first portrait lens: nikon 50mm 1.4 or 85mm 1.8?

[PegLeg Media]

I just ordered a nikon d750 (my first photography camera), and the tamron 24-70 2.8 lens. I am looking for a good video interview as well as photography headshot lens. I see the 50mm 1.4 is only $220 and the 85mm 1.8 is $500. Would you guys recommend the 50mm 1.4 or the more expensive 85mm 1.8? Is the 1.4 that much better than 1.8 or would it be more important to get the longer focal length? Anyone have photo or video comparisons?

 

[crossXcheck]

If you've got the 24-70, why are you considering a 50mm? 70mm isn't a bad focal length for portraits, and I doubt you'll be shooting portraits at 85mm @ 1.8 very often.

That said, I love the 50 1.4 but not for portraits. The 85 gives a much better subject to camera working distance and the added length flatteringly flattens features. The 85 is the classic portrait lens in my bag.

 

[Finn Yarbrough]

CrossXcheck is right. Traditionally, 85mm is the choice for portraiture because of the lack of distortion and also the focal properties. If you need a portrait lens specifically, get the 85mm. Don't worry about the .4 f-stop difference. f-1.8 is very fast for an 85mm.

Either that or, as CrossXcheck also said, save your money for now and shoot portraits with your zoom at 70mm. Unless head-shots are specifically your bread-and-butter, you probably won't miss it much (but you might miss the $500).

 

[PegLeg Media]

good points. Thanks for the help guys, i normally do video with the panasonic gh4 and mainly use primes because its not the best at low light so i try to stay at 1.8 or faster. With the d750 I can probably still get the shallow depth of field i want at 2.8 and better low light so maybe i'll wait till I can afford the 70-200.

 

[homestar_kevin]

The 85mm 1.8s are awesome and there are a bunch of options up and down the price spectrum.

The AF-D ones are great and you can find a good deal on them pretty frequently.

The other really great options are the 80-200 zooms.

The 2 ring versions can be had for ~4-600

The push/pull version can be had for less.

The optics really are amazing and those lenses are all tanks.

 

[Da Media Man]

I just ordered a nikon d750 (my first photography camera), and the tamron 24-70 2.8 lens. I am looking for a good video interview as well as photography headshot lens. I see the 50mm 1.4 is only $220 and the 85mm 1.8 is $500. Would you guys recommend the 50mm 1.4 or the more expensive 85mm 1.8? Is the 1.4 that much better than 1.8 or would it be more important to get the longer focal length? Anyone have photo or video comparisons?

Instead of getting the 50mm 1.4 or the 85mm 1.8 have you considered a zoom like the Nikon 70-200 2.8 or the Tamron 70-200 2.8. This will give alot more verstatility all the way around for photography/videography with the bonus of VR. The zooms make it a lot faster to frame your subject in comparison to primes where you have to physically move in order to frame correctly. Practically speeking sometimes you just cant use a prime because other objects are in the way (table etc) or the subject is to far away.

The Nikon D750 blows away the GH4 in lowlight performance so dont be to concerned about the Fstop on the zooms the D750 is excellent in that department. You already have the Tamron 24-70 2.8 so if you get the Tamron 70-200 2.8 you would be all set.

Sorry for going a little off topic in regards to your post but just wanted to give you some options. In regards to your post I would get the Nikon 85mm 1.8G over the 50mm 1.4G. The 85mm will give you very nice portrtaits for studio like settings and or corporate interview like settings but as I stated earlier for weddings and the like the zooms are way more practical. In regards to super shallow depth of field stuff you are shootiing full frame so if you shoot the zoom and your subject is at lets say a distance of 8 feet @F/2,8 @200mm basically just the eye of your subject would be in focus with everything in the background including the subjects ears hair etc melting away very very pleasing effect.

Attached is a shoot that I did for a party and a large table was in the way (Nikon 70-200 @100mm @F/2.8) if I did not have the 70-200 zoom I would not be able to get the proper framing for this shot. I also attached a high key headshot that I took in my studio with the Nikon 85mm 1.8 @ F/3.5 as well as another christmas portrait (Nikon 70-200 @95mm @F/2.8) that I took with the Nikon 70-200 2.8. I dont have any portraits that I took with the 50mm lens because I would never use the 50mm for a portrait lens, but I attached some images that I took of a puppy with the 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8, and the 70-200 2.8 just so you have a reference.

In the end you will end up getting the 50mm 1.4/1.8, 85mm 1.4/1.8 and also the 70-200 2.8 because they all have place in your kit. Just starting off though I would definately get the zooms first before the primes I know its a little more then the primes but well worth it IMO.

 

[crossXcheck]

With the d750 I can probably still get the shallow depth of field i want at 2.8 and better low light so maybe i'll wait till I can afford the 70-200.

Just a point of reference since the d750 is a full frame camera. Using 85mm@2.8 on a head and shoulders portrait, the eyes will be sharp and the ears will be falling off. I get about a 75% tack sharp success rate with a d810 shooting that way and usually just fall back to f4 for safety.

 

[rocketman122]

I just ordered a nikon d750 (my first photography camera), and the tamron 24-70 2.8 lens. I am looking for a good video interview as well as photography headshot lens. I see the 50mm 1.4 is only $220 and the 85mm 1.8 is $500. Would you guys recommend the 50mm 1.4 or the more expensive 85mm 1.8? Is the 1.4 that much better than 1.8 or would it be more important to get the longer focal length? Anyone have photo or video comparisons?

for a regular interview, the 24-70 with VC will be more than enough. for creative candid shooting in an interview the 85 1.8 is great. but this will be to supplement your main coverage with the 24-70. you could do a whole interview with a 50/85 but not shot wide open apertures. 50 for half body shots or for 3-4 in a group half body is nice. compression is nicer with the 85. you will be some distance from the subject though.

the shallow dof in both primes isnt something that youll really use for a regular standard interview. the viewer will be annoyed at 1.4-2.5. stop them down to 3.5-5 and it will be pleasing to the eye. what you can do with stills doesnt always translate well to video.

 

[Michael Carter]

I own the Nikkor 28-70 2.8, the 80-200 2.8, the 50 1.8, and the 85 1.8 (the 85 in AF-D).

Hands-down, whenever humanly possible, unless it's a tiny room… it's the 85. That lens has some kinda mojo magic to it. I generally use it at F4 or so. And you can get an aperture ring AF version for $300 ish if you shop around - check KEH.

I just… um… really, really don't know about the wisdom of using an 80-200 for interviews. It's a big honking beast (especially the affordable push-pull). It's not as sharp as the 85 if that's your thing. You'll need a lens support on your rails, if your rails aren't robust you'll get shake every time you touch your rig, if it's a push-pull you'll have to reset your FF every time you adjust the zoom. I love it for stills, I love it when I need reach or want a super-compressed look. But jesus, for interviews? No. (Can you imagine how long your rails will be if you want to use your matte box to ND the thing??)

Don't worry about a pricey 1.4 50 on an FF body, you won't use it for people shooting much.

If you're dead broke and you can find one for $100 or less, an alternative is the 100mm 2.8 Series-E. it's not as drool-city as the (pricier) 105mm, but at under $100 it's a steal, and I suspect on full frame I'd use it more than I do. Very nice lens at F4 and up, respectable at 2.8 though a little soft. Flares aren't beautiful with it. (I really prefer the APS-C frame size for video so the 85 is a beauty). I don't own the 105, but if I were shooting full frame, I'd probably get my hands on one for shots I go 85 on APS-C and check it out.

The mighty 85:


The 100 Series E:


Hey, I love the 80-200, but more for stills:

 

[PegLeg Media]

thanks for all the help guys! I will stick to the 24-70 for now and add the 85 when i NEED it. I just got my lens today and ive never used anything besides panasonic... dating back to before the dvx100b>gh2>gh3>gh4 and i just tried shooting some raw images that wont open in lightroom. I use a pc and have creative cloud with all updates. I think it was .NEF or something? What do i need to do to fix this?

 

[Michael Carter]

NEF is the nikon raw file format.

Sounds like you need the latest photoshop and also the latest camera raw plugin.

Camera raw gets updated with the latest cameras regularly - but then photoshop needs to be the latest to upgrade the plugin. At least in the pre-cloud days, kind of a scam to keep you buying the latest pshop.

You can also download the free adobe DNG converter, which converts camera raw to DNG (kinda the same thing) and then you open the DNGs in photoshop or lightroom.

 

[PegLeg Media]

I can open the NEF in photoshop and save them as something else before putting them into lightroom, i found some youtube tutorials but was hoping there was a quicker solution.

 

[Michael Carter]

I can open the NEF in photoshop and save them as something else before putting them into lightroom, i found some youtube tutorials but was hoping there was a quicker solution.

Well, you can't save them as any kind of raw format from photoshop - once you open the NEF, you have a file that's pretty well baked in - other than it can be 16 bit which gives you more leeway. But you'll lose control of white balance, highlight recovery, etc - useful stuff that is only tweakable with a raw file.

I'd grab a copy of Adobe DNG converter - it just batch converts NEF to DNG. Lightroom **should** open DNG as it's more of an open standard, worth a try if you want full raw control in lightroom (not a lightroom user so guessing a bit here!)

Cons of DNG - you'll have double the raw files (NEF and DNG). But you can toss the NEFs, to my knowledge you lose nothing with DNG.

 

[reygun]

Don't count out the 85 ƒ2 AIS which can be had for ~$300.00. I really like this lens for video; it's compact and sharp!