bmayhew

I have a Nikon D7200 and looking to purchase a portrait Len . Suggestions on which one to get. I looked online but trust the people on this site the most. Thanks for your help.

chase4 Loc: Punta Corona, California

I use my AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 D with great results on my D7200. chase

orrie smith Loc: Kansas

You may want to look at a macro lens. They offer you a chance to move in close and still obtain focus. I like the Nikon 105, but on your cropped sensor d7200, you may want to go to the next lower, which I believe is a 60 or 65mm. Whatever you decide on, in my opinion, try to upgrade your lenses to FX lenses. Please do not misunderstand, there are great DX lenses on the market, and they are less expensive. But, if you ever decide to upgrade you camera body to a full frame body, you can use FX lenses effectively on DX camera bodies, but DX lenses are not that effective on FX bodies. Good luck with any choice you make.

Charlie'smom

I recently bought a Tokina 100mm macro, which was recommended by Ken Rockwell over the Nikon 85mm. I couldn’t be happier with it.

kpmac Loc: Ragley, La

I also own the Tokina 100mm. It's a great dual purpose lens and much less expensive than those from Nikon. I use it often on my D7200.

User ID

A 60mm macro is a 90mm FF equiv, and not
as pricey as longer macros intended mainly
for FF use.

Or a very affordable 50/1.8 is also somewhat
of a portrait FL for a DX camera, and the fast
aperture is an aid to accurate focus, AF or MF.

Much depends on what the user really means
by "portrait". So-called "portrait" FLs render
attractive perspective for head shots without
putting an awkwardly long distance between
shooter and subject. They are also favored by
journalists who may need a quick headshot
in poor lighting, because the modest degree
of tele involved allows use at slower shutter
speeds to accommodate poor lighting. Those
two factors are pretty much the whole story
of why 85, 90, and 105 became the portrait
FLs. If your story differs from that, so should
your choice of lens.

The idea that head shots by a normal lens
render "unflattering" perspective is mostly
propaganda. Certainly a slightly longer lens
is more of a hedge against the possibility of
unflattering perspective, but FL is NOT the
whole story of "flattering perspective".

I've made many casual head shots with a
"too short" FL. Any rules-bound PPA type
of "judge" would declare that the ears are
too small, etc. But the subjects LOVE the
pix anyway ! The more casual the "pose",
basically meaning "not really posed", the
less the rules mean anything. Granted, in
a very posed and formal head shot, those
rules usually pay off. All depends on your
meaning of "portrait" ! Here's a casual or
"journalistic" portrait by a normal lens,
and a too-close head shot by the same
lens. "Everybody knows" that the second
one is "all wrong" [LOL] but the subject
[per usual] loves them both, prolly becuz
he cares most about immediacy and not
at all about "the rules" :-)

OTOH, if you shoot mainly to please YOU,
and you judge yourself by the rules, then
get a "portrait lens" for sure !

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

What kind of portraits are you wanting to take?

JD750 Loc: SoCal

You might want to give this video a look:
http://www.mattgranger.com/gear-talk/item/1137-1-best-value-nikon-portrait-lens

Remember for DX you want to account for the crop factor. So while 50mm is a normal lens on a FF camera it yields about a 75mm equivalent field of view for DX. Slightly long. Which is good for portraiture. The Nikon 50mm, f1.8 prime lens is a great value. It’s sharp, fast, and economical.

Bill_de Loc: US

Any focal length between (approx) 50 - 100 would work well on that camera. You should, most of the time, be able to step a little closer or a little further back.

I would be more concerned with getting a nice wide aperture giving you more control over the depth of field.

--

CO

Tamron's new SP series prime lenses all have stabilization. They also have a metal lens barrel and are fully weather sealed. The lenses have outstanding repeatability as far as the autofocus is concerned. There are very few outliers in tests. The Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART lens is highly touted but its autofocus repeatability is not nearly as good as the Tamron. I purchased the Tamron for my Nikons. The vibration compensation is a real plus. The new lenses are the 35mm f/1.8, 45mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.8, and 90mm f/2.8 macro.

chase4 Loc: Punta Corona, California

If money is not a problem for you, you might look at the Nikon AF DC 105mm f/2 at about $1200 or the Nikon AF DC 135mm f/2 for about
$1400 (you can Google them). I have used the 135 with outstanding results on both DX and FX bodies. chase

67skylark27 Loc: Fort Atkinson, WI

This x2. or, I have the 85mm f1.8 - great bang for the buck (300 used, available refurbished under 400 on nikon usa sometimes).

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

I use the 85mm 1.4, the 105mm 1.4; but the 70-200mm 2.8 is also a great portrait lens.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

I have a Nikon D7100... and the lens that I use (most often) is a Nikkor 50mm f/1.4. The reason is that this lens on the DX camera is similar to a 75 mm lens on a full frame (FX) camera and it has excellent bokeh. With the 1.4 aperture, I can control my Depth of Field to, from anywhere from a few centimeters to infinity (depending on whether I shoot at f/1.4, f/16 or somewhere in between). However, I don't restrict myself to a "particular" portrait lens. I have often used a Nikkor DX 18-70mm zoom. It allows me to use the zoom to frame the portrait the way that I want it... again on a DX camera that lens is similar (in effect or framing) to a 27-105mm lens which puts it (nearly perfectly into the "portrait" range. I've also shot portraits with a Nikkor 80-400mm lens, but this was because I was among several that were shooting the subject and I wanted "something different". The 80-400 worked well, but I had excellent natural light and good positioning. In general it wouldn't have been my first choice. My go to lens for portraits would be the 50mm on the DX. Now, I have a Nikon D610, in addition to the D7100, and I use it for portrait and general photography. So it also gets the 50mm or I will use the FX 70-300 zoom 4.5-5.6 Nikkor lens. It is also a good entry telephoto on the DX camera as it gives a frame similar to a 105-450 and has a decent f/4.5 to 5.6 aperture at wide open.. stopped down its minimum aperture is f/32 so it can (with good light) give a generous depth of field. I guess that my point is that I don't really have a "portrait" lens per se.. But each of these lenses will do the job well, you just have to know and understand their abilities and limitations and use those to the benefit of your shot. Plus, each of the lenses that I have, give me flexibility in the field. I use my 80-400 most of the time for birding and long shots and keep it on my DX (D7100), I use the 50mm on the D610 for my Normal and all around (non-telephoto) shots and this gives me good balance on a job.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

When I did portraits I used anything from 80mm to 200mm. You want a fast lens so you can knock out the backgrounds. A 1.4 would be ideal. An older 50 mm 1.4 lens would be nice, it would have an effective focal length of 75 mm on your camera.
My personal recommendation would be the new Nikon 85mm 1.8 prime lens, inexpensive, and sharp, sharp, sharp. Read the reviews on B&H and other sites. It would have an effective focal length of about 127 mm on your camera at if you shot say wide open or one stop down your back grounds would disappear. Be sure to focus and lock focus on the eyes of your subject.
That lens is currently on sale, you will be pleased.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=nikon%2085mm%20f%2F1.8&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ps