What lens for portraits (Nikon)?...So confused...

[KmH]

Well, I'm leaning toward the 70-200 f/2.8...

Edit:

Sorry, had to change my post, I thought you meant the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8G.

Instead, I would highly recommend the 2-ring Nikon AF 80-200mm f/2.8D, many like-new, used ones are around for $800 to $850.

Here's one in EX (Exellent) condition for $790: http://www.keh.com/Product-Details/1/NA079990291830/NA07/FE.aspx

KEH.com is a very reputable seller of used camera gear.

 

[LaLO929]

I've recently been looking into getting a better lens for portrait photography. I want better clarity and more bokeh then what my current lens has to offer. I initially was drawn to the 50mm f/1.8 so I went to my local camera retailer to try it out today. The photographer/manager told me that it's not a portrait lens and he suggested the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. I actually tried all 3 out on my camera to get a feel and I liked the 70-200. However as I continue to read up on other lenses I get more and more confused. I was looking at the 85mm f/1.8 tonight too. What lens would you suggest? I guess I am looking for some answers to my lens questions or maybe a different suggestion (to make me more confused--j/k) Oh yes, I am looking to spend under $800.

I'd be getting the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 which I've found for $730. The Nikkor is way outta my budget.

 

[pez]

The inexpensive Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 is far better than any kit lens, and fairly sharp wide open. Not too bad for informal portraits at all IMO, and a great walk around lens as well.

 

[LaLO929]

The inexpensive Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 is far better than any kit lens, and fairly sharp wide open. Not too bad for informal portraits at all IMO, and a great walk around lens as well.

I tried it out on my camera and it was definitely better then my kit lens however (the maybe a dumb statement) if I'm going to spend $450 on the 17-50mm f/2.8 then why not wait a little bit longer, put the money that I was going to spend the 17-50 f/2.8 and get the 70-200mm f2.8 instead. I am doing a little business and I need something that is more on the professional side.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

The inexpensive Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 is far better than any kit lens, and fairly sharp wide open. Not too bad for informal portraits at all IMO, and a great walk around lens as well.

I tried it out on my camera and it was definitely better then my kit lens however (the maybe a dumb statement) if I'm going to spend $450 on the 17-50mm f/2.8 then why not wait a little bit longer, put the money that I was going to spend the 17-50 f/2.8 and get the 70-200mm f2.8 instead. I am doing a little business and I need something that is more on the professional side.

Maybe because they're two COMPLETELY different lenses??

 

[table1349]

I've recently been looking into getting a better lens for portrait photography. I want better clarity and more bokeh then what my current lens has to offer. I initially was drawn to the 50mm f/1.8 so I went to my local camera retailer to try it out today. The photographer/manager told me that it's not a portrait lens and he suggested the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. I actually tried all 3 out on my camera to get a feel and I liked the 70-200. However as I continue to read up on other lenses I get more and more confused. I was looking at the 85mm f/1.8 tonight too. What lens would you suggest? I guess I am looking for some answers to my lens questions or maybe a different suggestion (to make me more confused--j/k) Oh yes, I am looking to spend under $800.

Any lens is a portrait lens if it gives you the look that you want. The traditional lens range for portraits is 75mm to 120mm. 75mm at the low end due to the inherent nature of any lens over 50mm slightly compressing features. A good thing for portrait photography. 120mm on the long end for working distance.

Personally I only use a zoom lens for casual portraits, usually outdoors where working room is not an issue. For most portraits I shoot primes. A good prime is always going to be sharper than a good zoom of equal grade. A good prime is usually cheaper than a good zoom. A good fast prime will usually have superior bokeh than a good zoom. Finally a good prime will allow you to shoot natural light portraits in light conditions that a good zoom will not.

As for a particular Nikon lens, I would suggest that you look at their top of the line primes in the above range and choose from there. I am sure there are some Nikon shooters out there with good Nikon primes that could give you prime recommendations.

 

[KmH]

I've recently been looking into getting a better lens for portrait photography. I want better clarity and more bokeh then what my current lens has to offer. I initially was drawn to the 50mm f/1.8 so I went to my local camera retailer to try it out today. The photographer/manager told me that it's not a portrait lens and he suggested the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 or the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8. I actually tried all 3 out on my camera to get a feel and I liked the 70-200. However as I continue to read up on other lenses I get more and more confused. I was looking at the 85mm f/1.8 tonight too. What lens would you suggest? I guess I am looking for some answers to my lens questions or maybe a different suggestion (to make me more confused--j/k) Oh yes, I am looking to spend under $800.

I'd be getting the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 which I've found for $730. The Nikkor is way outta my budget.

Here's one in EX (Excellent) condition for $790:

$790 is under $800.

To bad, the Nikon is a better lens and will retain it's value way better than than the Tamron will.

 

[JimmyO]

Tokina 50-135mm 2.8

LOVE mine. I used to shoot with a sigma 70-200mm besides the fact that it eventually fell apart, it just felt to long for portraiture, especially indoor in a studio. I also shoot with an 85mm 1.8 which is really great for through backgrounds out of focus but you dont have the flexibility.