Best Nikon DX lens for family portraits

Familyphotog · May 29, 2012

I know this is a very common question, but I wanted to start a fresh thread and get some perspective on what you all might think. I have a D90 that I am fairly happy with. I would love to go full frame but I think better glass would be a wiser investment. I already have a 50mm and the 17-55 and they are great. I feel like I am missing something and I'm kind of in a funk with my images. They are coming out fine, my clients are very happy. I keep up with my Facebook page more than my blog, link is in my signature if you would like to see my latest work. I feel like I need an upgrade and would love some suggestions.

Thanks!!

tirediron · May 29, 2012

I don't see any link in your signature... but it sounds to me like you have a case of G.A.S. (Gear acquisition syndrome). If you don't know what you want, you probably don't need it! That said, the choices for good portrait lenses are a bit limited in the DX line. If you're doing single-person shots, the 85mm 1.4 or 1.8 is an excellent choice, but if you are doing families (as in multiple subjects in each image) I think I'd go with the 50mm 1.4.

joaopsr · May 29, 2012

Any 70-200 is a great portrait lens. Too long for most full-body and groupshots, though.

Concerning primes, there are some short/medium telephoto: 50mm f1.4/f1.8, 85mm f1.4/f1.8. Then there are some longer telephoto (that might be a little too long on DX bodies): The amazing 105 f2.0 DC and 135 f2.0 DC, and the 180 f2.8.

I own the 50mm f1.8, 85mm f1.8 and the 80-200 f2.8. I end up using the zoom more often due to more "versatility". All of them are great lenses, though. The 85mm f1.4 is probably one of the best portrait lenses. Sadly, too expensive for my not-so-deep pocket

Infidel · May 29, 2012

Is this a fair interpretation?

Familyphotog said:
...I would love to go full frame in the future but I think better glass would be a wiser investment for now...

If so, I wouldn't think that DX-specific glass would be all that good of an investment. 85mm might be an awkward focal length on a dx sensor, especially for families. I personally think full frame makes a lot of sense for someone who earns income from portrait work. Makes it a lot easier to blur backgrounds using flattering focal lengths (85, 105, 135mm, etc), without the awkward camera-to-subject and subject-to-background distance requirements imposed by using these focal lengths on a crop body.

Familyphotog · May 30, 2012

Hmm, I thought the signature was there. Well it's www.facebook.com/leylacadabalphotog

I know what you mean about upgrading to the ff. I do hear that it is a world of difference. It would be about a $3,000 investment that I just can't hack right now. I have the 50mm 1.8 and I think I might go ahead and get the 1.4...
I have tried the 85mm on my camera and I am not sure it would work out for me, it is so tight with small spaces. Not that I am in small spaces too much. I wasn't used to it so maybe I just needed some more time with it.
Tried the 105 and it was nice too, but I had focusing issues with it. Again, also felt tight but I was using it in a studio. I suppose I am too used to the 17-55 and getting wide shots..

Think the 50mm upgrade will help? Then I can at least use that on a FF. The 17-55 I will have to sell, it won't do well on the FF.

joaopsr · May 30, 2012

Familyphotog said:
Hmm, I thought the signature was there. Well it's www.facebook.com/leylacadabalphotog

I know what you mean about upgrading to the ff. I do hear that it is a world of difference. It would be about a $3,000 investment that I just can't hack right now. I have the 50mm 1.8 and I think I might go ahead and get the 1.4...
I have tried the 85mm on my camera and I am not sure it would work out for me, it is so tight with small spaces. Not that I am in small spaces too much. I wasn't used to it so maybe I just needed some more time with it.
Tried the 105 and it was nice too, but I had focusing issues with it. Again, also felt tight but I was using it in a studio. I suppose I am too used to the 17-55 and getting wide shots..

Think the 50mm upgrade will help? Then I can at least use that on a FF. The 17-55 I will have to sell, it won't do well on the FF.

The 50mm f1.4 won't be much of an upgrade. You'll get an extra 2/3 of a stop, a not much more than that. And the f1.8 will work on FF too...

Infidel · May 30, 2012

Sounds like you DO want to go full frame, but you have $500 burning a hole in your pocket. As mentioned above, I don't see how buying a $500 lens that only gains you 2/3 stop of light in a focal length you already have will get you out of your photographic funk. Just bank it.

Mach0 · May 30, 2012

What is it that you feel you are missing? If you have a 17-55, that should be decent on the d90. If you think an 85 is too tight, maybe try a tamron 28-75? Idk. Kind of a stretch. You have overlapping coverage. Plus, you don't like 85mm and anything longer will be tighter. If you do want a 50 1.4, try the sigma. The bokeh is supposedly more pleasant. I would really go longer. If you are on a budget I'd think the 80-200 2.8 will be good. Other than that, I'd say stick what you have and if you want to invest, I'd say invest in some lighting ( in case you haven't already.)

Familyphotog · May 30, 2012

Is the Sigma much better than the Nikon? Their prices are pretty comparable. Thought the Sigma would be cheaper.

2WheelPhoto · May 30, 2012

Top shelf glass for portraits

djacobox372 · May 30, 2012

If you're looking for the best "family" portrait lens for your camera, then the nikon 24-70mm f2.8 would be my pick. Budget option would be the 35mm f1.8g.

For individual/headshot photos I'd suggest a 50mm f1.8g, although 50mm would likely be too long for photos of the entire family.