Nikon portrait lenses

[Braineack]

That's the VR AF-S, not the AF-P.

Correct, I was just making a statement.

 

[Derrel]

As a portraiture lens, I would really rather have a 70-300mm zoom lems than a fixed 50mm lens. The focal length flexibility of the zoom is really handy to have for portraiture. The biggest problem is the 70mm short end, which will put you quite far away in many situations, meaning you'll have to literally stand back quite a ways.

 

[Zeferina]

My thanks to all who so kindly replied with advice. Through your answers I have a better understanding of the subject.
I have ordered the AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8g. When I come up on the lottery, I will be back for more advice.
Thanks again,
Zeferina

 

[s_marolf]

I had a similar question on lenses. I volunteered to take some headshots at the office for our intranet. I have a D610 and was deciding between my 50\1.8g and 70-200\2.8 VR1. I was leaning towards the 70-200mm and this seems to reinforce that decision.

Thanks, Scott

 

[Cody'sCaptures]

The Nikon 1200-1700mm f/5.6-8 is the best portrait lens you can get. Affordable? Nope.

You'd probably like the 50 1.8G for portraits on your D3300. If you didn't mind standing further back and want that extra shallow depth of field, then the 85 1.8G might interest you.

2,650mm equivalent on the top end, Do you call your subjects from the next county!!

 

[Braineack]

I had a similar question on lenses. I volunteered to take some headshots at the office for our intranet. I have a D610 and was deciding between my 50\1.8g and 70-200\2.8 VR1. I was leaning towards the 70-200mm and this seems to reinforce that decision.

Thanks, Scott

the 70-200 is far superior to the 50mm 1.8G.

the 50mm 1.8G is a beginners lens. it's not bad, and better to use for subject isolation than say the 18-55mm, but it's not great by any means. I think if you really want a 50mm the one to look at is the Sigma 1.4 (non-art). Problem is it's about double the cost, and probably not "worth" double the cost. I sold my 50mm 1.8g quickly after purchasing it and got a 58mm 1.4G -- it's such a fantastic renderer. But for most, the 50mm 1.8G will suffice (but ew, look at shots with it with trees in the bg).


oh here perfect:

the 50mm 1.8G at 3.2:


DSC_5746 by Braineack, on Flickr

same kid exact 1 year earlier with a 70-200 at 2.8:


Campbell and his Balloons by Braineack, on Flickr


give me the 70-200.

 

[shadowlands]

70-200 f2.8's are awesome portrait lenses, period.

 

[benhasajeep]

The "ole" 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D (2 ring) is no slouch either! I used it for years before adding a 70-200! Such a good lens I still have it!!

 

[shadowlands]

The "ole" 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D (2 ring) is no slouch either! I used it for years before adding a 70-200! Such a good lens I still have it!!

Agreed! I loved mine. It was awesome!

 

[Solarflare]

For the record, the AF 80-200mm f2.8 is optically unchanged, no matter if you use the original pre-D push-pull version, the D push-pull version, or the D two ring version. By the way, said first pre-D version is available insanely cheap on the used market and lacks the main weakness of this lens: the somewhat fragile D mechanism which causes many of these lenses to misfocus due to poor contact. This lens is produced since 30 years and still available new. It has now its fourth successor and survived the production end of the first two. Its just that good.

But I wouldnt know why I would need attributes like fast autofocus or focal length variance for portraiture. Thats slow work. A manual focus prime lens is perfectly fine for that.

Granted, an AF-S 50mm f1.8 might not be the greatest prime lens. I would describe its performance as without clear weakness, but a bit boring. I have plenty prime lenses which are great for portraiture, though.