File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Buying myself a D80 for christmas, can anyone reccomend a good lens for portraits?
>> Anonymous
An 85mm prime. 1.8 or 1.2 if you can.
>> Anonymous
Depends on how much money you have to spend.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
Either an 85mm or a 50mm and as much on them as possible.
>> Anonymous
105/2.5
>> Anonymous
Macro lenses are really sharp, but for portraits that can be unflattering and usually takes a little PP to make it look nicer.
>> Anonymous
Everything suggested in here is a bit long on a DX sensor for a portrait lens except the 50.

The 85mms become a 127.5, which I'd say is near the terminal end of the medium telephoto/portrait lens range. The 105mm becomes a 157.5.

The ideal would be a 58mm lens- 87mm equivalent- but I only know of two: the incredibly expensive (~$3,000!) and wonderful 58/1.2 Noct-Nikkor and the new Voigtlander 58/1.4 that as of now is only available in Japan, for about the equivalent of $450. A 55 or 60 should do fine, but I don't have any suggestions for the OP at those focal lengths.
>> Anonymous
50mm f1.8 Is awesome.

85mm f1.8 / f1.4 is fine too.
>> Anonymous
>>91213

An 85 works well on crop bodies too. 135 has long been a common choice for portraits on 35mm film cameras.

The OP could just get a 60mm macro that works out at 90mm equivalent for a fraction of the cost of those 58mm ones and will be very sharp and decent for background blur at 2.8. I don't know why the OP would desperately want an 87mm equivalent so much more than any other. The 50mm would also do it and do it even cheaper at 1.8.

The good zooms could cover the ranges uses the OP needs. Anything ending in 55 would come out about the right length for an 85 equivalent, though you have to watch as a lot of zooms aren't the best at the two extreme ends of their focal range.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
Your cheapest option would be the 50mm 1.8, best bang for your buck lens by any maker. Period.

The 85mm range is superb and the 1.4D is reputed to have one the best bokehs around... but it's also expensive as a house. The 1.8 version is slightly cheaper and good...

but it's also a dedicated portrait lens essentially and you wont get too much use out of it otherwise.

The 105mm is also a Macro lens which is a legend in itself.

You can always compromise and get a tamron 17-50 which will cover wide to medium telephoto for a decent price...which is the crunch. How much do you have to spend?
>> Anonymous
OP here, I'm willing to spend like 500 USD but less is always better when it comes to price.
>> Anonymous
>>91239

If you're on a tight budget, you could get a third party zoom with a 2.8 aperture for the most bang for your buck. Make sure it covers the range you want (so 50 on the long end as a minimum really). You'll get a lot more use out of it for general work and it'll be a good enough lens for portraits.

The Tamron 17-50 wouldn't be a bad choice at all. A lot of people seem happy with it. There might be a lens in the 17-70 ish range from Sigma that could be of similar use to you too. Check the prices from your available retailers to see what you are happy with.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>91239

That's a good budget 500 buckaroos... and you'll find Tamron 17-50 fits into that with some change left over... for a circular polariser or a decent tripod

whilst the 50mm is the cheapest choice, it's also limiting.

the 17-50 is a fast decent mid range zoom, you will learn to appreciate the 2.8 aperture eventually and the freedom it gives you. Trust me.
>> Anonymous
But 17-50 would give you freedom in choosing focal lenghts, and at the heat of a portraiture photoshoot, you might be tempted to go in and shoot at 17, which may make some parts of the face look distorted.

I personally shoot with a 17-55, but I'd rather stick to the 50mm f/1.4 for portrait shoots. The 85mm f/1.4D is reputably the best 85 you can get, beating out the older AiS lenses even. My suggestion is go for a 50mm f/1.8, which is the sharpest, cheapest lens, and supplement that with the 105mm f/2.5 AiS. Both should go for around a hundred bucks apiece. And put the 85mm f/1.4 on the backburner for now.

And oh, sticking to a particular focal length due to the magnification factor is stupid. A 58? That just negates any cost saving right there. Pick a widely available lens and stop being a retard.
>> des
New? 35-70 f/2.8 With the crop, it's basically ready built to be the go-to portraiture lens. I don't understand why it's not more popular, probably the weight.
Used or budget? 35-135 f/3.3-4.5 Deceptively sharp, a little more throw helps when covering events or more candid portraiture. I wish they made a constant aperture version of this, but it never really sold well new anyway. I can't make my sample CA and flare is well-handled on film, don't remember it being those problem on digital but that could be poor memory.

>>A 58?
The last run of the voigtlander lenses are very well regarded. I'm tempted by the 40mm pamcaek, myself. Cameraquest has them both for $379~
>>Pick a widely available lens and stop being a retard.
It's a D80. That makes it an 85mm f/1.4 for under 400USD.
>> Anonymous
50 1.8 or the 85 1.8. They're equally sharp, and the extra stop and a third of light-gatherin' makes them far more versatile than a more-expensive less-sharp third party 2.8 zoom.

tl;dr: 50 1.8, 100 bucks gets you one of the sharpest nikon lenses ever made. JUST FUCKIN' DO IT.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>91417

>>be tempted to go in and shoot at 17

oh come on, you can't be serious... if you don't have the discipline to stay at a focal length then you certainly do not have the patience to be a decent portrait photographer.

Looks like we got a similar set of lenses though, as i too have thr 17-55 nikkor and 50 1.4D, but i pretty much only use the 50mm when i shoot 'street' or if i just want a lighter load

>>91423

The 35-70 is actually fairly light... say compared to the 28-70 and 17-35. It's lost its appeal to most probably due to the pull and push zoom and it's lack of 'wide angle' at the 35mm... pretty sure the 28-70 all but kill its sales when it came out...

but i agree with you, if it's portrature and portraiture only that the op is interested in, a range like that would be much more suited.