Which one? This one or the 85 mm 1.8? I like great image quality but I want to start doing portraits for as a part time gig soon.
814300
The 85mm 1.8 would obviously have less depth of field when opened up, which may be useful to throw the background out of focus for portraits. The 3.5 is also macro, great for close focusing for small objects. I got it because it seemed to be a good compromise. I use it both ways. If the macro function were not important to me I probably would have gotten the 1.8 although it's also more money.
2000792
Sure, that's a nice lens for most portraiture. If you're shooting up close to a particular individual, you may want a slightly longer lens - say the 85mm. If you get super close with a 35mm you'll get a slightly more prominent nose. The 85 will compress the features and flatten the face a bit, giving a nicer shot. For groups this is perfect.
1658027
http://www.5min.com/Video/Portrait-Photography-Tips-72416664The main difference is the working distance from the subject. The video I posted will help you better understand. The 85mm has better bokeh also.
316097
The Oly 45mm 1.8 is a great lens, great for portraits. As far as the 60mm being too long for portraits, I hear a lot of people use the Oly 75mm for portaits as well. In any event, the Sigma 60mm is really a great lens for the money; Sigma's website lists it as a portrait lens (for what it's worth).
1037323
I'm not sure if I understand your concern of DOF issue with 1.8, but you can always change your aperture to 8~9 and it will show details of your back-ground. But If I were you I would take a 18-200mm instead. covering wide to fairly good zoom unless you are planning to do dark inside building pics. That's just my 2 cents.
323361
I don't have the 28mm 1.8 but borrowed it before my purchase of the 24mm 1.4. It's a very good lens that is much lighter and obviously cheaper than the 24 1.4. The advantage of the 24 is obviously the extra stop of light or so. The 24 also was somewhat sharper than the 28(to my eyes), especially stopped down equally. You can't go wrong with either. Just depends on your price point and needs.
427330
A 85mm F1.4 if is for full frame cameras in my personal opinion would be a great great lens to use for portraits. Expect to heve more head-shoulders type of portraits inside buildings due to 85mm and not being able to be far enough from the person you are taking the photo to capture more of the body but it should be more than enough.
1773127
Massive difference on the bokeh side - the 85/1.8D has a (subjectively speaking) nasty rear defocus rendering. The G OTOH seems to have quite a pleasing bokeh.
1579847
I have both and the 85mm has a much better build quality, longer focal length, and more robust colors and image quality is significantly better. I rarely use my 50mm anymore. I keep it because of its low price and the resale value isn't worth it.
241544
I have the 85 f1.8D and 35 f2D and they are fantastic. The two lenses you mention should be even better. The 35 is such a versatile focal length, I have been using as my all purpose lens.
220608
The extra stop is amazing... 70mm frames a head and shoulders from 10 feet or so... Works great with my lighting set up and excels in low light... If you want tighter shots from longer distances, the 105 would be the pick! Most portrait photographers prefer 85mm to 105mm- the f/4 just may not give you the background blur you may want... the 70mm-200M f/2.8 L IS II is another awesome choice...
2069807
This is a great portrait lens. I would say a mixture of 50mm and 85mm would do. This is a great lens !
220605
Hi JohnDo yo have a FF or 1.6! This one is perfect for 1.6 crop and good for FF too. However it's not exactly a portrait lens {by definition}, you can look at 85mm f1.2 mkii for that if you want a perfect portrait lens.24-70 is far more sharper than 24-105 though.
575775
If you can afford it I would definitely keep both. First, the 85 1.8 gives you the wide aperture that you do not get with the 70-200 f/4. It is also much more compact and allows you to be less noticeable when shooting. The size and color of the 70-200 make stealth next to impossible. If you are indoors in low light you will definitely be reaching for the 85 1.8.
1239752
The 85 is going to give you a tighter shot. I have the 35 and it is a beautiful lens. I would highly suggest Rokinon, great glass for the price!
1037163
I have to respectfully disagree with the recommendation for a 16-85mm VR. I have that lens, use it with my D90 and it's great for outdoor situations. Indoors, the 16-85mm is fine if you are using a flash. I can see using the 16-85mm for some interior church shots, but most of wedding shots are going to be of people. things, little details like bouquets, etc. You will want a lens that can handle low-light and can isolate a subject well (subject in focus - remaining areas blurry). You should check out primes. Fast zooms are nice, but they will defintiley set you back a lot of money. Look into these lenses: 1. Nikkor 50mm 1.8 - The poor man's lens for low light, decent bokeh, depth of field interestingness. $100 Everyone should have at least one fast lens and since this one is cheap, it's a good place to start. 2. Sigma 30mm 1.4 More money, but since it's wider than the above lens, a little more versatile, especially with DX sensor. $300 or more 3. Nikkor 85mm 1.8 - Like the 50mm but is more telephoto, so this is good if you are standing far from your subject but want to fill the frame with your subject. Good for concerts, theater, etc. 5. Nikkor 85mm 1.4 - This is a money-making lens for pro wedding photographers and portrait photographers. People fall in love with and worship this lens. Do a web search and you'll find out why. Very, very pricey. $1K but worth it. One thing about primes is that there is a definite learning curve to using them - especially at the wider apertures since the depth of field is SO narrow. You have to really work on learning to use them to maximize the number of keepers you have. BUT, these fast lenses help you to examine more work more critically, to look at your composition, technique, etc in ways that your kit lens never will :) Good luck with your photography!
1654587
It wouldn't be my first choice for a portrait lens due to the nature of the wide angle (17-25mm Range). In many cameras you will get a slight bending of the image especially in the corners. A fixed (prime) lens between 50-100mm would be a better choice. A very good lens would be Canon's 85mm f-1.8.Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Medium Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras - Fixed