35mm lens

[plumeria]

I am looking into buying a 35mm lens but am confused which one to buy. I would like a lens that I can use to do portraits and still be able to get some of the environment in the shot...without having to step so far back from the subject...but still be able to get a nice blurry background at times. Right now I am using a Nikon D90 but am looking into upgrading to a full-frame in the possible near future. Any suggestions on a specific lens I should get?

 

[jcdeboever]

You want the FX version. I have the 1.8g which is for crop sensor/DX and love it for portraits, landscape, and low light.
AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G ED lens | DSLR lenses from Nikon

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[plumeria]

You want the FX version. I have the 1.8g which is for crop sensor/DX and love it for portraits, landscape, and low light.
AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G ED lens | DSLR lenses from Nikon

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

so this specific lens can be used on my D90 for now until I upgrade to a full frame?

 

[jcdeboever]

You want the FX version. I have the 1.8g which is for crop sensor/DX and love it for portraits, landscape, and low light.
AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G ED lens | DSLR lenses from Nikon

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

so this specific lens can be used on my D90 for now until I upgrade to a full frame?

Yes and very well too.

The opposite, when you put a DX lens on an FX body, the camera will switch to DX mode, meaning the sensor area will be cropped.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[plumeria]

You want the FX version. I have the 1.8g which is for crop sensor/DX and love it for portraits, landscape, and low light.
AF-S NIKKOR 35mm f/1.8G ED lens | DSLR lenses from Nikon

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

so this specific lens can be used on my D90 for now until I upgrade to a full frame?

Yes and very well too.

The opposite, when you put a DX lens on an FX body, the camera will switch to DX mode, meaning the sensor area will be cropped.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Ok thank you! What do you think about a zoom lens like the Nikon Zoom-Nikkor Wide-Angle Zoom Lens for Nikon F - 17mm-35mm - F/2.8 ? Do you think this would be better lens than a 35mm? I would eventually like a wide angle lens as well...and I don't like to constantly change my lenses if I don't have to. What do you think? Or do you have any other suggestions?

 

[goodguy]

If you mean portrait as head shots then 35mm is really not the right lens for that, not in DX and most definitely not in FX.

 

[tirediron]

If you mean portrait as head shots then 35mm is really not the right lens for that, not in DX and most definitely not in FX.

If you want to shoot portraits think in the 70mm+ range.

 

[PaulWog]

I am looking into buying a 35mm lens but am confused which one to buy. I would like a lens that I can use to do portraits and still be able to get some of the environment in the shot...without having to step so far back from the subject...but still be able to get a nice blurry background at times. Right now I am using a Nikon D90 but am looking into upgrading to a full-frame in the possible near future. Any suggestions on a specific lens I should get?

Consider a 24-70 f2.8 lens, if the size and weight is something you don't mind. Such a lens would be decent for portraits on a DX sensor, you would get moderate wide to moderate telephoto, and it would do well on full frame (since you mentioned you want to move to full frame).

I'm not sure what the accepted photographer's definition of a portrait is, but a regular portrait usually is a tight headshot (chest and up). I hear "full body" or "half body" portrait when people refer to portraits that reveal more. A portrait that gets some of the environment could entail something further away. For such a shot, even an ultra wide angle lens could be used, depending on the effect you're going for, and the environment you are shooting. The main thing is that you are aware of the natural distortion caused by your choice of focal length. 35mm on DX for a full body portrait would likely be fine, although you would still need to be aware that shooting overhead of someone, or from below, could make your subject look a little odd. At 35mm on DX, a tighter portrait will get a little too distorted.

 

[plumeria]

I am looking into buying a 35mm lens but am confused which one to buy. I would like a lens that I can use to do portraits and still be able to get some of the environment in the shot...without having to step so far back from the subject...but still be able to get a nice blurry background at times. Right now I am using a Nikon D90 but am looking into upgrading to a full-frame in the possible near future. Any suggestions on a specific lens I should get?

Consider a 24-70 f2.8 lens, if the size and weight is something you don't mind. Such a lens would be decent for portraits on a DX sensor, you would get moderate wide to moderate telephoto, and it would do well on full frame (since you mentioned you want to move to full frame).

I'm not sure what the accepted photographer's definition of a portrait is, but a regular portrait usually is a tight headshot (chest and up). I hear "full body" or "half body" portrait when people refer to portraits that reveal more. A portrait that gets some of the environment could entail something further away. For such a shot, even an ultra wide angle lens could be used, depending on the effect you're going for, and the environment you are shooting. The main thing is that you are aware of the natural distortion caused by your choice of focal length. 35mm on DX for a full body portrait would likely be fine, although you would still need to be aware that shooting overhead of someone, or from below, could make your subject look a little odd. At 35mm on DX, a tighter portrait will get a little too distorted.

Thank you for your response. I'm not a professional photographer and this lens would mostly be used on my almost 2 year old son who I take a million photos of with my phone and for photos of family/friends when asked to do their family photos. Right now I use a 18-200mm f3.5-5.6...which isn't fast enough and doesn't give me that nice bokeh I want unless I fully zoom in. I also use a 50 f1.8 and a micro nikkor 105mm f2.8...both create beautiful photos but I have to be so far away from the subject to get more into the shot and it is impossible to do when taking a group photo or when indoors due to lack of space. I want to be able to get full body shots and have a nice blurry background...or have more of the environment in the shot instead of just head shots. Would you still suggest a 24-70 f2.8 lens?

Another question...do you know if I could use the lenses that I already have on a full-frame? I'm thinking the 18-200 one will be cropped due to it being a DX lens? Do you know about the 50mm 1.8D or the micro nikkor 105mm 1.8G ED?

 

[PaulWog]

Thank you for your response. I'm not a professional photographer and this lens would mostly be used on my almost 2 year old son who I take a million photos of with my phone and for photos of family/friends when asked to do their family photos. Right now I use a 18-200mm f3.5-5.6...which isn't fast enough and doesn't give me that nice bokeh I want unless I fully zoom in. I also use a 50 f1.8 and a micro nikkor 105mm f2.8...both create beautiful photos but I have to be so far away from the subject to get more into the shot and it is impossible to do when taking a group photo or when indoors due to lack of space. I want to be able to get full body shots and have a nice blurry background...or have more of the environment in the shot instead of just head shots. Would you still suggest a 24-70 f2.8 lens?

Another question...do you know if I could use the lenses that I already have on a full-frame? I'm thinking the 18-200 one will be cropped due to it being a DX lens? Do you know about the 50mm 1.8D or the micro nikkor 105mm 1.8G ED?

If you have the money, and you intend to purchase a full frame camera, then the 24-70 f2.8 is worth looking at. On full frame, it would be like if your 18-200 shot at f1.8, but went very slightly wider, and only went up to about 50mm.

There are much cheaper options to achieve what you're looking to do right now though. The only reason to spend so much on a 24-70 f2.8 lens is because it's an extremely good lens when you move to full frame (if you get the Tamron or Nikon).

Both the 50mm 1.8D and 105mm f2.8G Micro can be used on full frame.

 

[Dave442]

If the 50mm puts you too far away, and that is not unusual on a crop body when indoors, then your desire to have nice bokeh is going to be difficult in that situation. If you go to full frame and use the 35mm f/1.4 then you might get some soft backgrounds, but it would be cheaper to buy a bigger house

 

[plumeria]

Thank you for your response. I'm not a professional photographer and this lens would mostly be used on my almost 2 year old son who I take a million photos of with my phone and for photos of family/friends when asked to do their family photos. Right now I use a 18-200mm f3.5-5.6...which isn't fast enough and doesn't give me that nice bokeh I want unless I fully zoom in. I also use a 50 f1.8 and a micro nikkor 105mm f2.8...both create beautiful photos but I have to be so far away from the subject to get more into the shot and it is impossible to do when taking a group photo or when indoors due to lack of space. I want to be able to get full body shots and have a nice blurry background...or have more of the environment in the shot instead of just head shots. Would you still suggest a 24-70 f2.8 lens?

Another question...do you know if I could use the lenses that I already have on a full-frame? I'm thinking the 18-200 one will be cropped due to it being a DX lens? Do you know about the 50mm 1.8D or the micro nikkor 105mm 1.8G ED?

If you have the money, and you intend to purchase a full frame camera, then the 24-70 f2.8 is worth looking at. On full frame, it would be like if your 18-200 shot at f1.8, but went very slightly wider, and only went up to about 50mm.

There are much cheaper options to achieve what you're looking to do right now though. The only reason to spend so much on a 24-70 f2.8 lens is because it's an extremely good lens when you move to full frame (if you get the Tamron or Nikon).

Both the 50mm 1.8D and 105mm f2.8G Micro can be used on full frame.

Sounds like a great lens but don't think I can afford that right now. What would the cheaper options be?

 

[PaulWog]

Thank you for your response. I'm not a professional photographer and this lens would mostly be used on my almost 2 year old son who I take a million photos of with my phone and for photos of family/friends when asked to do their family photos. Right now I use a 18-200mm f3.5-5.6...which isn't fast enough and doesn't give me that nice bokeh I want unless I fully zoom in. I also use a 50 f1.8 and a micro nikkor 105mm f2.8...both create beautiful photos but I have to be so far away from the subject to get more into the shot and it is impossible to do when taking a group photo or when indoors due to lack of space. I want to be able to get full body shots and have a nice blurry background...or have more of the environment in the shot instead of just head shots. Would you still suggest a 24-70 f2.8 lens?

Another question...do you know if I could use the lenses that I already have on a full-frame? I'm thinking the 18-200 one will be cropped due to it being a DX lens? Do you know about the 50mm 1.8D or the micro nikkor 105mm 1.8G ED?

If you have the money, and you intend to purchase a full frame camera, then the 24-70 f2.8 is worth looking at. On full frame, it would be like if your 18-200 shot at f1.8, but went very slightly wider, and only went up to about 50mm.

There are much cheaper options to achieve what you're looking to do right now though. The only reason to spend so much on a 24-70 f2.8 lens is because it's an extremely good lens when you move to full frame (if you get the Tamron or Nikon).

Both the 50mm 1.8D and 105mm f2.8G Micro can be used on full frame.

Sounds like a great lens but don't think I can afford that right now. What would the cheaper options be?

For DX-only, the Sigma 17-50mm OS is good.

You could look at the 28mm 1.8G or 35mm 1.8G if you want cheap and a fast aperture.

 

[plumeria]

Thank you for your response. I'm not a professional photographer and this lens would mostly be used on my almost 2 year old son who I take a million photos of with my phone and for photos of family/friends when asked to do their family photos. Right now I use a 18-200mm f3.5-5.6...which isn't fast enough and doesn't give me that nice bokeh I want unless I fully zoom in. I also use a 50 f1.8 and a micro nikkor 105mm f2.8...both create beautiful photos but I have to be so far away from the subject to get more into the shot and it is impossible to do when taking a group photo or when indoors due to lack of space. I want to be able to get full body shots and have a nice blurry background...or have more of the environment in the shot instead of just head shots. Would you still suggest a 24-70 f2.8 lens?

Another question...do you know if I could use the lenses that I already have on a full-frame? I'm thinking the 18-200 one will be cropped due to it being a DX lens? Do you know about the 50mm 1.8D or the micro nikkor 105mm 1.8G ED?

If you have the money, and you intend to purchase a full frame camera, then the 24-70 f2.8 is worth looking at. On full frame, it would be like if your 18-200 shot at f1.8, but went very slightly wider, and only went up to about 50mm.

There are much cheaper options to achieve what you're looking to do right now though. The only reason to spend so much on a 24-70 f2.8 lens is because it's an extremely good lens when you move to full frame (if you get the Tamron or Nikon).

Both the 50mm 1.8D and 105mm f2.8G Micro can be used on full frame.

Sounds like a great lens but don't think I can afford that right now. What would the cheaper options be?

For DX-only, the Sigma 17-50mm OS is good.

You could look at the 28mm 1.8G or 35mm 1.8G if you want cheap and a fast aperture.

those lenses, 28 and 35, can be used both on DX and FX?

 

[PaulWog]

those lenses, 28 and 35, can be used both on DX and FX?

Yes. Either can be used on both DX and FX. If you get the DX version of the 35mm 1.8G (the cheaper one that is around $200), it will not work on FX as well as the 35mm 1.8G FX version (it's not made for FX).