DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Got a note today (2015 November 1) that B&H is having a sale on Nikon lenses. The 105/2.8 Micro is going for a bit below $900, about $85 off. I have the 105 and use it frequently. I don't do many portraits, but I do a lot of Macro and closeup photos, for which the 105 excels.

ptcanon3ti Loc: NJ

Yes...the 85 certainly has it's upside. I just wish it had a smaller minimum focus distance.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

D750 is full frame...

On FF, the "ideal portrait" focal lengths are from roughly 70mm to 135mm, simply because these short to moderate telephotos give the nicest perspective. For fashion photography, sometimes even longer telephotos are used, but you need lots and lots of working distance with them.

Sometimes 50mm is used on FF for full length portraits, couples and small groups (weddings) or wider "environmental" portraits. But, as a previous post mentions, you have to be careful about getting to close due to the exaggerations of perspective that this or any wider lens will cause.

OTOH, 50mm makes for a wonderful short portrait lens when using a crop sensor camera.



Easy solution...

Get a set of macro extension rings and use the shortest one with the 85mm lens, to make it focus a bit closer. The Kenko tube set is very good quality and $125 right now. It includes 12mm, 20mm and 36mm tubes, so will be useful for higher magnification and/or close focusing with a variety of lenses. I never leave home without a few extension tubes in my camera bag... you never know when they might come in handy and they're simple to use.

Gobuster Loc: South Florida

A valid consideration for sure. If shooting hand held, remember that the 24-85 has VR, and it is good for at least 3 stops of shutter speed, largely obviating the "speed" advantage of the f1.8, assuming the subject is motionless. Since the difference between f1.8 and f4.5 is 2 2/3 stops, for motionless subjects, the f1.8 has no real advantage other than the reduced DoF (which may be highly desirable). I've shot hand held at as slow as 1/10" with my 24-85 and got very good results whereas with my f1.8 I'd get a blurry mess at 1/10!

Lots of "if's" in making your choice! In my case, where I don't always shoot portraits, I find the 24-85 a much more useful lens and have probably shot 20 exposures with it to every 1 with the 85mm f1.8. I only use the f1.8 when I want the reduced DoF it so effectively produces.

I find both lenses very sharp with a slight advantage to the prime, but you really have it pixel peep to see any difference, probably not an issue in portraiture as you will most likely not be making huge prints.

Whichever you choose, you are getting a fine lens - have fun!

Shoot Happens

The 50mm lens is not a good lens for portraits in that you would need to get to close to your subject possibly making them uncomfortable and affecting your end result. I learned 85mm to 105mm will give you adequate distance and maintain proper facial proportions for portraits. The Nikon 105 is in that upper price range that you don't want to go to. The 85/1.8 is likely the one you should get.
Enjoy your new lens.

Rick36203 Loc: Northeast Alabama

I have the D750 and my 85 1.8g is on the camera for most portrait shots. Outside, or for tight head shots, I will sometimes change to the 135 2.0 DC. In tight quarters, will change to the 24-70 2.8. But, I just ordered a 50mm 1.8d to use when possible instead of the heavier 24-70. The 1.8d is only about $130 new and is supposedly a little sharper (and cheaper) than the gelded model. You really don't need to pay extra for the built in AF motor in the G model 50mm for the D750.

I would get the 85 1.8g first (a really sharp lens for a decent price), but for just a few dollars more you can also have the 50mm 1.8d. You know you want both anyway. :)

stan0301 Loc: Colorado

Joe Zeltsman would agree--the 50 is fine for groups but use the 85 for singles or couples--on a crop format the 50 would be good for most anything
Stan

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

I agree with Goofynewmie's comments but think the 105 would give better perspective for portraits.

kb6kgx Loc: Simi Valley, CA

Traditionally, the 85 and 105 were considered the “portrait” lenses, as both provided a more natural perspective. I agree, the 50 isn’t enough and a 135 would be too much, in my opinion.

I use the 105 on my FE2 for about 98.9875% of everything I do, so it’s good for everyday, all around shooting, as well.

Robeng Loc: California

I have the 85mm f1,4 if and love it!

Hunakai

85 1.8.
Have it, love it, a pleasure to work with.

ptcanon3ti Loc: NJ

Thanks to everyone for the great thoughts. I think I'm down to the 85 1.8 and a 105 macro of some sort.

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

Don't get too terribly hung up on the maximum aperture. Distance to subject, and distance from subject to background will make a HUGE difference. Shooting wide open with 1.4 or 1.8 will have a very narrow depth of field, and you may find that the eyes are sharp, but the ears and nose aren't. You may also want to consider of you are planning full body portraits, or standard head and shoulder shots. If you are doing full body, or family portraits, I would look more at the 50.

That being said, if I had to pick JUST 1 to start, I would probably go with the 85, because I do a lot more standard portraits than I do families. Frankly, if it weren't out of the price range you stated, I still think the 70-200 2.8 is the ultimate portrait lens.

ptcanon3ti Loc: NJ

Thanks for your thoughts and experience. I actually have the Tamron 70-200. it's excellent in normal light. but for things like candlelight, i was looking for a faster lens.

ptcanon3ti Loc: NJ

Well, I'm resurrecting my old dead thread. :)

Reporting in on my 85 1.8G I must have gotten a horrendous copy. First it front focuses so badly that I can't get the lens MFA adjusted even at +20 in the camera.

Also the Chromatic aberration is worse on this lens than ANY other lens I've EVER seen.

Sending it back today. :(