and some hate them. You might find that you dont even like using that focal length. On the majority of my portrait shoots I use the 70 - 200 anyways. Only time ever I bring the 50mm out is wedding receptions for candids at dinner and even then I generally use my 35.

 

[mwcfarms]

If you are just starting out with the primes save yourself some money and try the 1.8's honestly most new photographers can't tell the difference other than in weight and body build. I have been using my 50 1.8 for a year and a half and just now am thinking about upgrading to the 1.4.

I see your point here but in fact you didn't save any money if you do upgrade to the 1.4. Instead of spending 500 on the 50 1.4 in the beginning, by upgrading you are going to around 700+. Even if you sell the 1.8 you probably won't get exactly what you paid for it.

I paid 130 for my 50 1.8. btw. If someones trying to charge you 200 your getting ripped.

 

[MTVision]

Since were on the subject of 50 mm lenses, do you think it's worth it to dive right in and go for the 1.4 af-s than the less priced fifties? I just want to get the most bang for my buck and if the 1.4g is it, then I will get it.

If you are just starting out with the primes save yourself some money and try the 1.8's honestly most new photographers can't tell the difference other than in weight and body build. I have been using my 50 1.8 for a year and a half and just now am thinking about upgrading to the 1.4.

I see your point here but in fact you didn't save any money if you do upgrade to the 1.4. Instead of spending 500 on the 50 1.4 in the beginning, by upgrading you are going to around 700+. Even if you sell the 1.8 you probably won't get exactly what you paid for it.

I paid 130 for my 50 1.8. btw. If someones trying to charge you 200 your getting ripped.

How would I be getting ripped off?? She asked about the 50 1.4g af-s so I assumed that she was deciding between the 50 1.8g and 1.4g. Maybe the 50 f/1.8d is 130.00 but the af-s 1.8g is over 200.00. Plus, I never bought the 1.8 so I definitely didn't get ripped off

In previous posts I did recommend the 50 and even the kit lens so that she could decide what focal length she liked better before she spent a lot of money. I have the 50 1.4 but I used my kit lens at 50 prior to buying it - so I knew I would like it.

So...I do see your point now. She won't know what she likes until she actually buys a lens - so might as well get the cheaper one in case she doesn't like it. The way you first read it - it seemed like you were just recommending it to save money! Now I do agree - I still think she should've gotten the kit lens (18-105?) to help her decide!

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I agree with analog, the Sigma 50mm 1.4 is in my opinion one of the best portrait lenses for DX. Its a 75mm equivalent on your D7000 and will create stunning bokeh! Not to mention the fact that 75mm is a very workable distance to take portraits with, specially if your are not taking it too seriously. The Nikon 50 1.4 G is very very good aswell, but I think the Sigma slightly edges it for portraits. Thom Hogan says exactly the same thing due to bokeh effect.

There is no doubt though over 100mm is more ideal for headshots, due to the VERY flattened perspective and DOF effects. I do not recommend the 85mm 1.8 lens though at all, I had it and sold it. It has very bad bokeh, which in my mind makes it a questionable portrait lens. My Tamron 90 2.8 ma be slightly slower and have slow AF. But it makes much nicer portraits than the 85 and also does Macro which is a huge bonus.

 

[MrsLittle]

Thanks for the input. I think I will go with the 1.8g and save my money for the 70-200 in February. I am so excited to start taking some photos, YAY!

 

[dots]

I use a 1.8/85 on DX indoors no problem. I'd choose the 85mm. Excellent lens.

 

[KmH]

I paid 130 for my 50 1.8. btw. If someones trying to charge you 200 your getting ripped.

There is now the more expensive AF-S 50 mm f/1.8G so the distinction between which 50 mm f/1.8 must be made.