Lens Choice Help

[jjphotos]

Hey guys I'm going to upgrade to a Nikon D7100 from the D3300. It comes with the 18-140mm lens and I plan to purchase 85mm 1.8 with it (since I want to dive deeper into portrait/fashion type photography). Just wondering if the 85mm would feel too constrictive on a DX body?

Another combination I was thinking of doing is just forgetting the kit lens and just getting the 35mm 1.8 + 85mm 1.8.

I would would be mainly shooting outside probably although occasionally I will be inside. How far do you generally have to back up to comfortably fit an entire person into the frame?

Any suggestions?

I only have the 18-55mm at the moment (although I borrow a 50mm 1.8 from a friend frequently).

 

[Derrel]

Yes, 85mm on DX does feel constrictive, especially indoors. I shot DX exclusively for half a decade or so, and found that a shorter zoom lens often had the focal length I wanted in many situations. Not that an 85mm lens on DX is a "bad" lens or a "bad"length: the optics are GOOD! Sharp, crisp, easy to focus, but the angle of view is narrow, and it forces you to stand back a long ways if you want anything other than a tightly-framed shot.

The D7100 can autofocus with older, screw-drive type AF and AF-D Nikkor lenses, made since the mid-1980's. In my estimation, for portrait/fashion/model type shots, the handiest lens would have focal lengths that are best for an APS-C camera. My suggestion might be the 28-105mm AF-D zoom lens for a low-cost lens for portraiture/fashion/modeling type shots both indoors and out of doors.

The 18-140mm is the new, high-end kit zoom for general use, but I really think you might want to look at a 24-85mm zoom or the aforementioned 28-105mm AF-D for the particular uses you have in mind.

 

[jjphotos]

Yes, 85mm on DX does feel constrictive, especially indoors. I shot DX exclusively for half a decade or so, and found that a shorter zoom lens often had the focal length I wanted in many situations. Not that an 85mm lens on DX is a "bad" lens or a "bad"length: the optics are GOOD! Sharp, crisp, easy to focus, but the angle of view is narrow, and it forces you to stand back a long ways if you want anything other than a tightly-framed shot.

The D7100 can autofocus with older, screw-drive type AF and AF-D Nikkor lenses, made since the mid-1980's. In my estimation, for portrait/fashion/model type shots, the handiest lens would have focal lengths that are best for an APS-C camera. My suggestion might be the 28-105mm AF-D zoom lens for a low-cost lens for portraiture/fashion/modeling type shots both indoors and out of doors.

The 18-140mm is the new, high-end kit zoom for general use, but I really think you might want to look at a 24-85mm zoom or the aforementioned 28-105mm AF-D for the particular uses you have in mind.

Thanks Derrel for the detailed response ! Do you think its worth just going for a full frame (like the D610) instead of the D7100 at this point ?

 

[Derrel]

I personally think that FX Nikon has the better image "look" for people work, but that DX is better for sports/wildlife/long lens work. I am alwys impressed by the image quality of the D600 or D610. I prefer the FX size sensor's depth of field rendering and working distances with the lenses that Nikon has on the market.

I list this example a lot. 8.45 foot tall frame area; DX Nikon, 85mm lens, shooting distance is 34 feet. FX Nikon, same 85mm lens, shooting distance is 20 feet away. One camera gives a nice, defocused backdrop, the other shows more in-focus, due to camera-to-subject distance being so much longer on DX.

Worth/value is tough to evaluate sometimes. The D7100 price makes it a good value, but what value is there with being able to use an 85mm lens "as an 85mm lens"? Or to use a 50mm lens as "a 50mm lens"?

 

[goodguy]

Yes go for a D610 over D7100
I like 50mm lenses on DX body, its a good all around lens including portraits, saying that I used 85mm on DX body and 50mm, love my 85mm for portrait on both FX and DX.
Anytime you go above 800ISO you will see and feel the difference between pics who were taken with DX and FX.

 

[greybeard]

Shooting portraits on DX I like to use a 50mm and shoot at f/4. This is usually the lenses sharpest aperture and is big enough to blur the background nicely. 85mm on DX is like 120mm on FX which is just too long. You have to move too far away from your subject which can really slow things down outside and can make things impossible inside. As for DX vs FX for portraits? I'll take FX everytime

 

[Designer]

I disagree with greybeard. Back in the olden days, we routinely considered 105 as the minimum starting focal length for portraiture, and much preferred the 135mm for single head and shoulder portraits. (35mm film)

I think the 85mm 1.8G is just about perfect for DX if one has the physical space in which to work. I would say you will need to get back about 25 feet for a full-length shot of a standing person with cropping space all around. (average height person, not a basketball player)

Yes, one can make the 50mm do quite nicely, especially if you're going for a full-length shot, and if you want to save a few bucks, get the 50mm 1.8G instead of the 85mm.

 

[PaulWog]

I would recommend 17-50 f2.8 as a good range (focal length & aperture). You have an 18-50, so you could decide if that is for you.

Usually when you want to guarantee a nice shot, you step back far enough to get the feet in the frame, and do full body. But, if you go with prime, you can't decide how much foreground and background is in your frame, if you are frame relative to how you want your subject to fit in the picture.

My #1 lens right now is my 50mm 1.8G (full frame), but I don't own a regular length zoom.

The 35mm 1.8G and 50mm 1.8G are sufficiently different on DX to warranty owning both. I would compare the 50mm and 85mm focal lengths on DX to see which you prefer for your portraiture wants. The 85mm 1.8G does perform well on DX, no problem, it's just more specific on DX.