# Nikon D40 - Looking for new portrait - lens



## xander86 (Dec 10, 2010)

Hey folks,

first, I hope this is the right category to post in, I have been looking for a technical sub-forum, but could not find anything other than this one. Please feel free to move it if I am wrong. Thank you! 

I currently own the Nikon D40, with the standard lens 18-55mm. As I love shooting portraits, I am currently looking into buying another lens that zooms well and blurs the backgrounds. After some research, I have come to limit it to the [70-210mm](Nikon 70-210mm f/4-5.6 AF-D) or the [70-300mm](Nikon 70-300mm G) lenses.

I am on a cheap budget, and do not want to spend far more than ~ $120. Would anyone be so kind to give me his feedback on this combination of camera + lens? BTW, I am aware that the autofocus will not work with my D40 - This could be annoying; on the other side, I usually manually focus anyway, so I guess I could take this into account in order to save some money.

Thanks!  Appreciate your feedback


----------



## enzodm (Dec 10, 2010)

Best thing for blurring backgrounds is a fast fixed lens. Of course, it is not as flexible as a zoom, but for portraits could be better. With some luck, and willing to use manual focus and so, you can still find some old lens like Nikon 100/2.8 at decent price. However, I do not know if on Nikon those lenses maintain or not some automatism (I use Canon plus old lenses, and metering is ok). 
(an example: NIKON 100mm 1:2.8 SERIES E PORTRAIT LENS FOR SLR DSLR su eBay.it Lenses, Lenses Filters, Cameras Photo )


----------



## puyjapin (Dec 10, 2010)

i often use a 50mm AFS-G F1.4 and that autofocusses well on my d40, but it is a lot more than 120, see my recent mono post in tis forum, some of them were with the 50mm


----------



## Bram (Dec 10, 2010)

The nifty fifty is probably the best portrait lens out there (50mm AF F1.8). Some will disagree but most will agree, it doesn't AF with your D40 but has great bokeh and is sharp as a tack from what i've both heard and seen. This lens can be had for under $100.00.


----------



## xander86 (Dec 10, 2010)

Thanks to all of you for your input!

I personally find the fact that one cannot zoom (e.g. with a 50mm AF F1.8) rather very inconvenient, however, especially considering that I often take photos on the street with passengers unknowing of my presence. Would any alternatives come to your mind that find a compromise between a low aperture, but a long zoom = thus allowing me to blur the background even if I am standing in some distance of the subject?

Thanks for your support!


----------



## Bram (Dec 10, 2010)

xander86 said:


> Thanks to all of you for your input!
> 
> I personally find the fact that one cannot zoom (e.g. with a 50mm AF F1.8) rather very inconvenient, however, especially considering that I often take photos on the street with passengers unknowing of my presence. Would any alternatives come to your mind that find a compromise between a low aperture, but a long zoom = thus allowing me to blur the background even if I am standing in some distance of the subject?
> 
> Thanks for your support!


 
Sorry but I cannot think of a lens that can do that that costs under $120. If you find one let me know. If you told me fast and zoomable. I'm thinking 80-200mm 2.8, AF-D, also won't AF and costs around 700 used.


----------



## ConverseMan (Dec 10, 2010)

Spend the additional money and get the 35mm 1.8 - great lens and well worth the price bump.

35mm

I will just say - I miss this lens terribly! Switched to canon and had to sell it...the AF was great and the bokeh was super creamy.

I.E. Bokeh:


----------



## 8ball (Dec 10, 2010)

I just picked up the 35 mm f 1.8 autofocus $200


----------



## mwcfarms (Dec 10, 2010)

I have the 35mm F2 and love it. But I find its a bit short for portraits sometimes.


----------



## xander86 (Dec 10, 2010)

Hey guys,

Thanks first of all, I learned a whole bunch of new things alone in this thread. Summary: If I want very blurred backgrounds, I need an aperture of f1.8 or so, which the 35mm 'nifty-fifty' would provide for my price range. Anything with zoom becomes way more expensive.

However - I am still new to photography, and am wondering accordingly ... Does a compact 'no-zoom' 35 mm lens not limit you incredibly in your work, say, if you are on travels and would like to take photos of people on the street? I am having already problems taking photos of good friends without making them feel uncomfortable, and a zoom has always helped to keep the distance and distract from the camera.

In other words, as of now I believe that I maybe have to dismiss the goal for 'very blurred backgrounds', and hope to achieve at least similar effects with a lens that can zoom, but which does not provide an aperture of 1.8 (but instead, maybe 4.8?). So, maybe, it shall be one of the lenses that I had introduced in the very beginning of my post, after all? (Nikon 70-300mm; 70-210mm)

Thanks to you all, this is a great forum!


----------



## enzodm (Dec 10, 2010)

xander86 said:


> Does a compact 'no-zoom' 35 mm lens not limit you incredibly in your work, say, if you are on travels and would like to take photos of people on the street? I am having already problems taking photos of good friends without making them feel uncomfortable, and a zoom has always helped to keep the distance and distract from the camera.



Is not the zoom that let you stay far, but the focal length. 
Consider you are shooting with a dSLR, which main advantage is the possibility to change lens. Typically you do not have just a 35mm lens, but also others and you choose the one most adequate for a specific aim. Zoom helps if you cannot move back and forth to reach the right distance, at the price of lesser optical quality and usually less speed (unless spending much).
Said that, blurring depends not only on the lens but also on the distance between you, the subject and the background, and typically can be more easily obtained with longer focal lengths. Both zooms may do, provided that you can choose to shoot with great distance between subject and background (and I suspect shooting street photography does not give time to choose such distances).


----------



## KmH (Dec 10, 2010)

xander86 said:


> Hey folks,
> 
> first, I hope this is the right category to post in, I have been looking for a technical sub-forum, but could not find anything other than this one. Please feel free to move it if I am wrong. Thank you!
> 
> ...


Both of those lenses are inexpensive for a reason. The 70-300G non-VR lens, is total crap.

With camera lenses the adage - "You get what you pay for." holds very close to true.

The nifty-fifty f/1.8D lens is a good value at $125 new, but it is hardly "the best portrait lens out there". It does not have "great bokeh" but it does have OK bokeh characteristics. The nigty-fifty isn't "sharp as a tack" at all apertures, but sure focuses nicely when used in it's aperture sweet spot range.

Which applies to your kit 18-55 mm lens in the same way. Used within it's limits it's a good perfromer for it's price.


----------



## djacobox372 (Dec 10, 2010)

If you want autofocus I'd suggest selling your d40 on ebay and buying a d80, it's a better camera, higher resolution, better controls, and has an AF motor.  

You can sell your d40 for around $275, and buy a d80 for around $350.  $75 well spent (okay probably closer to $100 with shipping and ebay fees).


----------



## mrpink (Dec 10, 2010)

KmH said:


> With camera lenses the adage - "You get what you pay for." holds very close to true.
> 
> The nifty-fifty f/1.8D lens is a good value at $125 new, but it is hardly "the best portrait lens out there". It does not have "great bokeh" but it does have OK bokeh characteristics. The nigty-fifty isn't "sharp as a tack" at all apertures, but sure focuses nicely when used in it's aperture sweet spot range.
> 
> Which applies to your kit 18-55 mm lens in the same way. Used within it's limits it's a good perfromer for it's price.



Yes.

Yes.

and Yes.

To the OP.  Work with what you have while you expand your budget.  Buy right, buy once.



p!nK


----------



## slate mike (Dec 10, 2010)

I like the Nikon 135 f3.5 for portraits. very sharp and you can get one for under $100 on ebay.


----------



## enzodm (Dec 11, 2010)

Xander86: I think the kind of pictures you take are better described as _street photography_ than portrait, with slightly different needs. 

As you see, if speaking of portraits in strict sense, most of us will suggest you a fixed, fast lens, because typically a portrait will give you the time to choose lens, composition, move, etc (friends get bored, but is part of the work not to bore them). For me 35/1.8 is slightly short for portrait (except environmental portrait), but 50, 100, 135 are all usual lengths. At equal aperture, the longer the more blur (called _bokeh_).
In street photography you need to be quick, and so you give up to some picture qualities. 
When you asked about how limiting is a fixed lens, in travel I bring with me more than one lens, including my two zooms. In cities I'll typically use one of them, but if I want to take some nice picture of my wife, I stop,  I mount an old fixed lens, manual focus, and take all time needed to do it at most of my possibilities. So I do not feel constrained. I should also say that sometimes I voluntarily go with just one lens exactly to be constrained, but this is another story  .


----------

