sony a 6500

[Apaar_]

can anyone recommend a good portrait lens for sony a6500. I wont be using it proffessionally or earning money from it. Just for some casual portraits.I know zeiss has 50mm f1.4 and 55mm f1.8 but i think they are costly for casual use so will sony 50mm f1.8 be good?

 

[bjornl]

For casual use a 50mm f/1.8 would be great. It can give you good subject isolation. It is decently sharp.

 

[toyftw]

can anyone recommend a good portrait lens for sony a6500. I wont be using it proffessionally or earning money from it. Just for some casual portraits.I know zeiss has 50mm f1.4 and 55mm f1.8 but i think they are costly for casual use so will sony 50mm f1.8 be good?

Hi - Don't know what you are looking to spend, but in addition to the 50 1.8, either of these
would make good portrait lenses:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/918896-REG/sigma_60mm_f_2_8_dn_lens.html

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/791322-REG/Sony_SEL30M35_30mm_f_3_5_Wide_Angle_Lens.html

 

[bjornl]

can anyone recommend a good portrait lens for sony a6500. I wont be using it proffessionally or earning money from it. Just for some casual portraits.I know zeiss has 50mm f1.4 and 55mm f1.8 but i think they are costly for casual use so will sony 50mm f1.8 be good?

Hi - Don't know what you are looking to spend, but in addition to the 50 1.8, either of these
would make good portrait lenses:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/918896-REG/sigma_60mm_f_2_8_dn_lens.html

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/791322-REG/Sony_SEL30M35_30mm_f_3_5_Wide_Angle_Lens.html

I disagree. Both are far too slow to be good portrait lenses. You won't get much subject isolation in typical use cases. The 35mm f/3.5 macro is particularly ill-suited to portraiture.
If you must use a wide angle portrait lens (and the OP never asked about such a thing) then there is a f/1.8 35mm in e-mount (there is also a 30mm f/1.4, which is 2/3 of a stop faster but I haven't seen any results from that one; although it should be better still and not too expensive). But for casual portraiture, this is the wrong FL. You'll want 50mm to 85mm.
As for the 50 vs the 60mm, the 50mm the OP suggested will produce better results. f/1.8 simply does a better job at subject isolation. Not saying you MUST shoot at f/2 or lower, but for casual use the most pleasing results are easier to achieve with a such a lens.

 

[toyftw]

can anyone recommend a good portrait lens for sony a6500. I wont be using it proffessionally or earning money from it. Just for some casual portraits.I know zeiss has 50mm f1.4 and 55mm f1.8 but i think they are costly for casual use so will sony 50mm f1.8 be good?

Hi - Don't know what you are looking to spend, but in addition to the 50 1.8, either of these
would make good portrait lenses:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/918896-REG/sigma_60mm_f_2_8_dn_lens.html

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/791322-REG/Sony_SEL30M35_30mm_f_3_5_Wide_Angle_Lens.html

I disagree. Both are far too slow to be good portrait lenses. You won't get much subject isolation in typical use cases. The 35mm f/3.5 macro is particularly ill-suited to portraiture.
If you must use a wide angle portrait lens (and the OP never asked about such a thing) then there is a f/1.8 35mm in e-mount (there is also a 30mm f/1.4, which is 2/3 of a stop faster but I haven't seen any results from that one; although it should be better still and not too expensive). But for casual portraiture, this is the wrong FL. You'll want 50mm to 85mm.
As for the 50 vs the 60mm, the 50mm the OP suggested will produce better results. f/1.8 simply does a better job at subject isolation. Not saying you MUST shoot at f/2 or lower, but for casual use the most pleasing results are easier to achieve with a such a lens.

I disa gree with you, I've taken many portraits with macro lenses, you don't need f1.8 on a macro to isolate
the subject.

 

[bjornl]

can anyone recommend a good portrait lens for sony a6500. I wont be using it proffessionally or earning money from it. Just for some casual portraits.I know zeiss has 50mm f1.4 and 55mm f1.8 but i think they are costly for casual use so will sony 50mm f1.8 be good?

Hi - Don't know what you are looking to spend, but in addition to the 50 1.8, either of these
would make good portrait lenses:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/918896-REG/sigma_60mm_f_2_8_dn_lens.html

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/791322-REG/Sony_SEL30M35_30mm_f_3_5_Wide_Angle_Lens.html

I disagree. Both are far too slow to be good portrait lenses. You won't get much subject isolation in typical use cases. The 35mm f/3.5 macro is particularly ill-suited to portraiture.
If you must use a wide angle portrait lens (and the OP never asked about such a thing) then there is a f/1.8 35mm in e-mount (there is also a 30mm f/1.4, which is 2/3 of a stop faster but I haven't seen any results from that one; although it should be better still and not too expensive). But for casual portraiture, this is the wrong FL. You'll want 50mm to 85mm.
As for the 50 vs the 60mm, the 50mm the OP suggested will produce better results. f/1.8 simply does a better job at subject isolation. Not saying you MUST shoot at f/2 or lower, but for casual use the most pleasing results are easier to achieve with a such a lens.

I disa gree with you, I've taken many portraits with macro lenses, you don't need f1.8 on a macro to isolate
the subject.

That's because at a macro distance you don't even need f/5.6 to get subject isolation.
At portrait distances there is NOTHING magical about a macro. It is just another lens and everything that applies every other lens also applies to Macro lenses.

The variables are distance to subject, distance to background, focal length,aperture and sensor size. MACRO (or not) plays no role.

The lenses you suggested are not good at what the OP was asking about.