35MM F1.8 - good for portraits ?

Samsung Galaxy S24, S24+, S24 Ultra

11/06/2009 11:59:38 AM · #1

I used to have a 50mm 1.8 that I adored.
I miss it.

Looking for a replacement that isn't too dear in price, still gives good sharpness, and will autofocus on my D60.

Mainly for portrait type photography (and while I was told that the 50/1.8 wasn't a portrait lens, it gave me some beautiful portraits!)

Is the 35mm 1.8 AF-S a good lens for this ?

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm f/4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/06/2009 12:06:11 PM · #2

By most standards, it's a little wide for portraiture. Certainly, on a FF camera it would be too wide. On the 1.5 crop, not so much so, but I think 50-60mm is a better length for a dedicated portrait lens on a 1.5 crop camera.

R.

Magnumphotography

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 500mm f/4.0L IS USM

11/06/2009 12:17:14 PM · #3

Well, I am not a Nikon shooter. But as far as focal lengths for portraits, I like the 85mm area. I use a full frame sensored camera. So I bought a 85mm f1.8. Not sure if Nikon has the equivalent. They do have a 85mm f1.4, but I am sure it's not cheap.
A 50mm lens, would probably be the equivalent of a 85mm focal length on your D60. Hey if it worked before, why not! The price sure would be in the rite area. I think the 35mm will be too wide for most portraits. On your cam, it would be near the 50mm ish focal length. Not the best for portraits in my mind. Remember, you could always rent, before you buy. Most stores will let you mount up lenses as well. Take the cam, and go do a little play shopping. Drive the guys nuts, trying on various lenses and take some shots. Then you at least will have no surprises.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

11/06/2009 12:56:54 PM · #4

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

You know, Bear, how I value your input and opinion - but this time I'm afraid I cannot wrap my head around what you're saying (FF camera? 1.5 crop?).

Unfortunately, the 50/1.8 wasn't able to autofocus on the D60 (yes, trading the D50 in was a massive mistake on my part, and I still have HUGE amoutns of buys regret about this D60), and I don't trust my abilities with manual focus. I don't know if Nikon has brought out a 50mm that can autofocus on the D60 or not since then.

The 85/3.5 is a bit pricey (for me, not in an overall sense).

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

11/06/2009 01:18:48 PM · #5

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by kashi:

You know, Bear, how I value your input and opinion - but this time I'm afraid I cannot wrap my head around what you're saying (FF camera? 1.5 crop?).

Unfortunately, the 50/1.8 wasn't able to autofocus on the D60 (yes, trading the D50 in was a massive mistake on my part, and I still have HUGE amounts of buyer's regret about this D60), and I don't trust my abilities with manual focus. I don't know if Nikon has brought out a 50mm that can autofocus on the D60 or not since then.

The 85/3.5 is a bit pricey (for me, not in an overall sense).

Lea, your camera is a crop sensor camera......and the 1.5 is the multiplier you need to use to figure actual focal length of your lenses.

That 35mm is as represented on a 35mm camera, which is full frame. Most digitals, 'til you get to the high end are 1.5 crop sensor.

Ergo, that 35mm is actually 52.5mm on your D60. Your 50mm on the D50 was actually 75mm, very close to the 85mm focal length considered to be a stellar portrait focal length.

You have to go to a D700 in Nikon before you get full frame.

Message edited by author 2009-11-06 13:19:17.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

11/06/2009 01:26:00 PM · #6

Thank you Jeb. I understand now, and I did know the difference in the focal lengths between a 35mm and a DSLR - or rather, knew there WAS a difference, just not the particular amount.

I've no interest in upping to a D700, etc. Just want to take good portraits, and sincerely missing the lens that gave me the best results with my abilities.

chromeydome

Nikon D7000

11/06/2009 02:01:27 PM · #7

I agree--the 35mm would be a bit wide for portraits--but a 50mm will do just fine, and there is a 50mm 1.8 for less than the new 35mm 1.8. If you can swing it, the 50mm 1.4 is nice.

//www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=nikon+50mm&x=0&y=0

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

11/06/2009 02:06:26 PM · #8

Originally posted by chromeydome:

Yes, it is a lovely lens, hence the regret about not having it now.

But, the autofocus doesn't work on a D60, and I do not trust my manual focusing abilities.

chromeydome

Nikon D7000

11/06/2009 02:15:10 PM · #9

Oh--didn't realize about the d60. Maybe a search for a good used d80 or something.

Bugzeye

Fisher Price Kid-Tough Digital

11/06/2009 07:52:30 PM · #10

Yup, Nikon makes a 85mm 1.8 and it is an awesome chunk of glass, however it is going to fall into the same catagory as alot of other awesome glass that will not autofocus on the OP's camera.

Originally posted by Magnumphotography:

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

11/07/2009 10:59:27 PM · #11

35mm on a 1.5 crop will be like a 50mm on a FF.

50mm on a 1.5 crop will be like a 75mm on a FF.

As these are all primes and are fairly normal focal lengths requiring fairly gentle lens dynamics and only a few elements, they will all be fairly inexpensive and sharp as sin.

I used a Canon 85mm f/1.8. I'm sure it is not all the different from the Nikon for internal build. The big thing that bothered me about it was the minimum focusing distance. I found that I needed to be farther away from subjects than they expected. This led to people often coming too close to me and me backing away... Kinda like a reverse chase... frustrating, especially with kids.

The PLUS side of that would be that if you have a way of being a bit more discrete with your shooting (an angle finder or a flipout LCD), you can be farther away than people think you need to be to take the picture and get people who don't think they are on camera. More natural results.

I passed on that lens though. A 50mm has a much more normal minimum focal distance.

The 80 or 85mm focal length is used for portraits for a REASON though.

Longer focal lengths tend to flatten features. It gives a nice ability to accommodate a wide range of facial features without needlessly exaggerating them. If you want to exaggerate a feature, you can do that by pose (tilting the head so the nose extends beyond the cheek line for example). But it's almost always better to have people look like their nose is smaller. However, some places have a lot of people who don't have very strong facial features, so you can get away with a closer focal length.

A shorter focal length will give a more contoured and textured look to the subject. More depth.

So if you want the cheekbones to stand out or really show off a girl's cute button nose, a shorter focal length will do you better.

So generally, where you are taking pictures of the general public, a longer portrait lens is more forgiving. But where you are taking pics of things that actually are cute (kids, cute girls etc), a shorter focal length is often able to get better results.

For me, in those situations, the shorter the better. I did some fun shots of some girls in my classes in the park at 20mm focal (35mm effective) and the exaggerated perspective on their faces works great. The girls are all oriental with small noses and around 20 years old, so nice soft plump cheeks.

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR

11/09/2009 10:15:45 AM · #12

Well, I bit the bullet and bought a lens that I didn't even realize existed (and spent more money than I'd wanted to on a lens), but one that I am 100% positive I'll get a LOT of use out of.

I didn't realize that there was an AF-S 50mm 1.4 !! Hefty price tag (for me, anyhow).

But after a year's remorse of giving up my 50mm 1.8, I am beyond thrilled to have a 50mm back. Even better that it works (ie - it autofocuses) on my D60.

It was late when we got home last night, so I just took a quick snapshot of my daughter in her bedroom with it. NO editing aside from conversion from RAW to JPG and resizing.

George

Nikon D750

11/09/2009 10:56:18 AM · #13

Originally posted by kashi:

Hefty price tag (for me, anyhow).

Yeah, that's quite a bit of money, but I've heard that it's a great lens. Also great for full-frame sensors should you choose to step up to those in the future (where it becomes the "universal prime lens" - but you already know that - albeit a bit wide for portraits). I'm planning on getting a 70-300mm VR myself for about $100 more so that I have a good-quality lens that will work on FX, mainly 'cause portraits aren't really my thing.

Message edited by author 2009-11-09 10:57:11.

sarampo

Nikon D7100

Nikon AF-S DX 18-105 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR

11/09/2009 11:03:54 AM · #14

Ok, maybe not the best working distance for portrait, but I got a Sigma 35mm f/1,4 for my old D40 and it worked beautifully!
Great bokeh, tack sharp focus, and the DOF is just amazing (@1,4 I can focus just one of the eyes and leave the other blurred if I want to).
I concede it's not the best range, but it's wicked fast on Nikon, and with my new D90 it's my all around lens for portraits.