Advice on whether to buy a portrait lens

[Lorry]

Hi there.

I have a Nikon D80 with a
Nikon DX 18-105 f3.5 - 5.6 VR lens which I'm really happy with
and the kit zoom lense which is
Nikon AF 70-300 f4 - 5.6 AF which is alright but very dark and I dont use it anymore because I love the other lens more.

What I would like to do is take better portrait shots but I cant seem to get a really blurry DoF so I was thinking of buying a Nikon 50mm portrait lens, I think it's f1.8.

I got told that it would be a waste of money because I probably wouldn't use it that much and to just blur my images in Photoshop rather than buy the lense.

What's your thoughts on this and have I been given the right advice.

I dont actually get paid for my photos but I would like to eventually as I'm still in the learning stages.

Thankyou, your comments would be much appreciated.

[Almond.Butterscotch]

'and to just blur it in photoshop'

umm... you're kidding right?! Who in the sam hell told you that? I'd like to slap them with a herring.

The 50mm f/1.8 will work perfectly on your D80. My only question is this: look through the portrait you've taken with your 18-105 and 70-300 and answer these questions:
1) how many of your portraits are around the 50mm mark?
2) do you prefer the look you get at the longer ends? (i.e. 105mm, 200mm, 300mm)

It's really a matter of personal preference, but I think the 85mm f/1.8 is next to perfect for portraits on a crop sensor (on the fairly cheap side of things anyways), unless doing headshots in which case something even longer may be your best bet. The 50 is certainly a decent focal length on crop sensors for full, half, and quarter portraits, and even headshots, but I think the bokeh (blurry areas) look nicer on longer focal lengths.

For the record, bokeh is affected by three things: aperture (f/1.8 is better than f/22), focal length (300mm will give you thinner DoF and therefore more blue than a 24mm), and camera-to-subject (closer up = shallower DoF).

[Lorry]

Hi Almond.Butterscotch,

Thankyou for your post. I have little money to spend and this particular lens 50mm is $199. The lady in the shop said it's very sharp. I dont know why I dont use my zoom lens for portraits, never thought of it, actually I didn't know you could.

this is a photo I took with my 18-105.
f5.3
ISO 200
Focal Length 62mm
shutter 1/80

I dont know if this is classed as a nice portrait or not because the background is not blurry enough. My daughter is having a baby and I would love to take some beautiful photos of bub when she comes along.

[Almond.Butterscotch]

First things first: Umm... What 50mm is $199? Nikon's three are $135 (f/1.8), $340 (f/1.4D), and $460 (f/1.4G). If you're paying $199 you're either buying a stolen lens or getting completely ripped off.

Next: Any lens can be used as a portrait lens. Here's a portrait taken with a fisheye. That said, your 18-105mm is also a zoom.

The big thing to bear in mind between using your 70-300mm and getting a prime is this: at 300mm, the bokeh comes mostly from focal length. With a prime, be it the 50 or 85, it's coming largely from the aperture, though the focal length certainly helps. (That is to say, the 24mm f/1.4 even at f/1.4 isn't going to have great bokeh because it's just too short a lens.) Of course, the least compromise comes with the superprimes- your 200mm f/2 and the 300mm and 400mm f2.8, but of course, those lenses cost an arm and a leg.

The best portrait I've taken (imho) is the one below. I used my chepo 55-200mm at 112mm and f.5.6. As you can see, the background is certainly blurred, and I'd hazard a guess and say that's more due to how I positioned the subject in relation to this backgroun (that is, I left a whole load of space between her and the background- camera-to-subject distance was small), but I think the focal length was a bigger factor than the aperture in that case. I was originally using it at greater focal lengths, but I couldn't hold the camera steady with that thing extended all the way out at the shutter speeds I was using, so I got closer and used a shorter focal length (another trade off: camera-to-subject distance for focal length; a long macro comes handy here).

Shortly put: any of the three things can help you get better bokeh: camera-to-subject distance, max aperture, and focal length.

[Almond.Butterscotch]

oh- a bonus: here's one taken at a shorter focal length (35mm), but REALLY up close and at a much wider aperture (f/1.8):



Clearly, this one isn't anywhere near as good as the previous one, but it still illustrates my point with the bokeh. Unfortunately, because of the shorter focal length, getting the headshot meant moving in closer, which reduced the DoF a bit too much at that aperture, and parts of her face aren't in focus anymore.

[Lorry]

Oh great...thankyou for your information. I dont think I will get that lens then and just keep plodding away with the ones I have. I definately still have alot to learn about lenses and distances etc. By the way, nice photos...:-)....thankyou again....but can I ask one more question...

If I were to take a picture of a new born baby and I only want her head in focus and part of her body out of focus what sort of lens can do that...for eg. Her head and shoulders etc. in focus but her legs and feet out of focus...I hope I'm not confusing you.

[Almond.Butterscotch]

That depends a lot on the angle at which you shoot. If you shoot perpendicular to the baby (90 degrees), you'll get all of her in focus (give or take depending on your DoF), but if you're shooting at like 5 degrees, you'll be lucky to even get an eye (or a single toe).

Are you looking for something like this where the body fades out of focus? If so, a combination of the three things I mentioned yesterday will get you there, but in this case, it's mostly the large aperture doing the heavy lifting. (That's with a 50mm at f/2.8)

[Nicole]

Originally Posted by Almond.Butterscotch

First things first: Umm... What 50mm is $199? Nikon's three are $135 (f/1.8), $340 (f/1.4D), and $460 (f/1.4G). If you're paying $199 you're either buying a stolen lens or getting completely ripped off.

The OP is in Australia. $199 AUD is about right.

@Lorry, I love my 50mm and my 85mm for portraits and everything else. I think that having a prime lens (or three) is a useful addition to a collection. The 50mm f/1.8 was the first prime I got and it was one of my most used lenses for a long time.

[Almond.Butterscotch]

Originally Posted by Nicole

The OP is in Australia. $199 AUD is about right.

aha! Guess I'm just another ignorant American.


(But a proud Texan nevertheless.)

[Lorry]

hi Nicole and Almond.Butterscotch,

Have been away for a bit, sorry haven't replied. I saw your pic of the baby and yes that's the sort of image I want to create, lovely photos. And yep I'm in Australia. Nicole thanks for your post, I will take on board what your said...great....Thank you so much.

Lorry