50mm f/1.8 vs. 85 mm f/1.8

[jmtonkin]

I'm still trying to decide what lens I want to get. This lens would be used primarily for portraits. Which of these two do you guys think would be a better fit?

I found a used Nikon d300s on Amazon for $1450 and it comes with the 50mm f/1.8. I've been planning on shelling out the money to get the body and the 85mm but if the 50mm will serve its purpose, then I could save quite a bit of money!

 

[flea77]

Both the 50 and 85 are fast sharp lenses, the difference is image compression. I prefer the 85 for that reason. Your style might lean more towards the 50. Only you can answer that question.

Allan

 

[Dao]

Do you have a zoom that cover 50mm and 85mm? If yes, set it (or them) to 50mm and 85mm. Then see which focal length works better for you.

 

[KmH]

One lens cannot do all portraits. You will want both the 50 mm and the 85 mm.

Doing portraiture well requires having a suite of lenses, some primes and some zooms, to accommodate the wide variet of portrait types: Head, head and shoulders, 3/4, full body, couples, families, groups, etc.

 

[Pgeobc]

Most would opt for an 85mm plus a 100 or 135mm for portraits. Nikon's 85s have an impressive reputation for image quality and would do good work for a head-and-shoulders portrait. Buy a 100mm macro and get a good, sharp lens that will do portraits and macro work. Buy a 135 for tight head shots.

Nikon has a new 50mm 1.8 and I's wait for that version to become available. Still, you are going to be happer with 85mm and above.

Too sharp for portraits, you say? That's what they make Zeiss Softar filters for.