Which DX lens for portraits?

[D-B-J]

I find myself often mounting my 80-200 2.8, or my 105mm micro. The 80-200 gives me plenty of options in terms of focal lengths and apertures, and the 105 gives me excellent crispness and bokeh. It really all depends. Are you shooting headshots?? One person? Two people? Full body?

Regards,
Jake

 

[Tailgunner]

The best portrait lens (DX or FX) is a 70-200 f/2.8! (read it on the internet.. so it must be true)

If you think the 70-200 mm f/2.8 is good, tape your socks up so you don't lose 'em, and check out the 200 mm f/2 prime.
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200mm f/2G ED VR II Telephoto Lens 2188 B&H

The bokeh (not DoF) this lens delivers is phenomenal it is so super smooth.
Flickr: The Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200mm f/2.0 G VR I/II Pool

Dayum, over 5k...ouch! I'll stick with an 85mm 1.4 or 70-200mm 2.8.

 

[KmH]

Yep, exceptional glass costs some money. That bump from f/2.8 to f/2 jacks it up.

I bought a used one - when I found someone willing to sell theirs (because of a nasty divorce).

 

[djacobox372]

50mm 1.8g is the best portrait lens Nikon makes for Dx. Better even than their 1.4 version.

That said I'm partial to a 70-200mm f2.8 for portrait work.

 

[Derrel]

A 70-200 f/2.8 (or an 80-200mm) is really very handy...it allows you to zoom in or out, across a nice range of focal lengths. Primes are nice, but have only one focal length "each", so, the zoom wins on versatility and on different "looks" that it can deliver. A 70mm setting produces much less of a telephoto effect than does the 200mm end of the range. An f/4 lens, either an older manual focus 80-200, like the f/4 Ai-S model available for a little over a hundred bucks, is a nice lens. The new 70-200mm f/4 Nikkor is allegedly a very nice lens.

As far as people constantly talking about "the two-point-eight" advantage of a 70-200 or 80-200 f/2.8 as opposed to an f/4 lens---focal length can mitigate the lack of raw aperture speed on most f/4 zooms. Besides, many times you will want to be stopped down to f/4.5 or f/5.6 anyway, so there's no real major value in f/2.8 as opposed to a slower lens. If you need backgrounds to be soft, then zoom toward the longer end of the range. The DOF isolation of f/2.8 versus f/4 is NOT that big of a difference.

A guy can use whatever he happens to have...50mm, 60mm macro,85mm, 105mm, 135, whatever...there are a lot of lenses. The 200 f/2 VR is a beautiful imager...but it's also around 7 pounds, and has awkward balance, and pretty much demands a monopod, and it kind of "scares people" too. A 70-200 is a big lens....the new 70-300mm f/4.5~5.6 VR-Nikkor is okay too...nice range...pretty handy for outdoor work. WHatever you use, just look at the subject, and pay attention to the background and the overall location.