0

This question already has an answer here:

I have a Nikkon D3200 and it comes with a 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Auto Focus-S DX VR NIKKOR Zoom Lens.

I read that before I purchase a 35mm prime lens, I should set my lens to 35mm and then take pictures for a week to see how I feel.

I want to achieve bokeh or lens background blur so that I can focus on the person or object in focus. However I do not get that when setting my camera in aperture priority mode.

The lowest my kit lens can go is F/3.5, and the lens I want to buy is F/1.8

Will I ever see background blur with my kit lens or do i have to purchase the Nikkor 35MM F/1.8G ?

marked as duplicate by Philip Kendall, Hugo, mattdm, inkista, Blrfl Sep 5 '15 at 18:28

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

-1

You will get better broken with a longer lens for example a 135mm, 200mm. f1.8 is good and with the same price range of a Nikon 35mm f.15 you can buy a 85mm f.18, very sharp and high quality lens indeed.

  • 4
    This answer don't really make sense. A telephoto lens will have a vastly different look than the wide angle for reasons not really related to aperture. The f.15 and f.18 lenses don't make sense. Is it a 85 mm f/1.8 lens you're referring to? Sure at the same subject distance it will produce a thinner DOF, but if you only want to minimize DOF you can get a lot closer with the 35 and still keep the subject in the frame all while minimizing the DOF. We simply don't have enough information to recommend a certain focal length yet. – Hugo Sep 5 '15 at 14:54
  • 1
    It makes great sense. A pro is more likely to use the longer lens (135 or 200 mm, at say f/4). Its lesser DOF can easily blur the background without having to suffer the misery of using f/1.8. Also very important, it has a narrow field of view (great for portraits), meaning we can move the camera sideways a couple of feet to actually select the best part (least offensive part) of the distant background to be blurred. You ought to try it. – WayneF Sep 5 '15 at 19:16
  • 1
    It is simply common practice. Start at: google.com/search?q=telephoto+to+blur+background For another thing, 35mm is simply too short for portraits, very poor portrait perspective. Portraits should always stand back at least about six feet for proper perspective (to avoid making noses appear too large, etc). This is exactly what telephoto does. – WayneF Sep 5 '15 at 20:20
  • @WayneF There is nothing i the question that indicates that PriceCheaperton is looking for the compressed telephoto look. For what we now he/she could just as well want a wider field of view. There are no rights and wrongs in photography. It's nonsense to say that a pro would use a 135 or 200 mm not knowing the photographers vision (google 35 mm portrait for a counterexample). The accentuated nose etc has nothing to with the focal length but rather subject distance and if the intent is a wider view a telephoto would even hurt. We absolutely need more info to make recommendations. – Hugo Sep 7 '15 at 1:36
  • Hugo, You do it your way, and I certainly will do it my way. Because "getting closer for 35mm" is just wrong. First rule, any portrait should stand back at least maybe 7 feet for proper perspective. The guys may be too dumb to notice bad stuff, but the gals won't like it. At DOFMaster DOF calculator, specifying CoC as 0.2mm - 10x the DX 0.02mm perceived visible limit, because brokeh (the stated goal) wants to be big and bold. 35mm f/1.8 at 7 feet has 11 feet of 0.2mm DOF BEHIND, and a field of view of 3.1x4.7 feet (NOT head and shoulders, is instead more 3/4 length). Continued – WayneF Sep 7 '15 at 4:33

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.