Shallow Depth of Field Lense for Nikon D3100

[Simon_G]

I own a Nikon D3100 which came with the standard 18 - 55mm lens, and now I'm wanting to get a lens that has a shallow depth of field and I've been looking at a AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8g, but not sure if this is the right lens I'm looking for. Does anyone have any help or advice?

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Simon

 

[MiFleur]

What do you want to do with your lens? macro? portraits? landscape

 

[Simon_G]

Sorry, I should have mentioned that I was wanting to use the lens mainly for portraits and generally relatively close-up shots

 

[CA_]

I own a Nikon D3100 which came with the standard 18 - 55mm lens, and now I'm wanting to get a lens that has a shallow depth of field and I've been looking at a AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8g, but not sure if this is the right lens I'm looking for. Does anyone have any help or advice?

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Simon

You're on the right path, that lens is fantastic. It's very sharp. It's a bit slow to focus (so I've heard) but it's very sharp, and great for video as well. What type of things are you wanting to shoot?

 

[CA_]

Sorry, I should have mentioned that I was wanting to use the lens mainly for portraits and generally relatively close-up shots

For portraits, the 35mm 1.8G is a spot on choice.

 

[Simon_G]

Thanks for the replies - I'll buy one before the Nikon Christmas Cashback offer ends...

 

[Mach0]

For portraits, the 35mm 1.8G is a spot on choice.

I have the the 35.
OP- 35 isn't an ideal portait lens. It's ok if you are farther back but an up close lens, I would say an 85 1.8G or at least a 50mm prime. Otherwise you would get perspective distortion and spend a lot of time correcting In post.

 

[cgipson1]

I agree with Macho. The 35 has too much Barrel Distortion when used as a close up lens, I would not go less than 50mm for that (even a 50 can distort if used too close). Ever seen those images where someones nose or forehead is slight enlarged, and makes them look really strange??? That is what wide angles to to peoples faces! A 35 won't be as excessive as a wider angler would be, but will still be much less flattering than a 50, or even better... an 85mm.

 

[cgipson1]

For portraits, the 35mm 1.8G is a spot on choice.

I have the the 35.
OP- 35 isn't an ideal portait lens. It's ok if you are farther back but an up close lens, I would say an 85 1.8G or at least a 50mm prime. Otherwise you would get perspective distortion and spend a lot of time correcting In post.

YEP! Although if the distortion is minimal, it takes experience to see it. Many noobs can't see it unless it is really excessive!

 

[cgipson1]

Not sure why this was double posted?

The 35 has too much Barrel Distortion when used as a close up lens, I would not go less than 50mm for that (even a 50 can distort if used too close). Ever seen those images where someones nose or forehead is slight enlarged, and makes them look really strange??? That is what wide angles to to peoples faces! A 35 won't be as excessive as a wider angler would be, but will still be much less flattering than a 50, or even better... an 85mm.

 

[ph0enix]

You want this lens:
Amazon.com: Nikon 50mm f/1.8G AF-S NIKKOR FX Lens for Nikon Digital SLR Cameras: NIKON: Camera & Photo

 

[JaronRH]

You're on the right path but I think it depends on what you want to shoot.
35mm (Nikon 35 1.8G): similar field of view as your eye. However, it will distort peoples features slightly when taken up close. Lot's of CA but very sharp. As mentioned, it can be a little slow to focus sometimes but nothing major.
50mm (Nikon 50mm 1.8G): Mild telephoto on your camera. Personally, I found it too telephoto for most indoor use but not telephoto enough for everything else! Very good lens though - arguably the best bang for your buck.
85mm (Nikon 85mm 1.8G): Great lens for portraits but it will have a very telephoto feel on your camera. I have a Sigma 85mm and it's probably my most used lens (on both FX and DX cameras)!

If you're looking to shoot small objects up close, you may be better off with a macro lens though (Tamron 90mm is what I use).

 

[KmH]

Simon •
>>>> Please do not cross-post in multiple forums <<<<

The identical threads you started have been merged.

If you discover you started a thread in the wrong place, click on the report triangle at the lower left to let the moderating team know.
Change your post content to something short and sweet like the word Whoops!, so people don't reply in both threads, and then start the tread again in the other place.

 

[gardy]

50 1.8g or 85 1.8g both would fit your bill perfect. With that being said the 85 has a longer min focus distance so you won't be able to get close as a macro lens would but at 85 mm on a crop body you can get pretty decent close ups

 

[joshua_]

I own a Nikon D3100 which came with the standard 18 - 55mm lens, and now I'm wanting to get a lens that has a shallow depth of field and I've been looking at a AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8g, but not sure if this is the right lens I'm looking for. Does anyone have any help or advice?

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Simon

Hello, I have a similar camera (d3200) and I have the AF-S DX Nikkor 35mm f/1.8g. I really like it and get some excellent photos with it. I believe it is an excellent addition to the kit. I am a newb, fwiw. I have taken many excellent family and party photos with it so far though.

Part of my reason for going with the 35mm first was the environment I would use it within some of the time. It does well in smaller rooms.

I do want another prime and believe I'll go with the 85mm for my camera. I'd have already bought it, but I can't quite decide if I want the AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G or the AF-S DX Micro Nikkor 85mm f3.5G ED VR. I'm leaning towards the macro, which then leads me to the 105mm. :mrgreen: I'll end up with a few more lenses, I can already tell.

I think if you just consider what your intended use and environment of intended use it will help you pick from the good choices that these veteran photographers have given.