Portrait Lens

[baan]

Hi! Can you somebody help me with a portrait lens. I currently have the Nikkor 18-200mm, but I feel like that isn't the right lens for portrait. Price isn't really an issue. Any recommendations?

Thank You,
Sheroba

[jerryph]

Actually, there is nothing stopping you from using your 18-200 as a portrait lens.

However if price is no object, then it depends on what your camera is, but a few good recommendations are:

The Sigma 50mm F/1.4:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1159/4607666264_41fc30823f.jpg

The Nikkor 85mm F/1.4:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4031/4686083688_e3836c5411.jpg

The Nikkor 135mm F/2:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4153/4979555642_578318bf84.jpg

If you need something more exotic and challenging, the Nikkor 45mm F/2.8 tilt-shift lens is a good candidate for a portrait lens but it is manual and very challenging to use, but offers incredible results:
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4094/4751912749_9957b3acda.jpg

The Sigma 105mm F/2.8 is a great portrait lens, and also an excellent macro lens.
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4056/4421757995_111bbe36cc.jpg

I could go on and on, including lenses like the Nikkor 70-200mm F/2.8 as well, but you get the idea.

There is no such thing as a "portrait lens" and you can take portrait shots with anything from 18mm to 200mm, however, using lenses that are at 70mm and longer focal lengths and have a constant F/2.8 or faster aperture in general are the ones that result in best results.

Just a small note... did you know that your lens, at focal ranges between 50-150mm is as sharp as the way more expensive 70-200mm lens between F/8 and F/13 (assuming we are talking the Nikon 18-200, of course!)?

Speaking of expensive, most lenses here except the 50mm Sigma are all at $1000us and higher.

[baan]

Zack, thank you SO much!
Can I ask another question? I'm having difficulties blurring out the background. I'm either not doing it right or just plain don't know how to do it. For instance, your second and third photos, the background is blurred out. Why can't I do that to my photos??? I would have my f stop at the lowest number at Aperture setting, but the background isn't blurred out...What am I doing wrong?
Sorry for the dumb question...

Yes, I was talking about about the Nikon 18-200. Hahahha...

Thanks,
Sheroba

[jerryph]

It's Jerry... I think I need to change my signature... if people keep calling me Zack, it is going to grow my already FAT head fatter... lmao! Zack Arias is a photographer that I admire and pull a lot of inspiration from. :D

And as for how to blur, let me go find that link for you... one sec...

Here is one post made by our own admin:
http://www.proudphotography.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6411

Here is a post that I made that covers the more advanced side of it:
http://www.proudphotography.com/forum/showthread.php?t=6005

Don't let people tell you that you cannot blur a photo with an 18-200, it may be challenging but it is possible.

Here is an example of shallow DOF on my Nikon D200 and the Nikon 18-200 lens:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2267/2341040381_8c25508826_z.jpg?zz=1

This photo proves 2 things:
- that Elvis lives (lol)
- that you can get a blurred background (and in this case, foreground too) with the 18-200, if you understand the intricacies of how.


The two photos that you mention, most of that blur is thanks to a very fast lens (wide aperture). The first one is an 85mm F/1.4 shot at F/1.4 and the second lens is a 135mm F/2 shot at F/2.

[Fusion07]

Getting an interesting bokeh is much easier with a lens with a wide aperture but I agree with Jerry it is more than possible with the 18-200 but not as pronounced. The image below was taken with a Nikkor 35-135 f4 at f5 and the bokeh IMO is fine.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4090/5006908009_56526fbe01_z.jpg