Best Sub-$500 DX Portrait Prime « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon Lenses

Best Sub-$500 DX Portrait Prime

(63 posts) (31 voices)

Tags:

12 3 Next »

enthdegree

senior member
Joined: Oct '09
Posts: 53
offline

I am in the market for the best portrait/general purpose prime I can get for $500 or less. FWIW Here are the options I have seen, in case someone finds it useful in the future:

Nikkor 50mm 1.8D
It is cheap, small and sharp. Did I mention it was cheap? Buying this with a $500 budget would leave enough left over money for a student to buy an Adobe Creative Suite. (legally!) Unfortunately it also has donut bokeh which can be seen either a distraction or an element of the photograph. It is small.

Sigma 50mm 1.4
It is sharp, well built, produces vibrant colors as well as beautifully smoothed OOF areas and has a fairly speedy AF system. Looks like the perfect sub-$500 prime, ignoring the fact that all the above is untrue if you get a dud. The Canon version tends to have serious issues focusing adequately but as far as I have seen the problem is at least somewhat relieved in the Nikon version. The best price I could find was $470, awfully close to $500. /: It's fairly big and heavy.

Nikkor 50mm 1.4G
Same as the Nikkor 50mm 1.8D except for the cheap part. It is also newer and renders OOF areas slightly better. Unfortunately it is also a G lens. I won't spend too much time on it as there is already /tons/ of discussion on it in other places. Related: the older Nikkor 50mm 1.4D It's fairly normal-sized.

Voigtlander Nokton 58mm 1.4
Wins the award for the coolest lens name in this list. Excellent handling and build but lacks AF, probably very hard to capture fast-moving objects without practice with the manual focus. Bokeh looks a bit smoother than the Nikkor 50mms, but there is still a slight doughnut issue. It's fairly normal-sized. Looks like this lens was designed with hopeless romantics in mind.

Nikkor 85mm 1.8D
Beautiful OOF, somewhat downplayed because it plays second fiddle to it's three-times-more-expensive cousin, the 85mm 1.4D. Pretty kool build quality, especially by todays standards it seems. Color rendition is pretty okay but seems a bit more muted than the others the list. Although there are plenty on sale, they are getting somewhat harder to find new. No integrated AF motor which means if you have a body that is lower-end than the D90 you are (un?)screwed. It's pretty big.

Samyang 85mm 1.4
This lens certainly has the 'what' factor going for it. It's really cheap ( Somewhere in the ballpark of $300, I believe. ) for an 85mm 1.4, has surprisingly good build quality, good color contrast, is sharp, has good bokeh and goes by a thousand different names. Unfortunately it has no automatic controls (FWIW they say manual focus at 1.4 is extremely hard) and is pretty large. It has a tendency to underexpose. It is somewhat sharper than the 85mm 1.8D but I arrived at that conclusion myself so don't quote me on that. There is relatively little information on this lens online in the english language. But seriously, who has heard of this wierdo-beardo lens?

Did I miss anything? ¯\(°_o)/¯

Size and weight are not important to me. Some might say 85mm is a little long for DX portraits but I have adapted to it quite well. I an comfortable taking portraits with pretty much anything within the 40-90mm focal length range. Because I am going to be taking a lot of portraits, OOF areas and color rendition are important to me, but not at the expense of speed and sharpness.

With all due respect, please do not give opinions such as 'buy the 50mm 1.8D and then save up for a proper 85mm 1.4D' or 'just rent something really nice for special occasions' I would probably do something like that if I could but unfortunately that is not an option for me! I am taking a trip to see friends and family at the end of summer and if I waited until I had enough money for a spectacular lens the vacation will have passed.

If you have gotten this far, thank you so much for taking the time to read this long rant. Opinions are greatly appreciated! (c:

Posted 2 years ago #
Drdobs

senior member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 63
offline

I'd go with the 50mm 1.4G... Reasons..

You stated you would be comfortable with 50mm
It's the newest and should hold resale value if necessary
faster than 1.8
Better brokeh which you said was important to you
Fits within your budget

Just my two cents but in this case I can't honestly think you could go wrong with any of the above.. and with that being said, maybe the 50mm 1.8 and save the $$ for a more important decision down the line might be the way to go.

Jon

Posted 2 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

Nice run down of lenses enthdegree. I dont think I will be much help as I will give more options without a real suggestion. :-)

One of the possible reasons the noname lenses "tend to underexpose" is probably due to the way camera manufacturers bump the iso at apertures lower than F2.2 or so(But that is for another thread). So the only reason to go below F1.8 is for the bokeh.

I would have a look at the Tamron 60 F2.0 macro as well. It is a good portrait lens plus it does 1:1 macro as well at a WD of almost 100mm!! There are many pros who use the nikkor 60 macro F2.8 for portrait work too. Macros are good for portraits because they usually don't distort lines thus they render the face very accurately.

I have looked at the Nikkor 50 1.8 and I agree that its not a portrait lens. I was going to buy one for that reason but I tried it out and the bokeh is not acceptable to me. The 50 1.4G though is whole different beast. Its great! Almost on par with the old 50 1.4 ais in terms of Image mood for portraits but it has all the new tech in it(like autofucus LOL!) If you are seriously considering manual focus for a portrait lens, the old AIS 50 1.4 is wonderful for portraits. The lack of nano coating and the slight flaring and slight lack of contrast makes for a nice moody soft image, great for the cosy intimate portraits.

Good luck with your quest.. good thread!

Posted 2 years ago #
studio460

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 1,231
offline

For my money, the AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D, is hands-down, the best-bang-for-the-bokeh-buck, in a DX portrait lens. The AF Nikkor 50mm's bokeh tends to be a bit "tight."

Posted 2 years ago #
jerl

preferred member
Joined: Dec '10
Posts: 425
offline

The list sounds pretty fair for traditional style portrait lenses. Personally, I like the 50/1.8 out of those, but I don't have any 85mm lenses to compare it with.

Posted 2 years ago #
Krevlin

preferred member
Joined: Jun '10
Posts: 316
offline

Skip Sigma.

Samyang 85mm f/1.4 is actually a really high quality lens despite being manual focus. Everything is built to high quality and with outstanding precision. Samyang also goes under Vivitar, Rokinon, Bower or Pro-Optic.

However for your needs I'd go with a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

Posted 2 years ago #
aetas

preferred member
Joined: Dec '09
Posts: 273
offline

I know you said you need only one but you could do the 50mm 1.8 and the 85mm 1.8 for under that price and then you have a little more playing room.
~Cheers

Posted 2 years ago #
kanuck

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,405
offline

enthdegree, I think you'll find that this forum has a destinct love affair with the 50mm 1.8D and I am one of them fore sure. It can't be beat and all for the price of filling up your car just one time! Depending on the car of course, but I think you get my point. ^_~

Posted 2 years ago #
Fargo911

member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 46
offline

Some people disregard the 50mm 1.8D because it is cheap, so they don't think it takes quality pictures. I have no problems slapping this cheap lens on my D700. I've used the 50mm for portraits, and they have been extremely sharp. Plus, as others have said, with money left over, you can buy something else. In terms of going between a 50 and 85, it depends on what kind of portraits you want to take. I like the 50mm for 3/4 shots, but for tightly cropped headshots, I use something longer (105mm). The 50mm would be better for a general purpose lens, if that is where most of its use will be.

Posted 2 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

@ Fargo911 : The Op is looking for a DX solution.
@ kanuck : I Didn't notice till now that there are so many 50 1.8 D fans here !! Sorry, I am not one, and not just because its cheap... I really want to like it, but as a portrait lense for DX? there are many better options.
Don't get me wrong. Its a good lens. esp for FX, as a general lens it really shines. Its just the bokeh is not good enough for a specialist portrait lens for DX shooters. for DX shooters 50mm is not a general lens just tooo long.. there are better options for a general lenses on DX.

Posted 2 years ago #
Fargo911

member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 46
offline

heartyfisher said:
@ Fargo911 : The Op is looking for a DX solution.
@ kanuck : I Didn't notice till now that there are so many 50 1.8 D fans here !! Sorry, I am not one, and not just because its cheap... I really want to like it, but as a portrait lense for DX? there are many better options.
Don't get me wrong. Its a good lens. esp for FX, as a general lens it really shines. Its just the bokeh is not good enough for a specialist portrait lens for DX shooters. for DX shooters 50mm is not a general lens just tooo long.. there are better options for a general lenses on DX.

Perhaps the 35mm 1.8 would be better then for DX since it would be closer to the 50mm perspective on FX. I've never used the 50 on DX, so it could be that it performs better on an FX camera....I don't know. When you start talking about 85mm on DX though, that is long for a general purpose lens.

Posted 2 years ago #
anjz

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 208
offline

The 50 1.4 G is my regularly-used general purpose and portrait lens. It's on my camera about 80% of the time. Sometimes I throw on my 35 f/2 and find it to be a little sharper than the 50 (YMMV on the sharpness thing---it may just be my copies). I really like the bokeh on both lenses (and opinions will differ here, as you probably know...lots of people think the bokeh produced by these lenses is just ok).

Note that the CA on my 50 wide open in contrasty lighting situations is SEVERE.

Posted 2 years ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

My vote would be #1 - 85mm 1.8 and #2 50mm 1.4G
Below is my experience with all of them.

Nikkor 50mm 1.8D
Dislike: Hexagon bokeh --- Like: Everything else about it.--- Owned and sold for the 1.4 AF

Sigma 50mm 1.4
Dislike: Purple and Green fringing and color shift - not any cheaper than Nikon 1.4G --- Like: 77mm filter, AFS, Round Bokeh

Nikkor 50mm 1.4G
Dislike: Nothing yet. --- Like: Everything about it. Round Bokeh --- Own and use it non-stop on DX

Voigtlander Nokton 58mm 1.4
Dislike: Manual focus - Why when there are so many lenses that are amazing? --- Like: 58mm = 87mm on DX
Never used it but seems interesting. If the price is right on a used one I would try it on my old film cameras.

Nikkor 85mm 1.8D
Dislike: No AFS --- Like: Everything about it. Round Bokeh --- Own and use it on DX - Just an amazing lens for the price.

Samyang 85mm 1.4 --- Interesting to try on Film but I wouldn't bother using it on anything else.

Nikkor 60mm 2.8 AF-D
Dislike: No AFS --- Like: Everything about it. Round Bokeh --- Own and use it on DX - Just an amazing double duty lens for the price.

Posted 2 years ago #
kanuck

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,405
offline

I like the 70mm or so on a DX crop actually you get nice head and shoulders shots I find. The 35mm DX lens would also be a favourite if I was still shooting DX. There are lots of options for around $500 for sure.

Posted 2 years ago #
Drab

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 540
offline

Fargo911 said:
Perhaps the 35mm 1.8 would be better then for DX since it would be closer to the 50mm perspective on FX.

Except for the fact that the 35 @ 1.8 only has less "blur the background" ability than the 85 @ f/4.
The 70-300 or 55-200 make better portrait lenses than any 35.

Fargo911 said:
When you start talking about 85mm on DX though, that is long for a general purpose lens.

Thread topic is "Best Sub-$500 DX Portrait Prime" ;) And the 85s makes excellent ones, even on DX. They also, IMHO, are great for small-venue concerts, but yea, quite long for a general purpose DX lens.

Posted 2 years ago #
enthdegree

senior member
Joined: Oct '09
Posts: 53
offline

@Heartyfisher
Aaah! How could I forget to include macro lenses? I will add them in (c:
But yeah, from what I have seen the bokeh on the 50mm 1.8D is fairly undesirable. Some people can produce works of art with it but for me, working with doughnut bokeh is challenging. I must admit, though, it is pretty sharp.

@Aetas "I know you said you need only one but you could do the 50mm 1.8 and the 85mm 1.8 for under that price and then you have a little more playing room."
Excellent point, that had totally passed over my head.

@Krevlingoodspeed
Yes, I would have to think long and hard before putting down $500 for the Sigma unless I had a chance to verify that it was a good copy. Too much of a gamble. As for the Samyang, I'd love to get it if not for the manual focus.

@Fargo911
I agree that 50mm is a good general-purpose focal length, but all I have ever been accustomed to is shooting DX (even w/ DX I'm usually on the long end, usually above even what 85mm would be for FX D^: ) I suppose it would be a good idea to get a 35mm lens if I was looking to switch to FX, so that I could get used to the actual focal length on crop, but unfortunately it does not look like I will be switching cameras for a long while. Maybe when I graduate. (:

@TaoTeJared
Nice rundown, thanks for sharing your experience with us! I know it's not incredibly sharp, but do you remember how the color contrast was on the 85mm 1.8D wide open? I have heard it gets pretty nasty. Can you confirm or deny?

Also, a shout out to all of you suggesting the 50mm 1.8D Nikkor, I agree that it is an excellent lens, even ignoring that it is hands down the biggest bang for your buck available. With a $500 budget though, I think there is room to get even better IQ (like maybe an extra 2/5 of a stop or less noticable OOF elements) even if that means sacrificing some value.

Posted 2 years ago #
enthdegree

senior member
Joined: Oct '09
Posts: 53
offline

Oh snaptractogaptgus, I cannot edit my original post anymore. Is there any way I could be granted permanent edit perms for that post?

Thanks!

Posted 2 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

@ TaoTeJared : Good post..
@ enthdegree : I dunno . I don't like totally editing the first post .. cos many of the following comments wont make sense :-)

Posted 2 years ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

enthdegree said:
@TaoTeJared
Nice rundown, thanks for sharing your experience with us! I know it's not incredibly sharp, but do you remember how the color contrast was on the 85mm 1.8D wide open? I have heard it gets pretty nasty. Can you confirm or deny?

To many (including me) compare it to the 1.4 which is the gold standard for sub 2.8s which is not fair. The 85mm 1.8 is (IMO) sharper than any of the 50s wide open. Color & contrast is as good as any Nikon wide open.

Two points On the general question at hand:

I find Color & Contrast, (given all outside elements equal) more dependent on the UV/clear filter used and the use of a lens hood.

I find sharpness comparisons wide open with any Sub F2.8 is really a mute point and are rarely tested the way the lens was intended to be used. The slice of focus area can be less than a couple of inches and is designed to be used to gain great for OOF areas. The result that all testers find - don't shoot landscapes at 1.8 or anything at infinity.

@heartyfisher - Thanks!

Posted 2 years ago #
The Man From Mandrem

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 151
offline

Posted 2 years ago #
The Man From Mandrem

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 151
offline

If 85 is actually very good length for what you do, stick with what appears to be your first instinct. I think good price for what you get. If not, your focus seems to be on bokeh for portraiture?

Another option I am not personally experienced with it but I have read reasonably good things about is 35-70 2.8 zoom-- a pleasant soft bokeh is one of it's attributes--a friend who has one has had some some nice pics wide open with good appearance in OOF. I don't think it nears the 85/1.4 and 105/2.5, and the 105/DC , but it's in the price range you are asking and doesn't have what I would call busy bokeh (which I would argue the 50/1.8 and 35/1.8 have).

It's bizarre in a Saab-like way and certainly not the fastest glass, but can move around in a range equivlent to 85 to 105 @ FX and go to normal perspective. Between that and a good WA/UWA you could probably meet almost all your photographic needs... It's not a light lense but that's not a big deal if you're not already at your breakig point.

If bokeh isn't really important, but low weight and aperture are, the 35DX is a great lens. I find it more practical than the 50 as a prime for all purposes.

Posted 2 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

@TMFM : I have the 35-70 F2.8. it is my primary portrait lens on my dx cameras. Its very sharp at 35mm from edge to edge(even on FX) at F2.8. Its a very good DX portrait lens! ( :-) yeah its a bit weird isnt it. it extends when zoomed in to 35mm!)
However the bokeh from my old manual AIS 50 1.4 is a lot nicer!! but I am too lazy to manual focus and the convenience of the zoom just keeps the old 35-70 mounted for portraits. I think the 85 1.8 is better but since I already have my portrait lens, I probably wont get it.

If OP is considering a zoom of this range specifically for portrait. look into the Tamron 28-75 as well. Its probably not as sharp(but its just because that 35-70 is a freak!) but has much better flare control. The range is much more "comfortable". and I believe its lighter.

Posted 2 years ago #
casperwb

preferred member
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 558
offline

guys,

would someone clear the air on primes, mainly. do you , or can you have prime zooms?

I thought not, but I may be wrong.

Posted 2 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

casperwb said:
guys,

would someone clear the air on primes, mainly. do you , or can you have prime zooms?

I thought not, but I may be wrong.

LOL! ok ok... just thought he may have been interested in these options :-)

Posted 2 years ago #
padlockd

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 118
offline

I would go for the 85mm 1.8D. The 50mm 1.4G is nice, but IMO it's just awkward on DX.

I've heard of the Samyang 85, and I thought about getting it, but like you, the manual focus turned me away towards more practical stuff (I'm not swimming in cash ya know!)

Posted 2 years ago #