I am looking at purchasing an economical portrait lens and want to purchase something very economical. I have 2 different ones in mind and I wonder if anyone is using one of these and can advise.
1) Nikon 50mm f1.8 G AF-S - can get it for $195 Cdn. I believe this one will auto-focus with the Nikon 3100.
2) Nikon 50mm f1.8 D AF - can get a used one for about $100 Cdn, and new for about $135 + tax (as a kit, filter & cloths etc.). I believe this one has to be manually focused with the Nikon 3100.
I am leaning towards #1, or second option likely the used version of #2.
Any suggestions?? (I want to get something before the end of the month as my son is getting married.
Thanks, Linda
I don't know those particular lenses, but I do know a 50 is not considered a portrait lens, even on a crop sensor those would be a little too wide angle for good portraiture. A 90 - 100 is usually considered more of a portrait lens. You will get less distortion of the face, stand a little farther back from you subject and have less background.
@linah 105mm is considered portrait length. So I'm guessing 85mm on a cropped sensor you'd probably want a nice fast lens f1.8 for reduced depth of field. So it's the 85mm f1.8 G AF-S
@linah I have a nikon D3100 and I have your first choice, it does autofocus and I love it. I don't do huge amounts of portrait but I use it when I do, it's great in low light and I think it great quality. I wonder how I ever managed with out a 50mm.
I used a D90 which is a Nikon crop sensor and purchased the Nikon 85mm f1.4 lens. It's is a fantastic portrait lens! It's more expensive than the 50, so definitely look for a used one. The 50 works okay as a portrait lens if you get the one designed for a full frame, but as good as it is, it doesn't compare to the 85mm. I also have the 105mm macro that I've used on the D90 for both portrait and macro. Bottom line is that the 50 is a very useful lens, but if you are getting it for portraits, you may be disappointed.
The Nikon (or Sigma) f/2.8 105mm macro, is perfect for me. I like the longer reach, you are not right on top of the subject and to me that makes a heck of a difference. These are FX lenses, but work beautifully on cameras like the D3100, 5100, 7100. You actually get THREE prime lenses in one with either of these, a wonderful close macro focus lens, a great portrait lens and a medium telephoto especially on your APS-C camera, 160mm full-frame equivalent angle.
You might look at the 85mm f/3.5, the DX lens with image stabilization (VR). This is two stops slower than an f/1.8, but still a very nice lens and half the price of the 105's. This is also a macro focus lens, so is doubly versatile as I mentioned for the 105's.
The Nikon f/1.8's available are all FX lenses, not a problem of course, but none currently available have VR, image stabilization, and if you want to hand hold, I think that is essential at this length on your DX-cropped camera.
Both f/2.8 105mm have image stabilization, as does the f/3.5 85mm.
Personally, and I know others disagree with me, 50mm on an APS-C camera, your D3100, my D7100, is an awkward length, to me, neither fish or fowl, too short for some opportunities, too long for others, having an "equivalent" focal length of 75mm full frame.
While on the subject of shorter lenses, and "nifty fifties," The f/1.8 35mm DX from Nikon is worth a look, at less than $200 new, and half that on eBay used, it's really quite good. I think too short for portraits, but again others like to be close to the subject. No VR, but you don't need it that short.
So many choices, I know, and I haven't even touched on Tamron lenses. Good luck to you...
@linah I have your first choice on a crop sensor. I love it and it's astonishing value. I think it's a reasonable focal length for portraiture and would serve you well at a wedding although I can see why you'd be tempted by a slightly longer focal length.
The 50mm 1.8G AFS is a fantastic lens - Not only great for portraits but also to learn with. Spend the extra and get an auto focus (I had both).
VR is not needed at this focal length and it is a fast lens.
Don't think just get it - it is cheap (relatively) and excellent. It will do exactly what you want it to do. Get it now and practice with it before the wedding - yu will soon love it I am sure.
Good luck
@tigerdreamer@chippy1402@wearing0@taffy@frankhymus@jasperc@spanner Thank you all for your valuable input. It is definitely food for thought! At some point I believe I will possibly want a really good portrait lens and I will definitely be able to use your advice. I am still trying to understand all the terminology :) It sounds like the 50mm 1.8G AFS will meet my needs at present and will be a good lens to practice on. My son has a professional photographer thankfully :) Presently I am really into landscape, wildlife, pet, etc. photography so I can't justify an expensive lens .... maybe I will get the "bug" after taking some wedding shots. Thanks again to each of you - I really appreciate the advice and knowledge shared.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
You might look at the 85mm f/3.5, the DX lens with image stabilization (VR). This is two stops slower than an f/1.8, but still a very nice lens and half the price of the 105's. This is also a macro focus lens, so is doubly versatile as I mentioned for the 105's.
The Nikon f/1.8's available are all FX lenses, not a problem of course, but none currently available have VR, image stabilization, and if you want to hand hold, I think that is essential at this length on your DX-cropped camera.
Both f/2.8 105mm have image stabilization, as does the f/3.5 85mm.
Personally, and I know others disagree with me, 50mm on an APS-C camera, your D3100, my D7100, is an awkward length, to me, neither fish or fowl, too short for some opportunities, too long for others, having an "equivalent" focal length of 75mm full frame.
While on the subject of shorter lenses, and "nifty fifties," The f/1.8 35mm DX from Nikon is worth a look, at less than $200 new, and half that on eBay used, it's really quite good. I think too short for portraits, but again others like to be close to the subject. No VR, but you don't need it that short.
So many choices, I know, and I haven't even touched on Tamron lenses. Good luck to you...
VR is not needed at this focal length and it is a fast lens.
Don't think just get it - it is cheap (relatively) and excellent. It will do exactly what you want it to do. Get it now and practice with it before the wedding - yu will soon love it I am sure.
Good luck