Nikon portrait lenses

[Zeferina]

Just bought a Nikon D3300 with supplied AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5- 5.6G VR ll lens.
I'm interested (at the present) in portraits, but cannot get this lens to blur backgrounds. I have used Aperture priority at its widest, and ISO 100. Am I doing something wrong?
I think I need to go for a larger aperture lens, but I desperately need independent help in choosing.
My budget would be in the £200 area.
I am a novice at this photography thing!
Thanks in advance.

 

[jcdeboever]

AF-S Nikkor 50mm 1.8g
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8G Lens

 

[Destin]

It won't blue backgrounds like you see a lot of pros doing, but there are ways to improve your results with that lens.

Shoot at 55mm, as close to your subject as you can be. Have the background far away. And shoot wide open at f/5.6.

It won't give you creamy bokeh like a 1.8 or other very fast lens will. But you can still blur the background more than you'd think.

That 50mm lens mentioned above will give you much better results. Many professionals with $5000 camera bodies still use that $200 lens because it's so damn good.

 

[Designer]

Just bought a Nikon D3300 with supplied AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5- 5.6G VR ll lens.
I'm interested (at the present) in portraits, but cannot get this lens to blur backgrounds. I have used Aperture priority at its widest, and ISO 100. Am I doing something wrong?
I think I need to go for a larger aperture lens, but I desperately need independent help in choosing.
My budget would be in the £200 area.

I hope you don't mind, I took your money and went shopping here:

Nikon AF-P DX NIKKOR 70–300mm f/4.5–6.3G ED lens - Camera Jungle

This might be the best choice for portraiture within your budget.

Use it at or very nearly at the longest focal length.

I tried to find an 85mm 1.8 G, but they don't have one just now. The 85mm 1.4 D is too much money and not as good as the G.

 

[Designer]

They have two copies of this lens, which would work, even though it's only 50mm.

 

[benhasajeep]

The 50mm f/1.8 is a good inexpensive lens for initial portrait photography on a Nikon DX sensor camera like the D3300.

 

[OGsPhotography]

Try at 55mm @5.6 with your subject about 10 feet from camera and the background at least 50feet. Watch the lighting! My guess is creamy. I might be wrong in that case try background at 300 feet and go from there.

In close tight shots in low light, gear will playba factor.

 

[Derrel]

Just bought a Nikon D3300 with supplied AF-S DX Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5- 5.6G VR ll lens.
I'm interested (at the present) in portraits, but cannot get this lens to blur backgrounds. I have used Aperture priority at its widest, and ISO 100. Am I doing something wrong?
I think I need to go for a larger aperture lens, but I desperately need independent help in choosing.
My budget would be in the £200 area.
I am a novice at this photography thing!
Thanks in advance.

The issue is that at the longer focal lengths, the 18-55 lens is only f/5.3 to f/5.6, at SHORT focal lengths like 35mm to 55mm (approximately). SO, at 55mm and wide-open at a mere f/5.6, establishing background blur on most portraits will be difficult. The exception would be as was detailed above, where the subject is placed VERY close to the camera, and the background is quite far behind the subject. On something like a full-length portrait, at 55mm, the camera will need to be quite far away from the person in order to get them all into the frame, so the camera-to-subject distance will create fairly deep depth of field.

YES, you need a wider-aperture lens; something that keeps you fairly close to the subject will help with creating plenty of background blurring, so the 50mm lens makes a lot of sense; if you went with a slightly longer lens, like an 85mm, you'd be moving back farther in most cases thgan you'd be with the 50mm lens, and would not gain much DOF advantage, as far as establishing a blurred background.

The 70-300mm lens shown above will create some more blurring, when used at LONGER lengths, like 150mm to 300mm...sheer lens length can create pretty good defocused backgrounds on an APS-C Nikon; I often use the 70-300 VR lens, which is a mere f/4.5 at 70mm, and a mere f/5.6 at 300mm, yet it can blur backgrounds reasonably well.

 

[Braineack]

and it's sharper than the 50mm and has better bokeh.

 

[cgw]

The 50/1.8g is affordable and works out to around 75mm on your DX body. Another option is the pin-sharp Micro Nikkor 40/2.8g that puts you in the 60mm range. An overlooked lens whose bokeh looks nicer than my 50/1.8g.

 

[nerwin]

The Nikon 1200-1700mm f/5.6-8 is the best portrait lens you can get. Affordable? Nope.

You'd probably like the 50 1.8G for portraits on your D3300. If you didn't mind standing further back and want that extra shallow depth of field, then the 85 1.8G might interest you.

 

[fmw]

His budget doesn't allow for new fast lens. He needs to find something used, I think.

 

[Peeb]

and it's sharper than the 50mm and has better bokeh.

The 70-300 zoom sharper than the 50mm prime? I own both and don't find my results to be consistent with that statement (not that 'sharp' has that much to do with portrait photography to begin with. Any nikor lens is plenty sharp enough, no?)

The zoom, wide open, should indeed have nice bokeh but will be 1.5x the FOV on that camera, so it gets pretty long pretty fast.

 

[Braineack]

and it's sharper than the 50mm and has better bokeh.

The 70-300 zoom sharper than the 50mm prime? I own both and don't find my results to be consistent with that statement (not that 'sharp' has that much to do with portrait photography to begin with. Any nikor lens is plenty sharp enough, no?)

on paper it is actually according to both Nikon's own MTF measurements, and third-party measurements like DXOMark:

 

[Peeb]

OK- this is AF-P and I have the older AF-S; but seriously- if the 1.8G isn't sharp enough for portraits, you're doing it wrong, wouldn't you agree?