Budget portraits for Nikon DSLRs (constantly updated)

It is very difficult to live without a portrait photographer. But as it turns out, a good portrait lens is expensive.

Budget portraits under Nikon DSLRs

Budget portraits under Nikon DSLRs

On Radozhiva already have article about all Nikon Nikkor original portrait lenses (with fixed focal length from 85 to 200 mm, auto focus for full frame)However, at the cost of a good portrait, you can buy a couple of slaves with a stretcher.

In this article we will discuss inexpensive portraiture. The term 'inexpensive' can often be synonymous with 'used', B.W. Do not be afraid of optics, you just need to be careful when buying. While in Western forums they discuss Otus и Milvus, The photo community in the CIS is trying to raise money to replace whale lenses.

From the Nikon Nikkor native optics, I distinguish the following models:

  1. Nikon 85mm 1: 1.8 AF Nikkorsell at 180-280 cu
  2. Nikon 85mm 1: 1.8D AF Nikkorsell at 200-300 cu
  3. Nikon AF Nikkor 70-210mm 1: 4sell at 120-200 cu
  4. Nikon ED AF Nikkor 80-200mm 1: 2.8 (MKI)sell for about 300 cu
  5. Nikon AF Nikkor 35-70mm 1: 2.8sell at 200-300 cu
  6. Nikon AF Nikkor 35-70mm 1: 2.8Dsell at 200-300 cu
  7. Nikon AF Nikkor 24-85mm 1: 2.8-4 D IF Aspherical Macro (1: 2)can be found within 300 cu
  8. there was also a list of dark wagons that can use F / 4.5 at their long end (e.g. Nikon AF Nikkor 35-135mm 1: 3.5-4.5), but they are all very weak for a portrait.

From third-party optics, you can look at:

  1. Yongnuo LENS 100mm 1: 2 (YN100mm F2N, for Nikon), 160 USD new, recommend
  2. Meike 85mm 1: 1.8 AF for Nikon, 170 cu, new, I recommend
  3. Yongnuo YN85mm F1.8 (YN85mm F1.8N), 180 cu new
  4. Tokina 100mm f / 2.8 AT-X M100 AF Pro D Macro
  5. Tamron SP 60mm F / 2 Macro 1: 1 Di II, only under the crop, it’s not very much that it beats fifty dollars
  6. Tamron 90mm f / 2.8 or f / 2.5 MACRO 1: 1 is an entire line of lenses that includes many such solutions. Models 52E, 152E, 172E, 272E, 272E NII
  7. Sigma 90 / 2.8 AF
  8. Sigma AF 180 mm f / 2.8 APO Macro (first, 1990)
  9. SOLIGOR MACRO AF MC 3.5 / 100mm
  10. Rare unusual lenses like Tamron 35-105 / 2.8 AF or Vivitar Series 1 28-105mm 1: 2.8-3.8 MC Auto Focus Zoom JAPAN Ø72mm
  11. A large number of cheap aperture wagons from third-party manufacturers by type Sigma Zoom 28-70mm 1: 2.8 or Tamron SP AF Aspherical XR Di LD [IF] 28-75mm 1: 2.8 Macro A09, or Tokina AT-X PRO 28-80 1: 2.8 Aspherical. 70-75-80 mm of focal length and F / 2.8 are quite suitable for portrait shooting.

Portraits often like to shoot on dark televisions of class 70-210 or 70-300. Such televisions can be bought for a penny, for example, Sigma Auto Focus UC ZOOM 70-210mm 1: 4-5.6 Multi-Coated or Nikon ED AF Nikkor 70-300mm 1: 4-5.6D. I will not add such televisions to the lists.

In the comments, you can specify your own lens options, which can more or less cope with portraiture tasks. I will add them to the list only if they satisfy the conditions:

  1. Price used or new in the region of 300 cu
  2. The focal length is strictly greater than 58 mm (if this is a zoom, then it should be able to work in the range> 58 mm)
  3. The maximum relative aperture is equal to or greater than 1: 4 (e.g. F / 2.8, F / 1.8, etc.)
  4. The lens has auto focus

Let's agree that fifty dollars should not be discussed in this thread. With fifty dollars, in fact, a very weak portrait. Every novice photographer has a fifty-kopeck piece as the first or second lens, and, generally speaking, the majority has fifty. With the help of fifty dollars, it is difficult to stand out among the mass of novice photographers.

We write our thoughts in the comments. Thanks for attention. Arkady Shapoval.

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Save

Add a comment: Michael

 

 

Comments: 211, on the topic: Budget portraits under Nikon DSLRs (constantly updated)

  • Lynx

    Only pettseval !!!
    Everything else is rubbish !!!! 1111

    • anonym

      Why did you like Petzval? Price or muddy picture?

      • Lynx

        • KalekseyG

          well, it happens, it happens. not everyone can understand ………

          • Lynx

            anyway sad ..
            it seems to be the most elementary irony, but people still begin to seriously write some sort of nonsense.

            • anonym

              with irony to Petrosyan…. well, or to Bobruisk ...

              • Lynx

                Are you calling to visit?

  • Jury

    Nikon 80-200 MK1 about 300 cu you can buy

    • Arkady Shapoval

      Thanks, added

      • Lenar

        Thanks for the information!
        Tell me, are people kind, inexpensive telephoto (well, or just a good zoom) for nature and portraits on the Nikon d7100? Now I'm shooting only at 35mm 1.8.
        According to information on the Internet, I’m looking at 55-200 VR, 70-300 are a little expensive, and I don’t plan to switch to FX cameras yet.

        • Arkady Shapoval

          Sigma 70-300 OS, Tamron 70-300 A14, Nikon 70-300 AF G.

          • Lenar

            Thank you, I will watch!

  • Maksim

    Nikon 80-200mm f4.5 N costs a penny

    • Arkady Shapoval

      No autofocus.

  • anonym

    Tamron DI SP 70-300mm F / 4-5.6 VC USD A005NII- did not look at prices, but somewhere nearby.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      There are a lot of similar TV sets, quantarei, for example, 70-300, etc. not a bit "tasty" for a portrait. I will not add to the list for now, but the list by telephoto will need to be done.

  • anonym

    Well, there are a lot of conscience. But as I understand it, only af.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      Af only

  • Antiaircrafter

    Tokina 80-200 / 2.8 can be found on the secondary housing for $ 300. autofocus - brake screwdriver.

  • Antiaircrafter

    an old tamron sp af 28-75 / 2,8 and an analogue of Sigma (like 28-70 / 2,8) also cost between 200-300 cu

  • Lynx

    никон 28-105/3,5-4,5, 35-105/3.5-4,5

  • anonym

    Nikon28-300VR is not bad at the long end. Always without grease, the picture is sharp, the background soft-boiled.

    • Jury

      Yes, only a price higher than $ 300 will be.

  • Vladimir

    Sigma 85 mm f / 1.4 DG EX HSM - it is quite possible to buy an unkilled one for 200.

    • fotika

      whose sick imagination, the manual from Samyang is more expensive)))

    • Anonymous # 2

      It is real for 400-450, not less

  • Azart

    At this price you can buy at Nikon 180mm 1: 2.8 ED AF Nikkor auctions :)

  • Yaroslav

    And for the DX crop, can you find something for adequate money?

    • Lynx

      all of the above

      • Yaroslav

        But AF doesn’t have a built-in motor? I will not have autofocus then. I have a D3100

        • Lynx

          Well, there are crop and motor, you did not specify which one.
          ....
          then where is AF-S

        • Jury

          There are already several options: you can add another $ 300 to $ 100 and buy, to the D3100, a new 85 1,8 AF-S, or you can sell the D3100, add $ 100 and buy the S5Pro in good condition, and even to it, for $ 300 , 85AF D

          • Arkady Shapoval

            Checkmate!

            • Jury

              just 2 moves :)

  • anonym

    I have nikkor 35-70 2.8d and 70-210 4 very good portrait lenses from this list)))

  • Alexey

    Sigma 90mm 2.8 Macro 120 = $ 150 (Canon EF) For other systems, the price is different.

  • ananorge

    It’s a pity, of course, that the condition is autofocus. I have a nikon 100 2,8 E series, a wonderful portrait for ridiculous money. Maybe a copy of such a good one was caught.

  • ananorge

    I forgot to add, the issue price is only 45 €.

  • Igor_K

    And why did Tokin's clones of “Engene” forget? At the price of BU for 300 bucks - oh, it's not easy to sell them, so they quite pass on this basis. With their relative aperture of 2,8 (2,6), and a soft pattern at the long end, they are only suitable for a portrait. In addition, "Sigma" class (24) 28-70 \ 2,8 EX - series, are also quite suitable for bust and half-length portraits, they are also quite realistic to buy up to $ 300 in good used condition, only the focusing accuracy must be checked carefully. do not remember the Tamron 35-105mm f 2.8 S150-250. Then there is the rare beast Tokina AT-X 100-300mm f / 4.0 ($ 300). Sigma has a not very expensive 90 \ 2,8 macro portrait lens. Well, what about without my beloved Vivitars? Vivitar Series 1 28-105mm 1: 2.8-3.8 MC Auto Focus Zoom JAPAN Ø72mm ”, under what brand this“ Kosinovka ”creation was not produced (Soligor, Kosina, Voitlender, Phoenix), at a price of 100 to 300, lightweight, ultra-fast autofocus, quite suitable in the picture, at the short end - also very good as a landscape. True, the non-autofocus version is much better, but it's not included in this list!

    • Arkady Shapoval

      Thanks. Added by.

  • anonym

    In fact, portraits only: Nikon 85mm 1: 1.8 AF Nikkor and Nikon 85mm 1: 1.8D AF Nikkor. The rest of the zooms (some of which are completely unsuitable for portraiture) and macro lenses (too sharp, skin defects will be visible)! And why are there so few third-party lenses7

    A portrait lens is the name of a group of telephoto lenses specifically designed for portrait photography and close-up photography. The portrait lens is characterized by a constant focal length, approximately equal to twice the diagonal of the frame in the photo, and a large aperture. The combination of these parameters allows you to get the most suitable optical portrait for the portrait due to the shallow depth of field and slight perspective distortion. However, the main feature of a portrait lens is considered to be an optical design that gives a relatively soft image of a focused subject, masking skin defects.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      We all know this "cart" anyway. In real life, you can deviate from the "canons" without losing, and maybe even gaining during the creation of portraits.

  • Movritsio

    Jupiter 37a is not very bad at portraits. Even on the street. Set up for a long time. chip mute

    • Movritsio

      Yes, I'll forget the camera - D70 I don't take pictures like that

    • Oleg

      no autofocus it's about autofocus

      • Movritsio

        Yes, there is a ring at 270 degrees almost. and without it normul.

  • Valery

    Tamron SP 70-200mm F / 2.8 wonderful portraiture. I took mine for 300u in perfect condition.

    • Arkady Shapoval

      This is great, but such an ordinary person is unlikely to get such a 70-200 / 2,8 for 300 cu

      • Valery

        without stub elementarily

  • Paul

    Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 mk1 has a price tag of 300ue., Good aperture ratio, convenient focal lengths, excellent sharpness, albeit slow but still autofocus (for a screwdriver). What is not your first candidate for the best budget lens?

    • Azart

      He is in the List :)

      • Paul

        Yes, it is on the list, but I just put the emphasis and believe that with a budget of 300 ye, this lens has only one competitor 85 f 1.8D but it has one significant drawback and advantage, a fixed focal length! I really like the picture 135-200mm!

  • Dmitry

    Arkady, what do you recommend as a portrait on the nikon d3100: tamron 60 mm 2.0 macro or 90 mm 2.8 macro?

    • Movritsio

      On D3100 - a telephoto camera, which thread Nikonovsky think, But you'd better wait, Arkady will advise you. He has more experience

    • Sergei

      As a portrait, it will be better 90 2,8

    • Arkady Shapoval

      A good option for the d3100 is the nikon 85 / 1.8G - it is the only normal crop portrait lens without a motor for reasonable money. I shot with crop and 85mm for a couple of years - there is nothing complicated about that. It's a pity, you can hardly find 85 1.8G for $ 300, so I recommend Tamron 90 2.8 (the version with a motor).

  • MIROGOR

    And for me, it’s better than WATERFISHING; nobody draws a portrait! But here we are not talking about the budget.

    • anonym

      Yes, this nonsense is this watering can, just the name and assembly, the photo-nannies only fop at it, while the whole world uses af optics and don’t know

      • zengarden

        For sure, both the watering can and the Zeiss are for photo hatching, it’s better to shoot on an iPhone and not to steam, it’s 95% easier, shoot wherever you want, and it’s not prohibited by law :)
        - I shoot in auto mode on a soap dish with autofocus. I feel great. You're irritable, it's because of the manual optics.

        • Anonymous 2

          Watering can only water the plants

        • MIROGOR

          Everything is clear with you! No questions!

  • anonym

    $ 200 - how inexpensive is it? Have mercy! This is 15000 rubles for about ...
    Autofocus for portraits? Well, probably only at the "always running" wedding, but this is not quite a portrait, rather a reportage, you must agree.
    AF is not accurate enough - how do you aim at the edge of the eyelashes?
    Used - Jupiter 9 and Helios 40 - it is cheaper and more practical to remake them for Nikon than to buy more expensive AF native lenses.

    • Sergei

      If you talk like that, then Nikorr 105mm f2.5 is better, it draws beautifully and you don't need to redo anything ...

    • Arkady Shapoval

      The old school can’t put up with new technologies :)

    • Vladimir

      Lord! READ OUT !!!!!

      WHAT autofocus on portraiture ???? !!!!!
      What exactly are you going to take pictures of? Sports teens or matinee in kindergarten? Maybe dancing at the wedding ???

      Working with a “portrait” is a “high-precision work of a SNIPER” on a hunt - every millimeter plays a DECISIONAL role in the result! With autofocus, you will NEVER catch exactly what you have in mind, but you will accept the result of the CAMERA (autofocus) !!!
      It is ALL the highlight of the "portrait" lens in a short segment of sharpness, which SHOULD be directed exactly to the area of ​​the photo chosen by YOU !!! What autofocus ??? !!! How will he “guess” WHAT YOU are up to? Or "jerk off" autofocus until you guess right ?! Then it is better to play sports lotto or roulette - you will get the result faster!
      With the same success it was possible to create a theme: “Which soap dish is better for creating the Louvre catalog” ...
      This forum gathered MASTERS, not users of soap boxes. I can still admit the consideration of this topic as UNIVERSAL portrait photographers for ALL occasions - then autofocus will come in handy for OTHER cases. But then a good telephoto should be chosen. And as for me, in GENERAL fixes with autofocus (in my opinion) are a Formula 1 car with an automatic transmission, ABS, ESP and all the bells and whistles for safety (and a child seat with nipples behind the pilot's back ...).
      The PORTRAIT should be CREATED by the photographer, as an ARTIST !!! And FOR THIS it is necessary to work and FOCUS !!!

      • Arkady Shapoval

        This is nothing more than your opinion, perhaps your practice.

        With a good focusing system, you can always poke accurately at the place you want to focus on.

        I constantly see similar statements from amateur photographers who could not come to terms with the arrival of digital and other new technologies. They are commonly referred to as “nostalgers”. Having discussed photography and photographic equipment for a long time with one of them, we unfortunately came to the conclusion that a person simply does not want or cannot or is afraid to study the capabilities of the focusing system. This is similar to the fear of going from tape to digital.

        Sometimes I have to teach some people how to use modern photographic equipment, sometimes experienced photographers need to show the main points. Based on this practice of mine, I can confidently say that few people are well versed in the focusing features of the system as a whole, or a specific camera model.

        I am convinced that your similar one-sided vision of the problem of autofocus / manual focus for portraits is due only to the fact that it is easier to write “autofocus will not guess” than to learn how to work with modern technology. I understand that the “atmosphere”, “psychology” of the process of working with manual optics is a special matter, many people defend it more than oppose the introduction of autofocus. But is it possible to combine all this?

        In the end result, while you take 1 good shot using manual focus, I will have time to take 10. While you are focusing on the sharpness, I will already have material on the flash drive with successful focusing. While you will spend time focusing, I will spend time arranging / thinking through / catching that very best scene.

        Photographic equipment should make the shooting process as simple as possible. Autofocus is just as useful a thing as a processor that generates an image, or like a shutter that moves the curtains. I don't think you would like to waste your time cocking the shutter on modern cameras. That is why modern photographers learn to work with modern technology, and do not hate it.

        • varezhkin

          if the vision is not very good - AF is generally a salvation ... I judge by myself. all these corrective lenses are also not great.

          • Dim

            In general, I think I agree with Vladimir and Arkady at the same time. In art it is very useful to be able to notice something interesting. The photo freezes the moment, its content is not always obvious before the photo is taken, the result still needs to be comprehended or rather to feel the idea or originality of the moment. And it can be developed later, either consciously or instinctively. For this you need material - to find what you like. You can take a lot of technically “correct” shots and look for a plot, or you can move away from flat content to play with shapes and colors, or stop somewhere in between. The trick :) may not be in focus and the horizon is straight at all. The Impressionists do not have everything written in detail, like that of the same Dürer, but this does not mean that they are hack :) or that Dürer is outdated ... Some artists, being already renowned enough, primed the canvas with their own hands - this is not because they had sorry for the money :)))) or they could not be ashamed to communicate there ... For them it was an important tool of self-expression and nothing more, but someone had this Tool completely different and he marks their entrances - all people are different. Nature provides diversity for the survival of our species is a given.

      • Sergei

        Arkady is right, auto focus is very useful when taking pictures of children, animals, etc.

      • Lynx

        More sane practice, less theoretical inventions.

      • anonym

        Well then, KIT also does not need autofocus, because there the depth of field is much larger than that of a portraiture on open / covered diaphragms, it’s easy to manually induce

      • Vladimir

        Delirium of an inflamed consciousness ...

      • Rodion

        Her, AF is more needed than not needed. AF is especially good with the possibility of manual “finalization” without switching the AF-MF mode.
        Arkady is right - often so many photos go to the trash because of an unsuccessful focus ... And AF will help you quickly and efficiently shoot what you need.
        True, knowing the advantages of AF, I still shoot with manuals - among them there are more optics with an unusual picture, and they are also simply more accessible.

      • Oleg

        Yeah, and also, to work without autofocus, you need a sharp eye

    • Lynx

      it at what aperture and focal depth of field of you in half a centimeter with a portrait ??

  • Vadim

    It became terribly interesting what type of people who yell something like: "What af in a portrait?" What kind of people are they? What age, gender, occupation ... ..

    • Arkady Shapoval

      https://radojuva.com.ua/2015/01/fujifilm-s3-pro-first-strong/comment-page-1/#comment-104903

      The same email and ip

      From early childhood I have been fond of photography (for over 40 years

    • zengarden

      The point of the many-above disputes is that autofocus is not a panacea. They still need to be able to use them, otherwise you will simply “get in the wrong place”, forgive the vulgarity. At the same time, many old-school people are accustomed to manual optics and will take them off better than a handshake with autofocus.
      Any tool must be able to use, even one that greatly facilitates the process.
      You still argue which is better - automatic transmission or mechanics :)

Add a comment

christening photographer price Photography for lovers

Copyright © Radojuva.com. Blog author - Photographer in Kiev Arkady Shapoval. 2009-2021

English-version of this article https://radojuva.com/en/2016/06/nikon-portrait/comment-page-1/?replytocom=296410