What lens should I buy (Nikkor or third party lens)? | Nikon Lenses | Photo Forum

What are planning to shoot with it? Both 50mm and 35mm are good lenses. You have to keep in mind that with 35mm you will get a lot of distortion when shooting portraits. It will work for a full body, but for closeups not so much. 

Very ofter you get distortion with white angle lenses. For example if you take a portrait, the things which are closer to the camera appears much bigger – disproportional. There are photographers so, who use this to their advantage and make it their style. For example Platon:

http://www.google.com/search?q…..8;bih=1077  

But I would assume that for a lot of his work he uses even shorter lens when 35mm + I think he shoots medium format, so the lens will be shorter then on cropped sensor. 

It you get a chance, go to the store and ask them to try 50mm and 35mm on your camera. Take a close headshot of somebody with them. Go home and compare. Let me know which one you like better. 

wattage said
Hi chasmz. Before you spend any money, check around your city. There may be a camera club or photography school/class that you could visit. The 50mm (i.e. the “nifty-fifty”) and 35mm are very popular lenses and it’s likely that another photographer in your area has one or both so that you could test them out for free! But neither might be the best choice for portraits — due to the widening distortion that could result.

If you’re going to be taking portraits, you might also consider using a zoom lens — zoomed to the max. This is what many pros use. And there are advantages for doing so:  the greater distance from your model might make them more comfortable and at ease (which will definitely yield better shots) and the zoom lens’ compression will make for more flattering shots (i.e. less distortion). If you have a zoom lens on-hand, give it a shot. You might be pleased with the results. And as long as your subject is a good distance from the background, you will still get lots of lovely blur to isolate your model.

Tips hat,

James

 

Hi Jamie,

I must disagree with you. 50mm is a great lens for portraits and for those who just starting out you can’t really beat the price! Before I got my 85mm (which is a great portrait lens, but more expensive), I used 50mm all the time. You goet different look and feel from it them from lets say 200mm. Not all pros use zoom telephotos. It all depends on your style and how you like to work with model. Sometimes you want to be clother to the model to be able to direct her/him without having to scream. It also depends on the crop (full body, heatshoot, etc.) and the space you have to step back. Sometimes you don’t have enough space to step back with 200mm. 

I have a video in mind comparison all possible portrait lenses. I hope I can do it very soon. 

Also the trick to get less distortion is to leave more space then you need around your subject and then crop it a bit in post. It also useful in general, because of different print sizes. You have more flexibility this way. 

Here some examples of portraits takes with Nikon 50mm f1.4:

1. ISO 100, F2.5 1/250

2. ISO 200  f3.2 1/4000

3. ISO 100 f11 1/100

4. ISO 100 f4.5  1/250

5. ISO 100 f3.5  1/30

You are right, the wider the angle, the more distortion you get (especially on FX body due to shorter focal lens). My favorite lenses on FX is 85mm and 105mm (macro) for close up portraits. I also use 50mm on FX for more full body shoots. If it comes to zoom, I love 24-70mm f2.8. If I could keep only one lens, 24-70mm f2.8 would be the one. I also have 70-200mm, but I mostly use it for stage performances or events. Rarely for portraits. It is my personal preference. I like to be closer to the model and like the look of shorter lenses better. I feel like long lenses compress image more and shorter ones make it look more 3D and make model look more personable (kind of like viewer can look into the soul). Also it is more easy to active the look where eyes are in focus and the rest slowly falls out of focus with shorter lenses. With longer ones it is easier to get the whole person in focus. Ones again it all depends what you are going for and what your style it. 

I don’t think that statement, all professionals use long zoom, is right. I know a lot of portrait photographer who use shorter focal lens primes (85mm is very popular). Scott Kelby and his staff have certain style and this is why they all use the same lenses to keep it consistent. 

Also your example is very close head shoot, and the closer you get to the model, the more distortion you have.  But portrait isn’t always a close headshot, it also can be full body and environmental. In a lot of cases you will find yourself restricted by the space and will not be able to step back far enough to use long lens. 

There is no 100% right or wrong answer to the question, if you should use long or short lens for portraits. It all depends on the situation, the crop (headshot, full body, etc) and your personal style. I probably would not choose anything less then 50mm on DX and less then 85mm on FX for close up head shoot, but for full body/environmental is a different story. I also disagree that telephoto (like 200mm) is the only way to go. 

Also you can’t beat the price of $200 for 50mm f1.8. Huge difference compare to $2400 for 70-200mm. 50mm f1.8 could be a great starter for anyone. 

Here some example of portraits with my other favorite lenses:

1. 24-70 f2.8 on DX (shoot at 58mm – it was the case when I could not step back more) ISO 320, 1/80  f5

2. 85mm f1.8 on DX – ISO 100, 1/100 f2.8

3. 105mm f2.8 macro on FX – ISO 100, 1/100 f8