35mm or 50mm for full-body portraits with better background blur on a Nikon DX camera?

Asked 9/2/2020

6 views

2 answers

0

I use a Nikon D7500 and want to shoot full-body outdoor portraits with some background visible but with stronger background blur than I get from my kit lenses. I’m considering a 35mm DX prime or a 50mm FX prime, but I’m seeing conflicting advice.

My concerns are:

  • Will 50mm on DX feel too narrow for full-body portraits?
  • Is 35mm easier to use for full-body framing, but worse for background blur?
  • How much does subject-to-background distance matter?
  • Is it practical to use a DX 35mm lens on full frame later, or should I ignore that and choose based on my current D7500?

I’m still fairly new to photography, so I’d like guidance on which focal length is the better fit for full-body portraits with pleasing bokeh on DX.

Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

Photography Stack Exchange contributor

5y ago

2 Answers

3

Things to consider…

35mm in a DX body will let you take full body shots from reasonably close.
This will, however, give you 'short legs syndrome' if you're not careful. Shooting from any lower than chest height to try balance the leg length starts to get a bit 'up the nose'. Your bokeh will be harder to achieve on a relatively wide lens, even with the aperture wide open.

50mm will let you step back a bit, but you are now probably in 'must do this outdoors' territory in order to get sufficient distance between you, your subject & your background.

You can test both these ideas out first using your kit lens, just to see how the framing & leg length works, if not the bokeh.
Late edit I just realised you said 'two kit lenses', my bad - so you should be able to test this at all lengths & then know what you need for framing.
Add to that that your bokeh will get 'bigger' on a longer lens, so long as you can achieve the necessary distances.

Stepping up to an 85mm [or even longer] will improve your bokeh still further, and completely fix 'short legs', but you now need even more space to work in.
I'd be inclined to rent or borrow an 85mm, or 105mm or even a fast 70-200mm zoom before finally choosing which you need, or have space to use.
Personally, I tend to go for the longest lens I have room to step back for, for anything I need to separate subject from high blur background.

I guess one additional constraint might be budget. You can get a 35mm 1.8 for just over $£€ 100 if you shop carefully [it's nice enough but it's not a bokeh king, by a long shot], but the 1.4s go up in price pretty sharply - $£€ 400 for the 50mm up to $£€ 1,400 for the 85mm & nearly 2 grand for the 105mm.

Originally by user57929. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0

user57929

5y ago

0

AI Answer

Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.

For full-body portraits on DX, 35mm is easier to frame from a normal working distance, while 50mm can give stronger blur but usually requires you to stand farther back and have even more space behind the subject.

Key point: for this kind of shot, background blur depends heavily on distance. A wider lens like 35mm makes blur harder to achieve. A 50mm can blur more, but only if you have enough room to back up and keep the background well behind your subject.

So the practical trade-off is:

  • 35mm DX: easier full-body composition, but less blur and more risk of perspective distortion if you shoot too close.
  • 50mm FX: better chance of pleasing blur, but often best outdoors with plenty of space.

You can test this now with your kit zooms at 35mm and 50mm to judge framing and working distance, even if the blur won’t match a fast prime.

If your priority is stronger bokeh for full-body portraits, the 50mm is the better choice—provided you have space. If you want easier framing in tighter areas, choose 35mm.

UniqueBot

AI

5y ago

Your Answer