Good portrait lens for a full frame camera?

midnight rider

So I finally tool the plunge and got myself a full frame camera. I went with a different brand than my previous gear so I only have a 50mm at the moment. I was hoping someone could recommend a good lens for general use and portrait work. I was looking at the 70-200mm f.2.8 but it is very expensive.
Does anyone have the sigma version of this lens on a Nikon FF camera? I was reading the reviews about the Nikon version and it seems to get mixed reviews on a full frame. It apparently suffers from vignetting at 200mm wide open ( although that would not be a common setting for portrait work I would not like to mark out the possibility. Does the in camera correction work well for this lens?
I was also thinking about the 24-70mm 2.8 because I absolutely loved this lens on the Canon but I do not know how well suited it would be on the full frame for portrait work. I would also like to know how some people feel about the sigma variant of this lens as well. I am mainly concerned about sharpness wide open and at the corners and AF speed. Thanks for all that respond.

Lenses will be going on a D700.

Tim Kamppinen

Take a look at the 80-200 2.8... it's been in production since the film days, from what I understand no problems at all shooting on FX. I just got mine and I love it. I do use it on a D90, but from what I've heard it's better than the 70-200 on full frame as far as the corner sharpness and vignetting goes. AF speed varies depending on the model. There's an old push-pull one-ring version that I wouldn't recommend, then there's the AF-D version that I have, and there's also an AF-S version but it's out of production and the prices have gone way up recently. I got my AF-D for $700 on ebay two weeks ago and it was mint. I did get lucky, I think, but you can get them for $800 easy on ebay or KEH.com, or a new one for $1100 from B&H. Honestly for portrait use I wouldn't even consider paying more for the AF-S, the AF-D is plenty fast. Not sure about the push-pull though, I've heard it's really slow. For sports, well it's still fast enough for me but then I only shoot sports casually, not professionally.

ziggy53

In a 1 and 2 portrait shot there are generally 4 different portrait configurations:

Head shot
Head and shoulders
3/4 length
Full length

Group portraits would be another possibility for portraiture.

On a full-frame camera I suggest:

The Nikkor 50mm, f1.4G AF-S or Nikkor 50mm, f1.8D to do 3/4 length and full length.

The Nikkor 85mm, f1.4D IF or Nikkor 85mm, f1.8D for the head shot and head and shoulders, but you could also use all the way to the DC-Nikkor 135mm, f2D if you have the room. There are also a number of manual focus lenses in these focal lengths that could be used for formal portraits.

Either the Nikkor 70-200mm, f/2.8G AF-S VR IF-ED or Nikkor 80-200mm, f/2.8D ED "may" be used for portraiture. It just depends upon you intentions for the portrait. You might need a bit more distance from subject to the background for appropriate bokeh.

For group work it's hard to ignore the Nikkor 24-70mm, f2.8G ED AF-S.

Sigma does have some very competent lenses in these same focal lengths and Tamron has their 28-75mm, f2.8 and a very nice 70-200mm, f2.8 as well.

While the primes might be my first recommendation, the versatility of a modern zoom is often more practical.

midnight rider

Thanks Tim,
Do you find the Lens AF capable of keeping up with shooting sports with ease or does it struggle? I read a few reviews on this lens and they all say that it does work better in a full frame than the 70-200mm. I appreciate you recommending it and I an taking it into consideration.

midnight rider

ziggy53 wrote:

In a 1 and 2 portrait shot there are generally 4 different portrait configurations:

Head shot
Head and shoulders
3/4 length
Full length

Group portraits would be another possibility for portraiture.

On a full-frame camera I suggest:

The Nikkor 50mm, f1.4G AF-S or Nikkor 50mm, f1.8D to do 3/4 length and full length.

The Nikkor 85mm, f1.4D IF or Nikkor 85mm, f1.8D for the head shot and head and shoulders, but you could also use all the way to the DC-Nikkor 135mm, f2D if you have the room. There are also a number of manual focus lenses in these focal lengths that could be used for formal portraits.

Either the Nikkor 70-200mm, f/2.8G AF-S VR IF-ED or Nikkor 80-200mm, f/2.8D ED "may" be used for portraiture. It just depends upon you intentions for the portrait. You might need a bit more distance from subject to the background for appropriate bokeh.

For group work it's hard to ignore the Nikkor 24-70mm, f2.8G ED AF-S.

Sigma does have some very competent lenses in these same focal lengths and Tamron has their 28-75mm, f2.8 and a very nice 70-200mm, f2.8 as well.

While the primes might be mt first recommendation, the versatility of a modern zoom is often more practical.

Ziggy I am a prime lover by nature and I purchased the 50mm f/1.4D with the camera. I have to say my only complaint is that it seems to creak when I have the camera in a portrait orientation. Other than that from 2.8 on it is a very sharp lens.

I plan on adding the 85 a little later and more than likely the 20mm 1.8 sigma, 35mm 1.8 and the 135 2. But for now I am really only going to be able to get one lens so I want to make sure it is a versatile one. But the Primes are sure to come.

Tim Kamppinen

midnight rider wrote:

Thanks Tim,
Do you find the Lens AF capable of keeping up with shooting sports with ease or does it struggle? I read a few reviews on this lens and they all say that it does work better in a full frame than the 70-200mm. I appreciate you recommending it and I an taking it into consideration.

Right now the only sports shooting I've done was a game of backyard volleyball (again I've only had it for a little over a week) but for that it worked fine. Keep in mind that I have a D90 so on a D700/D3 it would be that much better, what with 51 pt AF and so forth.

I realize that my meager experience isn't much to go on, so hopefully someone else will chime in that has used this lens for sports.

midnight rider

Tim Kamppinen wrote:

Right now the only sports shooting I've done was a game of backyard volleyball (again I've only had it for a little over a week) but for that it worked fine. Keep in mind that I have a D90 so on a D700/D3 it would be that much better, what with 51 pt AF and so forth.

I realize that my meager experience isn't much to go on, so hopefully someone else will chime in that has used this lens for sports.

Thanks. I posted that it is going on a D700 in the first post. Sorry I forgot to mention that.

Qarik

midnight rider wrote:

Thanks. I posted that it is going on a D700 in the first post. Sorry I forgot to mention that.

I vote the 85mm 1.4. Very sharp and legendary bokeh