Question about fx/dx lens choices (Page 2): I really like a 50mm on a DX camera, comes out around 72mm, great for portraits and a lot of other things. One can have a 50mm f1.8G Nikon...

slo Loc: Longmont Colorado

I really like a 50mm on a DX camera, comes out around 72mm, great for portraits and a lot of other things. One can have a 50mm f1.8G Nikon lens for around $200. I used this lens on my D90 and they are quite good.

Just Dawn Loc: North Carolina

Thank you all for the advice. I currently have the kit 18-55 and a 55-200 so I will play around and see what works best. I do have a small studio space (the smaller of my 2 spare rooms) so maybe I can get my boys to sit still for 30 seconds while I fiddle. Doubtful but worth a shot. (No pun intended).

Just Dawn Loc: North Carolina

Thank you all for the advice. I currently have the kit 18-55 and a 55-200 so I will play around and see what works best. I do have a small studio space (the smaller of my 2 spare rooms) so maybe I can get my boys to sit still for 30 seconds while I fiddle. Doubtful but worth a shot. (No pun intended).

scsdesphotography Loc: Southeastern Michigan

Hi Just Dawn, to summarize from the discussion above; you have two issues to deal with. 1- Room size, in an average 10x12 room it's hard to get more than their heads with anything longer than a 55mm. unless you don't mind images showing only eyes, nose and some teeth. 2- Compression, pros like longer lenses because they compress facial features which makes faces look more attractive. This effect is usually more important with adult faces than with kids. But you need at least 20+ feet to work with an 85mm.

My advice is to start with the 55-200 and see if that gives you the composition you want and if it's too tight then go with the 18-55. I suspect that in the given space you'll end up favoring the shorter one.

dickwilber Loc: Indiana (currently)

Jackdoor wrote:

... , longer makes the ears look big and a bit odd. ...

Say what? If you really look, ears always look odd, but bigger? I don't think so. The phenomenon that makes noses look larger when photographed with a short lens is geometry; no such phenomenon with long lenses and any body parts.

Just Dawn Loc: North Carolina

scsdesphotography wrote:

Hi Just Dawn, to summarize from the discussion abo... (show quote)

That makes sense. I will take that advice. Perhaps I will use myself as a model with my nifty remote shutter thingy since I'm sure the boys will not sit still. Thank you for your expertise. Hmmm... Maybe I should move my bedroom to one of the smaller rooms and use my gigantic room for studio space as I usually sneak into bed with the babies anyway. (I'm such a softy)

scsdesphotography Loc: Southeastern Michigan

Hi Just Dawn, let us know what works for you so that others who are try to do portraits in small rooms can benefit from your experience. Have fun experimenting.

SteveR Loc: Michigan

Do you have a zoom? Take photos with your zoom at 50mm and at 85mm and it will give you the idea of the difference. I happen to have the 50mm f1.8d and it just sucks in the light. If you have a Nikon crop camera with a focusing motor, you can pick up the 50mm f1.8d for about $134.

Jackdoor Loc: Huddersfield, Yorkshire.

dickwilber wrote:

Say what? If you really look, ears always look odd, but bigger? I don't think so. The phenomenon that makes noses look larger when photographed with a short lens is geometry; no such phenomenon with long lenses and any body parts.

I understand the geometry, but we're dealing with humans here- a longer lens gives a foreshortening effect on the face which is unfamiliar to us, and makes the ears appear bigger than we're used to. A similar optical illusion makes the moon LOOK bigger when it's near the horizon.

dickwilber Loc: Indiana (currently)

Jackdoor wrote:

I understand the geometry, but we're dealing with humans here- a longer lens gives a foreshortening effect on the face which is unfamiliar to us, and makes the ears appear bigger than we're used to. A similar optical illusion makes the moon LOOK bigger when it's near the horizon.

The phenomenon of exaggerating the size of the nose when shooting a face tight with a wide angle lens is a matter of geometry! If you compare the depth from the tip of the nose to the eye against the actual shooting distance in such a case, it becomes obvious, you have changed that ratio, and the nose appears more prominent. On the other hand, most photographer's prefer a longer lens for portraiture because of it's flattening effect!

I often shoot portraits with a 70-200, and up to now, I have been very happy with the results. And before this discussion, I have never heard any mention of "the ear effect". I will watch and see if I can discern it.

Jim Bob

MT Shooter wrote:

50mm is a better choice overall with your camera. The 85mm will often cause to to get too far back from your subject.

Agreed. Although the 85 is a great lens and some would argue more versatile overall.

Jackdoor Loc: Huddersfield, Yorkshire.

dickwilber wrote:

The phenomenon of exaggerating the size of the nos... (show quote)

YOU won't discern it- you will look objectively, and with a photographer's eyes. The subject- and their family- might view it differently, not least because in the past, most portraits have been taken in the 70-135mm range, usually at the shorter end. But generally, I would agree, most like the nose to appear smaller.

mmeador

First of all, which DX format camera. The FX lenses will work on the DX cameras and vice versa. I have a 35mm 1.8 that I use on my D300. It would be about the same as the 50mm on a Fx camera. I also have an 85mm and a 100mm lens that I use. There is no commandment that says you have to use a 50mm lens.

Just Dawn Loc: North Carolina

mmeador wrote:

First of all, which DX format camera. The FX lenses will work on the DX cameras and vice versa. I have a 35mm 1.8 that I use on my D300. It would be about the same as the 50mm on a Fx camera. I also have an 85mm and a 100mm lens that I use. There is no commandment that says you have to use a 50mm lens.

All I have is the nikon D-3200

mmeador

I have a d3200 also, you just need to stay with the newer lenses. There is no focus motor in your camera body. I use some of my older lenses on this body but you have to manually focus(horrors). You can find a 35mm 1.8 DX lens for about $100.00 or less. The 85mm and 100mm will set up back a little. You probably have a 18-55 or 55-200 kit lens which are good lenses. The 35mm or the 50mm lenses will blow you away. There are reasons the primes are used for portraits.
Good luck, I actually use my D3200 more than my D300 because of the weight difference.