Is it worth buying an 85mm lens for my Nikon D3300

[Frankthetank727]

Hello,

So I have a Nikon D3300 which has an APS-C sensor. I do mainly portrait style photos, and I currently have a 50mm lens that I love. Due to the APS-C though, non-DX lenses obviously mimic a larger format lens. My 50mm tends to look more like a 75mm and so on. I know alot of people like to use an 85mm for portraiture, however, on my camera I understand that will mimic something more around 125mm. Despite this, I have decided to invest in full frame lenses because when I do in fact upgrade my camera, the lenses will be compatible. That being said, would investing in the 85mm be necessary at this point, or would that only make sense once I am upgraded to a full frame camera? 125mm seems a bit too long for most portraiture in my opinion but I would like to hear from the forum!

Thanks

 

[Nwcid]

I am just starting into portraiture and sent went though something similar. I bought an 85mm, but was worried about it being too long on my DX, so I also got a 50mm. I find that I am using the 50mm much more then the 85mm.

My FX camera should be here this week, do I can not answer the second part yet.

 

[480sparky]

125mm equivalent is only an issue if you're shooting where you can't back up enough to get the framing you want. If you've got the real estate to move back, you'll get much better separation between your subject and the background.

There are photographers who routinely shoot portraiture with 150mm, 200mm, even 300mm.

 

[ac12]

Correction
quote

Due to the APS-C though, non-DX lenses obviously mimic a larger format lens.​

end quote

DX or FX lens does not matter, to the camera. The image from a 35mm DX lens and 35mm FX lens will look the same on your DX camera.
What will look different is the image of a 35mm lens on a DX camera and on a FX camera. The 35mm on a DX camera is a "normal" lens, where as on a FX camera it is a wide lens.
It is the relationship of the sensor size to the lens that will change the angle of view, not the lens.
I think you understand it. It just came out confusing.

As 480sparky implied, it depends.
There are a couple things that you need to define, because they affect the lens selection.

• WHAT do you mean by portrait?
  • A portrait can range from a 30 person multi-generation family portrait to a "tight" face shot, and everything in between.
    
  • In a given space and camera to subject distance, the bigger the group the wider/shorter the lens, the tighter the shot the narrower/longer the lens.
  • Examples:
    
    • A 25 person family portrait might call for a 28mm FX lens, or a 18mm DX lens.
      
    • A full length couple shot a 50mm FX lens or a 35mm DX lens.
      
    • A head and shoulder shot a 85mm FX lens or about a 50mm DX lens.
      
    • A head shot a 105mm FX lens or a 70mm DX lens.
      
    • A tight face shot a 135mm FX lens or a 90mm DX lens.
• How much distance do you have between you and the subject.
  
  • The closer to the subject the wider/shorter the lens, the farther from the subject the narrower/longer the lens.
  • This is where reality comes into the picture. When you shoot "on location," the location can drive the lens selection.
    • Example1, if you are shooting across a fountain, you may need an even longer lens, as you physically cannot get closer to the subject, because of the fountain. You may need a 200 or 300mm FX lens, (135 or 200mm DX lens).
    • Example2, if you are shooting a 6 person family portrait in the living room of a house, you physically cannot backup far enough to use a 85mm short tele. You have to use a 50mm normal or even a 35mm short wide FX lens (35 or 24mm DX lens).

Now for the primes.

• The advantage that they give you over the zoom is the smaller aperture, for a shallower depth of field.
• But you are stuck with only ONE focal length for a lens. How will that focal length fit into the scheme above of type of portrait and camera to subject distance? If you do not have the physical space, you will not be able to use the 85mm lens for a full length couple portrait.

This is why some portrait photographers use a zoom lens, so that they don't have to have so many different lenses, and change lenses so much. The f/2.8 pro zoom is a compromise for image quality, somewhat shallow DoF, and zoom lens flexibility.

 

[adamhiram]

Go for it! I have a D500 with s crop sensor, and 85mm is my go-to lens for portraits. For headshots you’ll be about 8-10’ away, which is a good working distance. For half/full body shots, you’ll still want to use your 50mm or go even wider as the subject dictates.

 

[Designer]

That being said, would investing in the 85mm be necessary at this point, or would that only make sense once I am upgraded to a full frame camera?

Hello!

Necessary? Nothing is "necessary", although if you want to make decent portraits, you should "go long". Years ago we used to think that 105mm was the lower end of the range for a single headshot, and 135mm being more the norm. So don't be afraid to back up a bit and get a more natural-appearing portrait. Yes, you will have to step back some to get your subject framed properly, but that also makes the geometry work to compliment your subject. For my APS-C sensor, I have primes all the way up to 180mm, and I'm saving up for a 300mm prime.

Besides; if you do get an FX body someday, you can use the 85mm as an "85mm", and you'll be wanting even longer.

 

[greybeard]

The only way to know is to get your hands on an 85mm and see if it fits your needs. You can rent one for a week pretty cheap.

Rent professional cameras or camera lenses for Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus, Leica and Pentax

 

[Derrel]

I personally think that the 85mm f/1.8 prime lens is "the best" third prime lens to buy, for APS-C or for FX format d-slr cameras. Why? Multiple reasons, including: lower price than many other prime lenses of the same f/stop "speed". There are some very costly new Nikkor f/1.8 primes, but the 85/1.8 from Nikon, or Canon, is and has been around $400 for close to two decades now. So, it's affordable.

The 85/1.8 is light in weight, and compact, and easily portable. It is a crisp, sharp imager. An 85mm lens is long enough to give some good indoor "reach" at things like school recitals, sports events indoors,graduations, banquets, plays, public events, parades, fairs, rodeos, and so on. The thing is: the lens offers real, true "speed"...f/2.8 is considered fast these days, but f/1.8 offers the extra bit of shutter speed that can ensure a CRISP shot, hand-held, or with action, whereas at f/2.8 the shutter speed is slower. The 85mm prime lens is so bitingly sharp and crisp that it makes a great image to crop-in on later, at the computer. The lens is small and short enough that it does not draw much attention, either from security or from the general public. All in all, I think the 85mm f/1.8 prime lenses from Canon and Nikon are really fantastic tools to have.

The 85mm on an APS-C sensor camera is very close to the old favorite of my youth, the 135mm f/2.8 prime tele, but it's faster, at f/1.8, and shorter. With APS-C's 1.5 to 1.6x FOV factor, the 85mm is in the 125-127mm basic wheelhouse...VERY useful for selective-angle shooting!

 

[mrca]

Like Derrel, my headshot favorite is a 135, but the 135 2.0 dc. Bokeh king, fabulous micro contrast. The 85 1.8 has somewhat harsh bokeh so if you can scrape together the extra, I recommend a used 85 1.4 that has gorgeous bokeh. If you have a camera with plenty of megapixels, you can back up. Understand that the further back you move, there is more compression to the face. It is a function of distance not lens length. You need to try different distances. 5 feet, then 7 or 8 then 10, 12, 14 16 and find the compression you like. I also use a 100 mm but with 46 mp, 30 mp in square format, I have plenty of pixels to spare and can back up a step or so and crop. It also allows for shooting loose giving more options in post. However, If I know it will be printed square, I crop in camera, save the step in post and have lots of detail/microcontrast to work with.