85mm

anagoesch

TPF Noob!
Joined
Oct 27, 2011
Messages
32
Reaction score
0
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
Please, I need some help to choose which one of those would be the best Razor SHARP for my d7000, outside family and kids portraits
I have a 50mm 1.8 but looking for an upgrade

Nikon 85 mm 1.8 D AF
Nikon 85mm f 3.5 G AFs
Nikon 16-85 mm f 3.5 G AFs

Thanks in advance everyone!
 
tamron 17-50mm 2.8

it is razor sharp on mine :p
 
Thank you!I'll check it out...
 
I would go with the 85 1.8 AF-D model as a field telephoto/portrait lens...that's what it is optimized for.
 
Thank you for the advice.
85mm 1.8 d the sharpest from those three.
 
The 85mm 1.8D for sure, without blinking an eye. You'll get a lot of use out of it.
 
Thank you

I guess I am not confused anymore!!!

This forum is so helpful...

I appreciate all the information given

Have a great day everyone
 
To follow up on this thread, I just got the 50mm f/1.8 for a gift with the thought that I could use it for indoor/outdoor portraits. I also own the Tokina 100m f/2.8 macro which also is good for outdoor portraits.

My question is this -- there does not seem to be a significant amount of difference between a 50mm prime and an 85mm prime. Why choose one over the other?

Also, why pay almost 2x as much for the 50mm f/1.4 versus the 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor?

Thanks!
 
^^ Dude, the 50mm was never in question since the OP already owns one.


OP, I can vouch for the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 as well. Very sharp lens.
 
To follow up on this thread, I just got the 50mm f/1.8 for a gift with the thought that I could use it for indoor/outdoor portraits. I also own the Tokina 100m f/2.8 macro which also is good for outdoor portraits.

My question is this -- there does not seem to be a significant amount of difference between a 50mm prime and an 85mm prime. Why choose one over the other?

Also, why pay almost 2x as much for the 50mm f/1.4 versus the 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor?

Thanks!

It all comes down to preference and practicality. I think the 85mm length is just a little better for candids, head/shoulder shots, and indoor sports. The things I would use a 50mm for.

I would pay twice as much for a Sigma 50 over the F1.8G or maybe not. I wouldn't consider the other choices now.
 
^^ Dude, the 50mm was never in question since the OP already owns one.


OP, I can vouch for the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 as well. Very sharp lens.

You do appear to be in a state of confusion. I understood the OP's question and was asking for myself about why one would want the 85mm over the 50mm. Did you read my post?
 
To follow up on this thread, I just got the 50mm f/1.8 for a gift with the thought that I could use it for indoor/outdoor portraits. I also own the Tokina 100m f/2.8 macro which also is good for outdoor portraits.

My question is this -- there does not seem to be a significant amount of difference between a 50mm prime and an 85mm prime. Why choose one over the other?

Also, why pay almost 2x as much for the 50mm f/1.4 versus the 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor?

Thanks!

I own an 85mm f/1.4 and it is an outstanding lens for any kind of portraiture. It renders bokeh beautifully and provides excellent background control on a full frame camera. I also have a 50mm f/1.4, which I chose over the 50mm f/1.8 (Canon) for the extra stops, as well as the better build quality/manual focus override. The 50mm f/1.8 does not produce pleasing bokeh, but the 50mm f/1.4 does.
 
To follow up on this thread, I just got the 50mm f/1.8 for a gift with the thought that I could use it for indoor/outdoor portraits. I also own the Tokina 100m f/2.8 macro which also is good for outdoor portraits.

My question is this -- there does not seem to be a significant amount of difference between a 50mm prime and an 85mm prime. Why choose one over the other?

Also, why pay almost 2x as much for the 50mm f/1.4 versus the 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor?

Thanks!

I own an 85mm f/1.4 and it is an outstanding lens for any kind of portraiture. It renders bokeh beautifully and provides excellent background control on a full frame camera. I also have a 50mm f/1.4, which I chose over the 50mm f/1.8 (Canon) for the extra stops, as well as the better build quality/manual focus override. The 50mm f/1.8 does not produce pleasing bokeh, but the 50mm f/1.4 does.


From Ken Rockwell's website on his review of the 50mm f/1.8:

"Bokeh, the character of out of focus backgrounds, not simply how far out of focus they are, is great. Out-of-focus backgrounds are always soft and never distract."
 
Thank you very much! I just want something better than 50 1.8 but also no more expensive than $600. It seems like that would be the best upgrade choice for me. About the 50 mm questions....I am not sure to be honest
 
To follow up on this thread, I just got the 50mm f/1.8 for a gift with the thought that I could use it for indoor/outdoor portraits. I also own the Tokina 100m f/2.8 macro which also is good for outdoor portraits.

My question is this -- there does not seem to be a significant amount of difference between a 50mm prime and an 85mm prime. Why choose one over the other?

Also, why pay almost 2x as much for the 50mm f/1.4 versus the 50mm f/1.8 Nikkor?

Thanks!

I own an 85mm f/1.4 and it is an outstanding lens for any kind of portraiture. It renders bokeh beautifully and provides excellent background control on a full frame camera. I also have a 50mm f/1.4, which I chose over the 50mm f/1.8 (Canon) for the extra stops, as well as the better build quality/manual focus override. The 50mm f/1.8 does not produce pleasing bokeh, but the 50mm f/1.4 does.


From Ken Rockwell's website on his review of the 50mm f/1.8:

"Bokeh, the character of out of focus backgrounds, not simply how far out of focus they are, is great. Out-of-focus backgrounds are always soft and never distract."

Ken Rockwell is mostly a blowhard. But he knows more about Nikon than I do. I was referring to the Canon lens, as I cannot speak for anything Nikon.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top