What's your portrait lens??

[Light Artisan]

Hmmm I see, well one of the reasons I liked the 35 was that it could AF on my camera which is a huge issue. I mean i've heard also the nifty fifty is a great buy but, the no AF kind of worries me.

If portraits was your main reason for the lens, manual focus isn't a big deal.

Doesn't matter though, you have the lens - you'll just need to learn where it shines for your intended purpose, only experience will tell you that.

Just keep a lens cleaner handy, you will get fingerprints on it from people poking at it because you're so close.

 

[twoboysnmygirl]

The shots was for a friend who has a business teaching birth classes. Without going in to a huge post about it (I tend to ramble!) She focuses on the mother, celebrating your body, the transformation of not only the body, but the mother, and natural childbirth. It's her business logo, basically!

 

[Bram]

Haha Yeah good point, oh well I like to get close and establish a connection with my subject. Lol! but yeah I think I just need to get out and sample it.

 

[sanpan]

I have been prowling in these forums for a while since I am planning to buy one of these lens .
From what I have seen, the 35 mm (52.5 mm for FX cameras) is a standard lens/ normal lens/ walk around lens for the DX cameras. The 50 mm (75 mm for FX cameras) is a very good portrait lens. Both are fast lenses.
If you feel that you get perspective distortion for portraits with the 35 mm, you will have to PP it for a bit but it should not be much of an issue.

 

[Village Idiot]

35 is way too wide for portraits in my opinion... It's a great lens, I just don't like being so close to the subject. I prefer a 70-200 f/2.8 for most all portrait work, or my 50 f/1.4 if I want upper body shots.

I've used everything from a 15mm Fish Eye, to 10-20, to a 70-200 for portraits. It depends on the situation and what you're looking to shoot.

 

[Bram]

Good point VI, thanks for the input. I think i'm just going to keep practising with it, walk around the house with my camera lol.

 

[KmH]

For those having a Nikon camera body that has a focus motor in it, the AF 80-200 mm f/2.8D has very good optics, and can be picked up used for about $850 USD, about 1/2 the price of a used AF-S 70-200 mm f/2.8G VR.

 

[Bram]

Yeah that's why I think i'm going to opt for a used D90 in the future and then get the 80-200, should be able to grab both for under $1500.

 

[KmH]

What's your portrait lens??

Lenses...plural. One won't cut it, it's takes several.

 

[Bram]

You get my point.

 

[enzodm]

I typically use a 55/1.4 Rokinon lens for half body or so, and a 135mm for headshots. Both manual focus only. I would use something shorter for environmental portraits, i.e., with part of the ambient needed to situate the portrait, although the nice pregnant sample tells that a experienced photographer is able to exploit features of any lens.

 

[Bram]

Yeah very true thanks for the addition, I think that i'm just going to check it out fully and experiment with it. See where it goes.

 

[itf]

i would recommend the 85mm f/1.8. look on craigslist. my friend recently got one for 260 used.

 

[Bram]

Hmm I will take a gander but I think i'm going to stick with this one for now.

 

[Ken Rockwell Fan]

For portraits I prefer a 70-200 f/2.8 or 80-200 f/2.8. A 35mm lens is too close for me to do serious portraits.