Nikkor 50mm 1.8 AF-S

esquilo

I use the Nikon AF-S 50 mm f/1.8 as my primary portrait lens on my D7100. I upgraded from the older AF 50 mm f/1.8 not long ago. The main reason was that the double-gauss construction of the AF 50 mm gave an awful bokeh. The AF-S 50 mm has a more advanced optical construction as well as one aspherical element and gives a much more pleasant bokeh.

cincyspider

So what lens in the 35 or 50 spectrum would be better for the D5500???

KnockKnock

They're just different. Hard to answer "better" because there are too many use cases and we don't know what you want to do. 35mm on DX (your D5500) is a good general purpose, natural perspective. 50mm is a little bit of a magnification, so it's a medium telephoto. Not very good for getting lots of people in the frame, but nice for one person.

The standard lens (18-55mm or 18-140mm) covers this focal range, so you can frame the shot the same way by just zooming in and out. But the fixed focal length lenses capture more light (they're "faster") so that brings the possibility of shooting with less light, or capturing clearly what might be blurry because of motion on a slower lens. Finally, faster lenses can give you a shallower depth of field which gives a nice artistic looking blur to backgrounds (and foregrounds).

I personally usually pack a zoom and one fast prime in my DX bag (if I'm not bringing everything). The 35mm is good for going to people-events. The 50mm is good for taking "art" shots.

cincyspider

Thanks Knock! Part of my problem is my "old" perspective of what these lenses are. I have always considered a 35mm as being "wide_angle" and therefore subject to some wierdness in the picture that was not natural. I'll have to play around with both lenses to see how they act.

NSXTypeR

Set your 18-140 to 35mm and see if you like it. I've used the 35mm 1.8 enough that now I can eyeball a composition without my eye being at the viewfinder. It gives mixed results, but I often can trust the AF system to get me what I want. Plus I can get lower viewpoints without stooping down.

50mm is long on DX, and not as useful for me.

spraynpray

Yes, in my experience 50mm mm on DX (75mm) is a SHORT telephoto which is only any good for 3/4 length shots because as you close in on the head and shoulders the face starts to get pulled towards the camera. For me, not a lot of use but YMMV.

WestEndFoto

I think that this range is good for full body shots. I use my 85 for that a lot.

KnockKnock

Yes, I stand corrected. SHORT telephoto. I still like it for portraits, though longer here is usually better. However, I still do a lot of inanimate object shooting with the 50 on DX. Flowers, food, product, mailboxes and of course cats :> and that counts for more than people shots, for me.

spraynpray

Moved from a duplicate thread:

nukuEX2 said:

I'm looking into this lens cause I have gotten an inquiry for the headshot / portraiture job offer and as some of you guys may know I only own 40mm micro nikkor f2.8. I have employed this lens as a general purpose walk-around and macro photography as it was intended for. My question is did anyone use 50mm as a portrait lens on the DX body and how is the result? Is there any alternative to this lens?

Looking forward to hear from you guys.

spraynpray

Rx4Photo replied:

In a word, Yes. The 50mm on DX will render an effective focal length that a 75mm would on full frame. Moreover, the fact that your widest aperture is 1.8 could allow you to create some beautifully soft backgrounds if you're standing close enough to your subject. That said, I would'nt necessarily always try to shoot it at f/1.8 or even f/2.0 because you'll wind up having one eye in focus and the other possibly out of focus - creative, yes, but not always what the client wants to see.

This lens on a DX camera also allows you to stay fairly close to your subject during portrait photography, and I think that's important in order to maintain good communication between the two of you. Yes, the 85mm f/1.8 would probably be a better choice (effective focal length as a 127mm on FX) but you'd have to stand further away depending on the result you're looking for.

This type of question usually brings up questions about your budget. How much would you like to spend? I'm thinking if you're asking about the 50mm f/1.8 then I won't even go in the direction of the more expensive alternatives.

All that said, the word portraiture is relative. In very tight spots I've successfullly used my 35mm lens for portraiture as well - and it's still portraiture. If you continue doing portraits you'll likely want to consider the 85mm f/1.8.

spraynpray

As said above nukuEX2, the 50 is not good for head shots as it sucks the facial features forward. The 50 is good for 3/4 to full length shots, but for head and shoulders, better go to 85.

WestEndFoto

As said above nukuEX2, the 50 is not good for head shots as it sucks the facial features forward. The 50 is good for 3/4 to full length shots, but for head and shoulders, better go to 85.

The longer the better. 200 is not too long for headshots.

heartyfisher

I have an old 35-70 F2.8 and found it to be an excellent portrait lense on DX. I have looked at reviews of the Tamron 28-75 F2.8 and I think that that would be similar..

There are some dx portrait photographers that use 18-70 F3.5-4.5 (by choice) which is quite nice. These are more the reportage types. Thom has a nice review of the lense but its old.... I have one but I dont use it much these days as its functions (not IQ) have been taken over by newer lenses.. I may mount it and have a play :-)