Which of my Lenses should i use for portraits?

[tirediron]

You’re a great portrait photographer. What lens do you use for your portraits?

Thank-you! Probably 80%+ are done with an 85 1.4; I use a 105 or 135 for another 10% and the remainder with everything from 50 to 200.

 

[Solarflare]

Probably more portraits are taken with smartphones than any other type of camera.

Sure. And the most travel time is probably still spent by foot. What does that mean for the question what the best car is ?

 

[Solarflare]

[...] It’s all opinion. [...]

What a weird statement.

If you ask three people what 2+2 is and one tells you 3, the next 4 and the final one 7, then all these answers have the exact same value to you ?!?

 

[petrochemist]

You’re a great portrait photographer. What lens do you use for your portraits?

Thank-you! Probably 80%+ are done with an 85 1.4; I use a 105 or 135 for another 10% and the remainder with everything from 50 to 200.

I find it odd that no-one suggested the 55-200. I don't know DX lenses so the IQ or aperture might make it less suitable than the 70-300, but I'd find 35mm (APSC) to be on the low limit for pleasing portraits, and 70mm to be a little on the long side.
50mm lenses have generally worked well for me, and that not just because they offer wide apertures. The 75mm equivalent FOV is approaching the classic 85mm 'ideal'.
70mm on APSC (giving a 105 equivalent FOV) can make very nice portraits but requires a lot more space & is further from the 'ideal'.

What's wrong with the 55-200?

 

[Designer]

I find it odd that no-one suggested the 55-200.

Strodav actually did, in post #2. I thought about it, but with the 55mm low end, I wanted to steer him toward longer lenses, even though I have no idea how much space is available. Then after Braineack zeroed in on the 70-300, I followed his lead.

 

[Braineack]

I was going to say 70-300 is optically superior than the 55-200mm; so why I suggested that over it. But comparing the 55-200 VRII to it, it's very much not. If it's the original 55-200 VR, then yeah.

 

[tirediron]

...What's wrong with the 55-200?

Nothing; it's really not about the lens specifically, but rather the focal length. Truth be told; if I'm going back and forth between several different focal lengths, I may well just put the 70-200 on and use that....

 

[Braineack]

which is probably how the first 80-200s came to be...

 

[petrochemist]

I find it odd that no-one suggested the 55-200.

Strodav actually did, in post #2. I thought about it, but with the 55mm low end, I wanted to steer him toward longer lenses, even though I have no idea how much space is available. Then after Braineack zeroed in on the 70-300, I followed his lead.

Actually he referred to a 50, which I assumed meant a prime, not in the OP's current lens line up, but excellent value for the money if adding one.