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:

« Previous 123 Next »

Rx4Photo

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 951
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.

I remember reading a review on the B&H site where someone referred to the Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 as now being his "prime lens" since recently buying it. I honestly think what he meant was "it's the lens that stays on my camera most of the time." I always thought prime lenses referred to single focal length lenses.

Now that I've learned how to use it I also like the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D as a portrait lens. Because of its focal length you can allow your subject some breathing space even if you just want a head shot.

Posted 2 years ago #
enthdegree

senior member
Joined: Oct '09
Posts: 53
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.

'Prime' usually means that you cannot zoom. In my experience the rest of the optical industry calls it 'fixed focal length' but photographers call it 'prime'.

Posted 2 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

One more vote for the 35mm 1.8. A cheap nice lens. I just wish there were distance scales and the focus ring was more smooth.

Posted 2 years ago #
TaoTeJared

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

There is no such thing as a Prime Zoom. There are primes (single focal length) and there are zooms.

"My primary (most used/main) lens is" Is just a statement of your go-to lens. Some people will shorten the word primary to prime when they are too lazy to type the word out.

Posted 2 years ago #
spraynpray

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,514
offline

Laziness and fashion are destroying our ability to communicate correctly 'init'.

Posted 2 years ago #
heartyfisher

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

Eh ?? I thought casper was being sarcastic and nudging us to get back on topic! No?

Posted 2 years ago #
The Man From Mandrem

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 151
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.

Don't think a general purpose AND portrait prime lens (singular) exists either.

Posted 2 years ago #
MRPhotoau

junior member
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 7
offline

For what its worth I'll add my 2 cents.
I shoot portraits but also shoot a bit of nature when I'm not busy.

I use 3 main lenses for my portraits, 50/1.4D, 85/1.4D & 135/2DC on FX
I realise the Q is for DX & a budget, but...

I find the lens I use the most is the 85 and it has great bokeh, but this is not as sweet on DX but still ok. A 1.4 rather than a 1.8 will give you better bokeh aspecially wide open. So because you are using DX, I would suggest the 50/1.4, AF-D or AF-S they are both very good and would equate to a 75/1.4 for DX. Just my opinion.

Posted 2 years ago #
KenRC51

senior member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 53
offline

I got the 50 1.4G. My friend got the Sigma 50 1.4 and his pictures comes out great.

Posted 2 years ago #
MRPhotoau

junior member
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 7
offline

I would add one extra point.

If you are on a budget, which it seems you are. Getting the 50/1.4 AF-D for an extra $5 you would have an excellent macro lens. You must get the AF-D version for this though, as it has an aperture ring. Spend the extra $5 on a reversing ring off eBay and switch the camera to MF and M exposure (I think some of the cheaper bodies won't give any metering, you would have to check this as you haven't mentioned which body you have.

Another 2 cents

Posted 2 years ago #
aetas

preferred member
Joined: Dec '09
Posts: 273
offline

Some people like the 1.4 of any lens and some the 1.8. Its really depends on what you like in your bokeh. I really like the 1.8 lenses. The out of focus, the price. Both winners to me. The build quality is still good and because of the brand your still getting a great product.
~Cheers

Posted 2 years ago #
studio460

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

Again, if you want the best PORTRAIT lens for the money, with the best bokeh for a DX body, get the AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D. No, it's not the pricey f/1.4, but believe me, there's plenty of bokeh on the 85mm f/1.8, even on DX.

My favorite portrait lens for DX is the AF DC-Nikkor 105mm f/2.0D. Prettiest damed lens on DX for portraits, and sharp as hell if you want it to be. But it's about $1,000.

Posted 2 years ago #
heartyfisher

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

MRPhotoau said:
I would add one extra point.

If you are on a budget, which it seems you are. Getting the 50/1.4 AF-D for an extra $5 you would have an excellent macro lens. You must get the AF-D version for this though, as it has an aperture ring. Spend the extra $5 on a reversing ring off eBay and switch the camera to MF and M exposure (I think some of the cheaper bodies won't give any metering, you would have to check this as you haven't mentioned which body you have.

Another 2 cents

Hmm I dunno.. If you want a macro and portrait then I think that Tamron 60 F2.0 would be hard to beat.

Posted 2 years ago #
Mike Gunter

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 946
offline

Hi,

For the budget and bokeh and quality, I'd put my money on the 85mm F1.8 Nikon.

It might be a bit of a stand off, but it hasn't been much of a problem. The clarity and color are terrific. It is a standout in both value and delivery.

The 50mm is a winner, too, and I use it for closer quarters.

I would comment on using it with a reversing ring. I've done it, too, in my leaner years, and it certainly works well. It isn't a convenient method as one has to manually stop down to shoot, perhaps use a tripod, or grow a third arm. Micro lenses have a better design for close up, but I'm really commenting on the user experience of shooting close up than the quality of the images.

Which leads to another question. Do you do close up? If so, and this is just in budget, but not the 'best' portrait lenses, but will is the 60mm F2.8. I have an older model and use it for portraits and it works great.

Outdoors, you'll like stop down a bit anyway, so the the f1.4-1.8 to 2.8 will be rather unnoticeable - but there will be times that you'll really yearn for it and miss it. If you don't don't do _any_ macro work, it might be something that will be lost on you, but on the other hand, close up is in a class by itself.

My best,

Mike

Posted 2 years ago #
enthdegree

senior member
Joined: Oct '09
Posts: 53
offline

The 85mm 1.8D is looking so fly.

The ability to reverse the 50mm 1.8 and 1.4 D's is certainly useful but IDK if I would use them, as I am really mostly taking pictures of people.

What I think I'm going to do is buy an 85mm 1.8D and a 50mm 1.8D and see which one I like best, then if I like the 50mm 1.8D sell everything and get a 50mm 1.4 G or D. If not then sell the 50mm 1.8D and either get a 35mm 1.8G or replace my crummy 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 G VR with an 18-70mm but that is a different thread. (c;

Thank you everyone for your input!

Posted 2 years ago #
Drdobs

senior member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 63
offline

KenRC51 said:
I got the 50 1.4G. My friend got the Sigma 50 1.4 and his pictures comes out great.

Are you inferring that the 50 1.4G does not take great pictures?

Posted 2 years ago #
MRPhotoau

junior member
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 7
offline

I love reading peoples different views on things. Especially the more experienced writers.
Just to clarify what I have said earlier. I have used both 1.8 and 1.4 versions and they both give very nice OOF backgrounds/foregrounds but in my experience (though, from what I perceive, this is no where near some of the other people here. Only approx. 15 years, a number of others seem to be at least twice that) the 1.4 is creamier than the 1.8 at the same stop and I did not get the same results on DX as on FX. I may be very wrong there, and of course given your budget you could almost get the 50 and 85.
I also shoot macro but with macro lenses. My suggestion was only that an inexperienced shooter could get a macro lens for $5 that way they could 'try before you buy' so to speak. This $5 option would also work with both the 1.8 D lenses. It is also for myself no harder to use than a macro lens as 95% of my macro is on a tripod and 100% is manually focused.

Posted 2 years ago #
Mike Gunter

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 946
offline

Hi MRPhotoau,

"My suggestion was only that an inexperienced shooter could get a macro lens for $5 that way they could 'try before you buy' so to speak. This $5 option would also work with both the 1.8 D lenses."

I think you're exactly right, and I didn't mean to contradict your intent, just to comment on the experience of it. I've done a lot of it with the reversing ring and enjoyed with it enough to get into macro work and buy the lenses for it. (And I still use a tripod for it, too.) ;-)

Your comments were well reading.

My best to you.

Mike

Posted 2 years ago #
enthdegree

senior member
Joined: Oct '09
Posts: 53
offline

FWIW, are there any zooms around the same price range that rival the primes discussed in this topic?

Posted 2 years ago #
jonnyapple

Goldfingers
Joined: May '09
Posts: 3,400
offline

enthdegree said:
FWIW, are there any zooms around the same price range that rival the primes discussed in this topic?

My tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non-VR version, purchased Dec 2007 for $400) is pretty close, IMO [ducks incoming boos and rotten fruit]. It is DX, though.
Here are a few samples:
at 40mm and f/4
50mm and f/4
50mm and f/2.8 (shows bokeh in OOF lights—not as uniform as a prime would be)
50mm and f/2.8 (ditto above, with light filtering through leaves)
Even though the bokeh isn't quite as pleasing, I don't think it's disgusting or even too distracting and you can be at 17mm in one second.
17mm and f/2.8

I do love the 50 1.8 and 85 1.8, as well, but the 17-50 is my go-to lens for most things.

Posted 2 years ago #
TaoTeJared

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

enthdegree said:
FWIW, are there any zooms around the same price range that rival the primes discussed in this topic?

Depends what you mean by Rival. Sharpness - yes. Bokeh- No.

Posted 2 years ago #
The Man From Mandrem

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 151
offline

Depends also which of the lenses above you are comparing to. Zooms designed to pass through normal perspective on 35mm cameras are relatively cheap since they don't go wide enough in most cases to serve a similar purpose on DX. The 35-70 I mentioned is a pro Nikkor and I saw it for <$400 used through B&H with good quality rating-- For that price I'd go with B&H rather than eBay, but eBay is another place to look. Re: Comparisons, my friend with a 35-70 also has 2 other 2.8 pro zooms to cover 18-200. When he bought the 105/2.0DC that became the 1 lense he always carries. If he carries 2 it's the 105/2.0DC and the 18-35. I have the 105/2.5 AIS and the bokeh, colors, and sharpness is addictive so I can imagine where he is coming from.

The 35-70 has to me a more pleasing, smoother bokeh I mentioned better than the 35 and 50/1.8 lenses and equally sharp (I own those 2 lenses). There are as someone mentioned 3rd party lenses that are cheaper but I am not sure about the bokeh. I have a Tokina 28-70/2.8 and it is a solid lens which is nice and sharp but bokeh is not it's strongest point (maybe it's similar to the 50, maybe little worse) and there is no reason to buy Tokina if that Nikkor is <$400.

Posted 2 years ago #
Cold Hands Luke

member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 41
offline

I agree the 50/1.8 bokeh can be ugly, but it cleans up really nicely about f/2.2-2.5. In fact it can be nice wide open provided there aren't any highlights in the frame. Windows in otherwise badly-lit buildings tend to catch me out in this respect (I use mine for indoor martial arts a lot).

Posted 2 years ago #
Vall

senior member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 71
offline

If you're into manual focusing and older lenses, I'd suggest Nikkor 105/2.5 AiS. Some may say it's long, but the bokeh and DoF distribution is wonderful. Plus some 50/1.8 for a little more angle and you're set. :-)

Some sample photos:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/designingreen/5434833166/in/set-72157626021002474/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/designingreen/5434829392/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/designingreen/5422961056/in/set-72157625886944797/

My favourite lens so far, and you can get it really cheap! (I'm getting cash for either N85/1.8 or Leica Summicron 90 next..) ;-)

Posted 2 years ago #
enthdegree

senior member
Joined: Oct '09
Posts: 53
offline

That's an interesting suggestion. How is the handling on that lens? Seems like it would be pretty hard to handhold at 105mm esp. on DX. It's ok though, I don't mind MF just as long as handling is good.

In other news, I also just found out about this Sigma zoom lens: 20-40mm f2.8 which looks like it sells in the limit I set of below $500.* It's a little wider than the other ones but I thought it would be worth mentioning as it might provide a viable step up from variable-aperture baseline zooms like the 18-55mm VR (too bad there is loss of 2 mm on the wide end where it makes a difference) Unfortunately there is not too much info on it floating around the internets. Does anyone have any experience with this lens? On paper it looks almost too good for it's price range to be of very high quality, esp. for a Sigma lens.

*In some places anyway

Posted 2 years ago #