Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

If you want to come close to the FOV of an 85 on a FF, yes. You can shoot portraits with 35 to 300mm. Different focal length will have different effects. I believe there is a Joe Brady video on YouTube where he talks about different focal
lengths and their impact on shooting portraits. That may help you out. The focal length can distort or improve the shape and features as can the pose and lighting methods.

JohnBoy5562 Loc: Alabama

The closest focal I can find is the Nikon 60mm on my D7100 which equals 90mm. This is personal my favorite and you can find them used most of the time on letgo app or Facebook market place. I’m in Birmingham and on Facebook market place I found one for $200

Nikon 60mm f/2.8

(Download)

Nikon 60mm f/2.8

(Download)

Nikon 60mm f/2.8

(Download)

Nikon 60mm f/2.8

(Download)

Nikon 60mm f/2.8

(Download)

Nikon 60mm f/2.8

(Download)


(Download)

ELNikkor

My favorite portrait lens before digital was always my trusty 43-86 f3.5 Nikkor AI at 86 wide open, or at 5.6. Blurred the background nicely, just the right compression and distance from the subject. The 105 was a bit too long for my style. The later versions of the 43-86 were very sharp, unlike the earlier versions that gave it a bad reputation. My largest print from that lens is a 30x40 which is still on the wall in my dining room.
Now, the 18-55 kit lens is my favorite for DX, the 24-120 f4 for FX.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

The best "portrait lens" would be highly situational dependent, I could see anything from approximately 35 to 150 working well depending on subject matter, single or group, distance to subject, size of shooting location, lighting, and other factors. 85mm is terrific, but not always workable.

Framing/composition, lighting/exposure, soft/sharp focus always seem more important to me than the MM of a given lens. Some like 60mm, some 85, some 105, 135, some just use whatever suits the situation. Make the best of what you have! or go with the GAS...........

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

It is all about the working space, and perspective, the longer the lens the flatter the image, you also have to consider that with a 135mm lens you have to stand back quite a distance to get a full body shot and even further for a group shot, the shorter lenses tend to elongate your subject's features, personally flattening or elongating has never been a big issue for me, but I am not a pro.

Below is an image created with a 500mm lens which came out just fine.

(Download)

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

I thought perhaps it was me, but I did not overthink it.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

The 70-200 is a great and widely used portrait lens.

Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida

Wonderful & Helpful suggestions......thanks E.L. Shapiro......much appreciated.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

The 85mm lens is fine if used correctly. That was the only lens used by the "pro" at our daughter's wedding; as a result, she took a photo of the bridal couple from the front of the auditorium, but we had to remove many chairs as she had to take her photo of the entire bridal party from many feet down the aisle.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I find a 85mm lens on a crop sensor camera ideal for head and shoulders shots, but I wouldn't use it for a full body or group shot. When we talk about portrait lenses, we need to specify what kind of portrait we are talking about. There isn't a single focal length appropriate for all kinds of portraits.

sbohne

The flat back of her hand bothers me far more than the background. You can do a selective gaussian blur on the background...

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I didn't even notice.

sbohne

I didn't photograph with 35mm professionally until digital. In the studio, we used a 180mm lens on our RZ67 cameras (a 6x7 cm neg) for all portraits. That factors to being a 135mm on 35mm. We had a 150mm lens for larger groups.

I also had the 90mm and 127mm lenses. They were not good portrait lenses, but they had the flattest field which made them good for copy work.

I preferred a 105 or 135mm lens over the 85mm on a full frame camera. On a crop sensor, the 85mm would probably be a good lens.

sbohne

It's SCHNOZZ

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

"You are missing something. The 85mm on a DX camera is a fine portrait lens. So, is a 105mm." I am in full agreement with this.

Lenses for "full frame" are very usable with FX cameras and were designed for them. They are also very usable with DX cameras although their focal length now covers only part of the sensor and as such there is a "digital factor" to multiply that focal length for, in the case of Nikon cameras it is 1.5. Useless to say how useful a tele is when using a DX body, so called "cropped body." Wide angles, as I am sure you know is a different story although today getting ultra wide angles for those cropped sensors is not that difficult. What is important to know is that FX or full frame lenses should be used with full frame cameras for best results. Incidentally, a 127 mm lens with a DX body is a great focal length for portraits.

I saw the image of the couple you photographed with the 18-200 VR Nikon lens and the subjects look great to me although I know you are not happy with the background. Learn to select your backgrounds and keep them at a distance and come closer to your subjects to limit the depth of field. I am not a fan of maximum lens aperture when it comes to portraits. Something I try to avoid is having a background that is partially shaded and partially lit, like the one you have in the portrait of the couple but that is me.