Portrait lens for Nikon FF

[PeterAit]

I am getting more interested in portraiture, and my current lens lineup is somewhat lacking. I am looking for suggestions for a lens to use on my D600. The Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 catches my eye, but I am sure there are others. I would appreciate any advice.

[BernardLanguillier]

I am getting more interested in portraiture, and my current lens lineup is somewhat lacking. I am looking for suggestions for a lens to use on my D600. The Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 catches my eye, but I am sure there are others. I would appreciate any advice.

Indeed, the 85mm f1.4 AF-S is very nice, here on a D750.



Cheers,
Bernard

[mjrichardson]

Hi

It's also worth looking at the 85 1.8g, in my experience the lens is superb, so much so I sold my 85 1.4 shortly after picking it up. Alternatively go for something longer, the Zeiss 135 f2 is an incredible portrait lens if you can handle manual focus, it ended up being the only lens I used for portrait work, but then I much prefer manual focus. Quite a few options out there depending on what focal length you like to use.

Mat

[Hulyss]

I'm working with the 85f1.8G and the 180f2.8 IF-ED. For the price, the 85f1.8 is just wonderful bargain and very high quality IQ out of the boxes. The 85 f1.4 is less expensive this days so if you do not mind more weight you can jump on the 1.4.

I also use the 180f2.8 because I'm just comfortable with it. I've got any range between 85 and 200 but still  prefer the 180 because, especially for environmental portraiture, I do not like to be close to my models.

If you go the 180mm way be aware : It is not an easy lens to master, at all. No stabilisation, a bit heavy but it focus rather quickly. I use it on a D700 and this pixel pitch might forgive but once you start to go 24 or 37 Mp... your keepers rate will decrease as the pixel density will increase. The D810 is ok now for this lens.

[armand]

I couldn't get myself to justify paying triple for the 85 1.4G instead of the 85 1.8G.
I'm thinking about something in the 135-180 (maybe the DC ones) range but I want to see what Fuji will bring with the 90 so I don't entirely duplicate the lenses.

[Alan Klein]

105 and 135 are good lenses for portrait too.

[PeterAit]

What about the Nikkor 135mm f/2.0?

[Alan Klein]

F2.0 gives you about two inches dof at 12 feet.  That's to narrow for portrait pictures. You'll have trouble getting the whole had and face in focus.   Plus the glass is going to be very heavy  and more expensive.  I don't see the point of f2 lens in 135.

[Geods]

I have the 85 f/1.4 which is nice but used more often in a more formal setting - DOF is very narrow. I use the 58mm f/1.4 more often as I think the bokeh is equal, if not better than the 85, and the lens is more flexible. The 58 is designed with night photography and image appearance as goals rather than resolution - recommended. That said don't forget to focus calibrate whatever lens you get - as DOF is typically narrow in portrait lenses.

[Paulo Bizarro]

About 10 years ago I used a Nikkor 85 1.4 on a FM2, wonderful lens.

How about the Sigma 85 1.4? It has a very good reputation.

[dwswager]

I am getting more interested in portraiture, and my current lens lineup is somewhat lacking. I am looking for suggestions for a lens to use on my D600. The Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 catches my eye, but I am sure there are others. I would appreciate any advice.

85mm f/1.4G  or D
85mm f/1.8G or D

The AF-D versions are sharp in the center and softer in the corners and edges than the AF-G versions.   I think they make better portraits, but aren't as versatile all around.  The 1.4s have 9 blade apertures while the 1.8 have 7 so theoretically the brokeh of the 1.4s should be more pleasing, your mileage may vary.  Personally, the 1.8D is the best bang for the buck for portraits.  The 1.8G is a great all around performer for the money, but the 1.4G is still optically the best of the bunch.

105mm and 135mm DC lenses are specifically designed for adjusting the out of focus areas on full frame.

180mm f/2.8 is a good lens for getting some working distance for more candid shots.  25 years or so ago when I first started John Shaw and Bryan Peterson books got me going.  Peterson was hard over on the 180mm f/2.8 for street portraits because of the smallish size and good working distance.

70-200mm f/2.8 VR II - This is an odd ball pick, but because lots of people have this in their kit already, I will offer this choice.  It is a little big and unwieldy, but still usable. Remember, the original 2 version of the 80-200mm f/2.8 lacked a tripod mount and were considered photo-journalist lenses.  Because I have it with me a lot, I use it for portraits a lot.  Works great on DX format even.  The VR can assist to mitigate camera shake due to length.

24-70mm f/2.8 - Again this is here because if you already have it, you might as well use it. Not quite as long as one might choose on full frame, but still nice portraits at 70mm.

[Telecaster]

I'll throw in a plug for Nikon's old 105/1.8, particularly if you're looking for a flattering portrait lens. Manual focus. Performs much like the 105/2.5 at same apertures. Dreamy (low-ish contrast) wide open. Good luck focusing it with a current Nikon camera unless you use the rear LCD in live mode.

-Dave-

[E.J. Peiker]

Another vote for the 85/1.8 - tough to beat for the money and gives up noting in IQ to it's faster f/1.8 sibling.  Unless you absolutely need f/1.4 for something, I'd go with the 1.8.

[Lightsmith]

Two factors to consider for portrait work are the perspective provided by a given focal length and the working distance (distance from camera to subject for full length, head, head and torso, environmental shots). With a full frame camera the longest lens I find practical to use indoors is the 105mm and my favorite lens is the Nikon 105mm f2 DC lens.

Outdoors the 70-200mm is a good choice with its range and ability to provide separation of the subject from the background. Outdoors the background is more of a problem to overcome to not overpower the viewers eyes. Limited DOF helps in this area. This is a favorite lens of fashion photographers for these same reasons.

85mm is for me the bare minimum on a full frame camera. I prefer the 105mm which is still short enough for indoor work and better outdoors. The 135mm I find too long for use indoors and that was a problem with the APS-C cameras and the 85mm which together was like having a FX camera with the 135mm lens.

[kers]

I like the latest 70-200mm 2.8 nikkor ; it is very sharp wide open, very nice bokeh and the AF is among the fastests. I like f3.5 very much.
The nikkor 85mm1.4G is also very nice but has a slow AF. It is of course much lighter and smaller and very sharp.

[Ellis Vener]

If I only had to choose one lens for portraiture these are my recommendation
Primes: Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.8G

I admit that the "lowly" 85mm f/1.8G is not as sexy looking as the f/1.4 version (after all nothing says "I'm a real photostud" like a a big fat longer than average lens dangling from the front of your camera but if you don't routinely work in low light situations at f/1.4, they are just expensive symbolic machismo displays. really: at f/4-f/11 I defy you to show me the real world image quality difference. use the money you'll save to buy lottery tickets. You might win and then you can buy a real potency advertisement like a Ferrari.

or if you want something longer ( it can be more flattering  and if you aren't comfortable with being as close as you need to be to fill the frame with an 85mm) a 135mm f/2 or 180mm f/2.8

Zooms:
AF-S 24-120mm f/4G VR Nikkor
AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VRII Nikkor

While it's true that zooms are not quite every bit as crisp (especially when wide open) as primes are, but they more than make up for that in versatility. I'd rather you concentrate on framing, composition, light and gesture.

[dwswager]

If I only had to choose one lens for portraiture these are my recommendation
Primes: Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.8G

I admit that the "lowly" 85mm f/1.8G is not as sexy looking as the f/1.4 version (after all nothing says "I'm a real photostud" like a a big fat longer than average lens dangling from the front of your camera but if you don't routinely work in low light situations at f/1.4, they are just expensive symbolic machismo displays. really: at f/4-f/11 I defy you to show me the real world image quality difference. use the money you'll save to buy lottery tickets. You might win and then you can buy a real potency advertisement like a Ferrari.

Anyone have experience with the brokeh difference between the 85mm f/1.4G and 85mm f/1.8G?  I know from experience that the 1.4D was better in this respect to the 1.8D.  I assumed it was the 9 blade versus 7 blade diaphragm.  Not tremendously significant difference, but noticable.  Still the 1.8D was a much better bang for the buck at less than 1/3rd the price of the 1.4D.  Both G versions are sharper at the edges and corners than the AF-D versions, and I would assume most people would be better off with the 1.8G.

[Quentin]

Try the Sigma 85mm F/1.4.  It is as good as the Nikkor, well built, lower price.

[LKaven]

If I only had to choose one lens for portraiture these are my recommendation
Primes: Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.8G, 135mm f/2 or 180mm f/2.8

These are my three favorites for portraiture, together with the 105/2.5 AIs.  The 135 and 180 focus breathe a little bit, and are shorter than their listed focal length at close focus.  The 135 has a very refined character.  And I love the frame-busting portraits from the 180.

The 85/1.8g has a more neutral character, but it has good contrast, good midtone rendering, excellent bokeh, and it is sharp right across the frame.  It's a top optical performer at a bargain price.  The manual focus works fine on my copy, without any play.  I would not even consider the flare-prone 85/1.8d with its soft performance off-center. 

[dwswager]

I am getting more interested in portraiture, and my current lens lineup is somewhat lacking. I am looking for suggestions for a lens to use on my D600. The Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 catches my eye, but I am sure there are others. I would appreciate any advice.

I will add this to my previous post.  I recommend the 3rd Generation AF-D Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8 ED IF as a better portrait option than the current AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G VRII.  It is somewhat smaller and exceptionally durable, has better contrast and is less than 1/2 the price!  Unless you need the VR for hand holding and the slightly faster focusing and focus tracking of the AF-S, the older Nikkor is a much better value!  I used one for 17 years and would pack that for landscape stuff over the newer one if I still owned it.  The AF-S is what I would use for sports.