Lens Questions Which ones?

98olds

Hi,

I have a Nikkor 18-55 VR that I got bundled with my nikon D3000, it is currently the lens I am using for Portraits. I'm a portrait photographer. I like the lens, but I dont feel that it is the best lens for what I use it for....

This is the lens that Is always on my camera, and is what I do for the majority of my work.


do any of you have any suggestions for a better sharper lens for what I use this one for?

Thanks

Pupator

Portrait lenses are generally in the 50-90mm range, are primes, and are fast. 50mm f/1.8, 80mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 are common choices. That doesn't mean it's all you can use, it's just the most common.

98olds

This seems like a dumb question but Why 50-90mm range? Wouldnt that mean you would have to be backed up real far to get a group? I generally do family portraits.

98olds

Nikon 35mm AF-S DX NIKKOR f/1.8G Lens

This wouldnt by any chance bee a good portrait lens would it?

borrowlenses.com

98olds is correct. Try the 35mm f/1.8 DX.

98olds

borrowlenses.com wrote: »

98olds is correct. Try the 35mm f/1.8 DX.

What are you referring to when you say I am correct?


I've been looking into the 35mm f/1.8 DX almost bought it a few times.

ThatCanonGuy

It's a good lens for the price. If you want wide-angle group shots, that's good, or for wider try 20-28 range. Nikon makes some nice 2.8 primes there for relatively low prices. For head shots though, 50 or 85 is the way to go

If you show us what lenses you're considering we can give you some opinions.

Cygnus Studios

My suggestions would be:

Nikkor 24mm F2.8
Nikkor 28mm F2.8
Nikkor 35mm F.2

Sigma 28mm F1.8
Sigma 24-70mm F2.8

Tamron 28-75mm F2.8

If you need to go wider than these nothing compares to the Nikkor 14-24mm F2.8

98olds

Cygnus Studios wrote: »

My suggestions would be:

Nikkor 24mm F2.8
Nikkor 28mm F2.8
Nikkor 35mm F.2

Sigma 28mm F1.8
Sigma 24-70mm F2.8

Tamron 28-75mm F2.8

If you need to go wider than these nothing compares to the Nikkor 14-24mm F2.8

I already have a wider lens... A Sigma 10-20.

Thank you for all the input guys.

Pupator

98olds wrote: »

This seems like a dumb question but Why 50-90mm range? Wouldnt that mean you would have to be backed up real far to get a group? I generally do family portraits.

Sorry, you didn't specify groups. I assumed individuals, my fault.

I have the 35 f/1.8 and it's great for portraits. I have the Tokina 12-24 for really large groups. I have the 85 f/1.8 for headshots.

98olds

ThatCanonGuy wrote: »

It's a good lens for the price. If you want wide-angle group shots, that's good, or for wider try 20-28 range. Nikon makes some nice 2.8 primes there for relatively low prices. For head shots though, 50 or 85 is the way to go

If you show us what lenses you're considering we can give you some opinions.

I wish I could show you ones I'm considering. but i'm not even sure on what to consider. haha

Im thinking the Nikon 35mm f/1.8

I already own a Sigma 10-20mm, for wider shots.

I just feel that the Nikon 18-55 is not very sharp. So i'm looking for any affordable suggestions.

Thanks

Overfocused

98olds wrote: »

I just feel that the Nikon 18-55 is not very sharp. So i'm looking for any affordable suggestions. Thanks

If you can manage to find one for Nikon, this is a very good lens for the dollar:

http://bodzashphotoastro.blogspot.com/2010/09/tokina-28-70-f26-28-atx-pro-in-depth.html


I use a Canon version on a full frame and its very sharp compared to any kit lens and works better in the IQ department than my 24-105L ever did (bad lens anyway)

I got lucky and nabbed one for $300 shipped in basically new condition from a guy on Ebay. The timing was just right, and now they're even more scarce.

98olds

Pupator wrote: »

Sorry, you didn't specify groups. I assumed individuals, my fault.

I have the 35 f/1.8 and it's great for portraits. I have the Tokina 12-24 for really large groups. I have the 85 f/1.8 for headshots.

No need to apologize. It was my mistake forgot to mention Families.

from what Im reading from you guys you are confirming my idea of the 35mm.

I love my 10-20mm. so i have real large groups already covered.

ziggy53

The first thing I would suggest is checking other family group images you have done and check the EXIF to see what focal length you used. Then reflect upon how well a fixed focal length lens will work for your situation and shooting style. If you see that you use a number of different focal lengths, maybe another standard zoom is what you need.

If you just want a better lens in a standard zoom I can recommend:

Nikkor 17-55mm, f2.8G ED-IF AF-S DX
Tamron 17-50mm, f2.8 XR Di-II LD SP ZL Aspherical (IF)
Sigma 17-50mm, f2.8 EX DC OS HSM FLD

The last 2 are also pretty reasonable in price.

angevin1

98olds wrote: »

This seems like a dumb question but Why 50-90mm range? Wouldnt that mean you would have to be backed up real far to get a group? I generally do family portraits.

What is real far?
You really ought to be at or beyond 15 ft. from them to project the proper perspective. 15 ft. is a number that the human mind is programmed to recognize faces. Also closer, and things become distorted, such as noses growing bigger. Of course you can use a fish-eye for a portrait if that is the look you're after, just giving some standards!

ThatCanonGuy

If you have the 10-20 for groups, then what will you use the new lens for? Smaller groups? Sounds like you don't do many headshots.

The Nikon 35 1.8, or any of the lenses recommended, will show quite an improvement over your 18-55. Lots more options with bokeh and stuff.

Overfocused wrote:

...works better in the IQ department than my 24-105L ever did (bad lens anyway)

No surprise there, everyone knows the 24-105 is just horrible and useless