RKL349 Loc: Connecticut

The Nikon 50mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8 would both work for portraits, although neither is on your list. Both of these lenses are rated highly by most users, and some professionals as well. And, their costs, new or refurbished, will certainly not break the bank.

mizzee Loc: Boston,Ma

I'd go with the 35. I think with your crop sensor, it will work out to the equivalent of a 50mm lens or close to it. If you go to B&H website for this lens, you'll find plenty of user reviews that will give you a good perspective. You could also try renting one...? Or both

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

These are great choices.
I’ve seen 50mm 1.8 G lenses for $150, used.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1539607

rodpark2 Loc: Dallas, Tx

That lens won't autofocus on the D3300.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

B&H has a 30 day return policy, I assume it applies to lenses as well as cameras. Buy it and try it. I have the 35mm f1.8 for my D7000 and it's becoming my walk around lens. It's a great lens. Not sure why you would want such a short Macro lens. I have a Tamron 100mm f2.8 macro that's a decent quality for a decent price and gives you some working distance for macros. It's slow and noisy to auto focus but macro work is manual focus so that's no biggy.

DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA

Had a 35mmf1.8 DX lens. Sold it. Regretted it and bought another.

TampaRalph Loc: Tampa, FL

Thanks to all of you for your input. You’ve given me plenty of food for thought and definitely made me reconsider my options. My thinking was definitely wrong on the focal length for a portrait lens.

I do plan to eventually upgrade to an FX format body, which will inevitably mean buying new glass. If I go with a quality 50mm FX lens, I get a 75mm equivalent that I can use for portraiture with my DX body now and will be able to use that as a first lens when I upgrade. I’ll just have to make sure the AF will work with my current body because my eyes are not what they used to be. And, as SXRICH pointed out, getting the 35mm DX lens used wouldn’t set me back much more than the cost of a good bottle of scotch.

I’m happy! I’m gonna get two lenses instead on one — and I don’t have a wife to explain it to!

67skylark27 Loc: Fort Atkinson, WI

I concur! I have the 35, 50, and 85 f1.8. The 85 wins hands down for portrait work. If you are getting
a prime the 2.8 isn't enough, 1.8 allows you to shoot in the dark without a flash, the 50 f1.4 I have
is great but the 85mm is always my go to lens - even for indoor sports.

The 35mm f1.8 is not a portrait lens.

Good luck with your purchase!

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

What did you plan to do with it? The effective aperture on a DX at 2.8 is F/4. So if I were getting a portrait lens I would be looking at a 50 - 80 at f/1.2. As for the 35, if you were looking for a good "street" lens it becomes the equivalent of a 50 f/2, but not one I would go to for portraits. As a portrait lens I would nix both of these. You can do better.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I agree with an earlier response... either the 35mm or the 40mm is a bit short focal length for portraiture.

But I don't quite agree with the focal length they suggested instead.

On an APS-C camera, anything in the 50mm to 85mm range falls within the "Goldilocks portrait focal length range".... not too long, not too short.

Nikkor AF-S 50mm f/1.8G would likely be your best bet, in that it's close to the price of those other lenses. It sells for just over $200 new. The AF-S 50mm f/1.4G would be even better, but is over twice as expensive. AF-S 85mm f/1.8G is priced similarly. The 85mm may be too long if shooting indoors in tighter spaces, but can give you more stand off from your subject when there's plenty of room to work. The longer focal length also has more potential to blur down subjects.

Another lens you might consider is the Tamron SP 60mm f/2.0 Macro/Portrait... right in the middle of the "ideal" portrait focal lengths, plus an unusually large aperture for a macro lens. It's more dual purpose since it can also do full 1:1 macro, if that interests you. This lens is a bit slower focusing (as are most macro lenses by design), but it's more than adequate for most portraiture and macro shooting. It's a "crop only" lens... while all the Nikkors above are FX capable. It is reasonably compact and internal focusing, but a bit more expensive... maybe that's justifiable if it serves the roll of several lenses (I carry it when I opt to leave my 50mm and 85mm "portrait" lenses and 100mm macro lens at home.... one lens taking the place of three.)

A zoom can be handy for some types of portraiture... such as active kids and pets. My preferred portrait zoom on a crop camera is a 24-70mm f/2.8. I actually don't like it (a little too short) for portraiture on full frame and switch to a 70-200mm instead. The problem is, these lenses are rather large and intrusive.... kids and pets will ignore you as soon as something else distracts them, but with other subjects the large lens makes candid shots rather difficult. Of course, these lenses are also pretty pricey.

This is not to say that sometimes shorter and longer focal lengths can't be used for portraiture. They can.... On crop cameras I've used as wide as 24mm or even 20mm and as long as 300mm and even 500mm. However, those are more specialized uses... Shorter focal lengths have to be used very carefully, for full length portraits, couples, small groups, not too close and keeping the subjects well away from the edges of the images to avoid various distortions and perspective exaggerations that are inherent with wider lenses. With longer lenses it's the opposite...you have no choice but to work from much greater distance and the telephotos tend to compress perspective, but it's easy to completely obliterate backgrounds with strong blur effects. The ability to really isolate the subject can be useful when working on location, where you have little control over whatever is behind your subject or simply want them to stand out sharply in the image.

Some examples for focal length (since I shoot with Canon gear), all done with APS-C crop cameras:

50mm f/1.4 (at f/2.0)...


85mm f/1.8 (at f/2.0, note the slight blur of the wine bottle and hand)...


24-70mm lens at 58mm (f/11 to include background)...


70-200mm at 93mm (f/4)...


28-135mm at 117mm (f/7.1)...


70-200mm at 160mm (f/5.6)...


300mm (at f/4)...


500mm + 1.4X teleconverter = 700mm (f/5.6)


Here's what happens when you get too close with too wide a lens. It can be humorous.... but not very flattering! In this case it's a 24-70mm at 58mm on a full frame camera, which is roughly equivalent to that 40mm lens on your camera. Of course, the 35mm lens would have even stronger effect....




I cringe a little every time I read or hear that statement. It just confuses people. Actually, f/2.8 is still f/2.8... ESPECIALLY when it comes to exposure. The difference occurs in Depth of Field. But it's not directly due to ue to the aperture OR the sensor format. In fact, if you were to use the same lens with the same aperture from the same distance on FX and DX cameras, the Depth of Field is virtually the same... there's no effect to speak of at all. However, if you did that, due to the change in sensor format the image shot with the DX camera will be cropped much tighter. In order to frame the subject the same way, it's necessary to either use a different (shorter) focal length on the DX camera or to move farther from the subject... or a little of both. And when you change distance or focal length.... THAT changes Depth of Field and makes the smaller format DX camera seem to render deeper DoF.

I doubt that someone shopping for one lens in the $250 range is going to want to consider f/1.2 lenses, since they typically cost between $1200 and $1800. Plus... AFAIK... Nikon only offers a legacy, manual focus 50mm f/1.2 for around $700. There's also a manual focus Mitakon Zhongyi 85mm f/1.2 offered in F-mount for $800 (Canon has both 50mm f/1.2 and 85mm f/1.2.. rather difficult to work with, but very popular with wedding photographers in particular). Stronger background blurs can be gotten by using a longer focal length, too. That's probably more practical than looking for an f/1.2 lens.

drmike99 Loc: Fairfield Connecticut

I have both for my D7100. The 35 mm is in essence your fast “nifty-fifty” on a DX body. It is sharp, light, and versatile. I recently bought the 40mm micro-Nikkor despite Ken Rockwell’s caution that it’s really too short to be a versatile macro lens (you have to get too close). But it is VERY sharp, is a slightly “long” normal on the DX body, and it has macro. I like it a lot and I use it more than I use the 35. [I also have the AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D, which is an FX lens. It’s good as a fast short telephoto but frankly it spends most of the time on my film FE as it’s nifty-fifty.]

johncaccese Loc: Pittsfield, MA

The 35mm 1.8G focuses down to 12" or so, is super sharp and is very cost-effective. I've used mine with my D7000 for a few years now and it always delivers great results.

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

The 35mm is a favorite of mine. It is light but does not feel cheap to me, and it performs beautifully on my D300s & D500. However, I do not use it for portraits.

CatMarley Loc: North Carolina

In discussing portrait lens, one assumes that DOF is the relevant issue, thus is it appropriate to say that a 2.8 becomes the functional equivalent of an f/4. There is always a problem in expressing this idea, since the language has only so many words and all of them have specific definitions in photography. But I think most here grasp the functional difference that a crop sensor imposes on a lens in terms of the resulting image. An f/2.8 lens will render an image that "looks like" it came from an f/4 with a full sized sensor. No reason to cringe. Most everyone here recognizes the necessary shorthand!

artemus

I purchased a Tamron sp 45mm 1.8 Di Vc on ebay used. It was in mint condition and takes excellent pictures! I bid $385 and won.