Portrait Lens Indecision

This is my 1st post though I've been reading the forums for over a month and could use some guidence. I'm also new to digital. I have a D70s with a 18-70 zoom that I've done 1 portrait shoot with but was considering a fixed lens. My local photo shop suggested either a 50mm and adding a teleconverter if necessary or the 60mm Macro. I really have no interest in macro, so I'm seeking some guidence on which way to go. FWIW, the 50mm is 125.00 and the 60mm is 425.00 Thanks

50mm! Enough said lol. (But then I am biased toward that lens).

Hi golfgoofey, welcome to PR :) The 50mm is a great lens. However, if I was looking for a prime just for portrait work, I would take a look at the 85mm f/1.8D. They are $399.95 from B&H. Both are nice and sharp but, the 85mm will give you a bit more "pull".

Thanks guys, Im using a 13 x 13 room and my concern with the 85mm, after trying a 105mm is the distance I'll be from the model in order to photo a standing body shot.

Ahhh but Aaron, if the D70 has a 1.6 crop factor, then the 50mm effectively becomes roughly an 85mm portrait lens anyway :D

Thanks for that info. Like I said, I'm new to the DSLR snd I can't imagine the camera shop would have told me that. That's exactly why I'm here and after checking out your links I'm favoring the 50mm as it is.

My favorite portrait lens is the Nikon 70-200 VR. Waaaaay expensive, but worth it.

I've also done a few with the 50mm 1.8, and its a fantastic lens as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alison

Ahhh but Aaron, if the D70 has a 1.6 crop factor, then the 50mm effectively becomes roughly an 85mm portrait lens anyway :D

---

Hello my sweet portrait queen, yes I am aware of the crop factor :wink: Personally, I like the extra draw of the longer focal length. gg, if you are shooting in a 13x13 room and need to do full body shots, that pretty much eliminates the 85 though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xia_Ke

Hello my sweet portrait queen, yes I am aware of the crop factor :wink: Personally, I like the extra draw of the longer focal length. gg, if you are shooting in a 13x13 room and need to do full body shots, that pretty much eliminates the 85 though.

---

My dear Aaron :wink:
At one point I thought you didn't know how to write a copyright symbol :p haha

I'm just kidding.

my reason for mentioning it...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by golfgoofey

Thanks for that info. Like I said, I'm new to the DSLR snd I can't imagine the camera shop would have told me that. That's exactly why I'm here and after checking out your links I'm favoring the 50mm as it is.

---

:wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alison

...At one point I thought you didn't know how to write a copyright symbol :p haha...

---

DOH!...LOL :blush2: :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by golfgoofey

This is my 1st post though I've been reading the forums for over a month and could use some guidence. I'm also new to digital. I have a D70s with a 18-70 zoom that I've done 1 portrait shoot with but was considering a fixed lens. My local photo shop suggested either a 50mm and adding a teleconverter if necessary or the 60mm Macro. I really have no interest in macro, so I'm seeking some guidence on which way to go. FWIW, the 50mm is 125.00 and the 60mm is 425.00 Thanks

---

What's wrong with the kit lens for shooting portraits? The focal lengths you are proposing to buy are covered by the kit lens. The only shortcoming that I can foresee is that you cannot open it up to blur the background like you can with a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 but you can improvise and get almost the same results. The best part of using this lens is that it's already paid for.

70mm translates to 105mm for 35mm, which is a great focal length for portraiture. 60mm translates to 90, which is also a great focal length for portraiture. I've used my D70 with the included 18-70mm lens for portraits of my family and the pictures turn out great, in my opinion.

Actually, the more I've read and researched this week the more I'm thinking along those same lines SW, at least until my experience grows. Good news for me is I can spend a little more for lights.
Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squidward

The only shortcoming that I can foresee is that you cannot open it up to blur the background like you can with a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 but you can improvise and get almost the same results.

---

1.8 is also good for low light situations. I use natural light, a majority of the time, so being able to go higher than 3.5 often comes in handy. Such as in a church at a wedding when flash is usually not allowed.
And I'd rather use a higher aperture than a higher ISO to avoid as much grain as possible.

Low light situations.