I would not spend all this money on 35mm f1.4. There are other more useful lenses in this price range, so 35mm f1.4 would not be my first choice. 

Im wondering if will still buy 35mm 1.8/1.4 (very expensive)..

haha... thanks for the comments and suggestion..

P.S.

Another reason why I buy the 50mm 1.8D, because most of the contest here is photowalk contest using 50mm lens..

Conclusion - It all depends on the situation and personal preference.

We all are here to learn and voice our opinions. I wish some other people would join in and let us know what their favorite portrait lenses are. 

Oksana

The great thing about photography is that it's very subjective and opinions and preferences vary greatly. As do definitions of "Portrait". This brief discussion is proof positive of this. And there is no single right answer. It all comes down to what the photographer and/or the client like. When I look at the portrait shots side-by-side, I prefer the results from zoom lenses. I like the flattering effect that the lens compression gives to facial features like the cheeks, nose, and eyes.

I think the best thing for the OP to do is try everything that's available to him/her, compare the results, and make the decision that way. 

James

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

Your example photos are very nice. And they demonstrate that portraits can be executed successfully with a 50mm lens. But as you pointed out, for shooting portraits with a 35mm DX or 50mm FX the photographer must be a bit more careful about composing, setting up for the shot, and editing it after the fact. And some models will be comfortable with the photographer being so close if using a wider lens.

But if we're talking about distortion, comparison shots better illustrate the distortion that wider-angle lenses introduce. Since I don't have any shots like this of my own ready to go, I'll reference test shots done by others (with link provided). These shots came from an article about this very topic. The author references a video from well-known professional Scott Kelby that goes into even more detail. He and most of his staff support using zoom lenses for portraiture.

Everything's relative, but I like the look from the telephoto lens better. It's one reason Nikon can still command $2400 USA for their kingpin 70-200mm f/2.8. But any zoom will do the job, a kit lens or a bargin-bin-priced 70-300mm. And a zoom lens offers lots of versatility for those just starting out.

I'm glad you're thinking of doing a video for portrait lens comparison. Will be good to see.

James

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

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

You probably have a 18-55mm zoom.  Set it to 35mm, leave it there, don't touch it...... and then take a bunch of pictures.
Now... Change the zoom to 50mm, leave it there, don't touch it..... and take a bunch of pictures.

Which was better for you?

It's kinda like picking a girlfriend.

50mm 1.8D

35mm 1.8D

My friend said that 35mm is better when shooting in rooms..

The Bokeh of 35mm is also good but I like the bokeh of 50mm...

but I think the difference is minimal.. Ill probably buy thr 35mm... thnx

HAHAHAHA...

they say if problems occur I can return the item for warranty claim..

I try to ask again from another shop maybe next week..

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. 

May I know why does 35mm give a lot of distortion? and what is distortion in photography.. hehe

Thank you.