Lens advice for my Nikon D200

Donna Ryan

Hi - I am just starting out as a child portrait photographer and have alot to learn - and some gear to aquire. I would really love some advice about which lens to purchase.

I will be shooting in studio and on location at the local park. Style wise, I only really like a selective focus - a shallower depth of field and therefore try and shoot wide open as much as possible - the only problem being - I mostly shoot fast moving and erratic subjects (toddlers). Therefore I usually have heaps of reject images based on fuzziness.

I bought the 50mm 1.4 and have had much more success with focus as it is faster than my old glass, but I need something with a longer focal length. I know the 85mm 1.8 is great but my 2 concerns are: feel like I need variable focal length for the park, and maybe 85mm isn't different enough from the 50mm in focal length.

My other two lenses are: AF 24-85mm 2.8-4 (seems very slow to focus on a moving subject - rubbish compared to my 50mm). THE OTHER IS 4-5.6mm AF 70-210. Very old and seems slow but just found it and haven't really used it alot.

I am only interested in Nikon lenses. Money isn't an issue - I just want the right lens. Love the 70-200 2.8 but a bit concerned about weight.

What do you all think I should get?

Long posting I know.

Thanks

Donna

SavedByZero

All fast glass is heavy glass.

Tee Why

Nikon 135mm f2 DC.
Mainly made for portraits IMO.

Donna Ryan

Thanks
Thank-you all for the feedback. I am renting a couple lenses tomorrow to see which ones work best for me.

carrollb

Donna Ryan wrote:

Thank-you all for the feedback. I am renting a couple lenses tomorrow to see which ones work best for me.

Donna, I would recommend the AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 17-55 f/2.8G IF-ED. I've linked you to the Nikon site for more information but this lens has proven to work very well for me shooting portrait and bridal shots.

Phil_L

The Nikkor AF 85 f 1.4 D is a classic Nikon portrait lens.

I have seen some amazing portraits with beautiful bukeh done with it.

It is apparently sharp wide open for narrow DOF.

I have the 85 f 1.8. It is also a good lens, but needs stopping down a bit to get sharp, which might defeat your artistic intentions.

The AF-S 70-200 f2.8 is also a good candidate.

If money is no object, get both or substitute the 135 f2 for the zoom.

Mitchell

What did you rent?

I'd be happy to make some suggestions. I love spending other people's money!

For children's portraiture on the move, I'd go with the Nikkor 28-70mm, f2.8 and the Nikkor 70-200mm, f2.8 VR. These are both fantastic lenses with enough speed to keep up with all kids. They both are wonderful wide open which will give you nice bokeh and good background separation.

Ed911

Lenses for my Nikon D200
If money is no problem, upgrade to the D300...for moving objects...there is no comparison. I used to shoot a D200 for kids...and had a lot of rejects...then I got the D300...same good quality and then some...plus a lot more keepers.

Like my pro photographer friend said, between the D200 and D300, it's not about better quality pictures, it's about more of them.

I wouldn't have put this in, if you hadn't said money was no object.

Donna Ryan

Thanks for all your feedback. It is so interesting that you say that I will have a higher percentage of good images with the D300. I suspected this was true. Sadly, when I say money is no object I actually mean that I have spent the last year saving up $1800 so that I can get whichever lens is best for me - even the 70-200.

So I rented the 70-200 and itis beautiful BUT I interact alot with the kids when shooting and often shoot with one hand, get on the ground get up again, throw a ball etc - I would have to change styles if I got this lens. I just rented the 105mm macro. I suspect it may double as a great portrait lens - does anyone have any experience with it and portraits?

schmad

17-55

carrollb wrote:

Donna, I would recommend the AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 17-55 f/2.8G IF-ED. I've linked you to the Nikon site for more information but this lens has proven to work very well for me shooting portrait and bridal shots.

Donna, I too use the 17 -55mm lens. It rarely leaves my camera. It is heavy.

photographilia

Donna Ryan wrote:

Thanks for all your feedback. It is so interesting that you say that I will have a higher percentage of good images with the D300. I suspected this was true. Sadly, when I say money is no object I actually mean that I have spent the last year saving up $1800 so that I can get whichever lens is best for me - even the 70-200.

So I rented the 70-200 and itis beautiful BUT I interact alot with the kids when shooting and often shoot with one hand, get on the ground get up again, throw a ball etc - I would have to change styles if I got this lens. I just rented the 105mm macro. I suspect it may double as a great portrait lens - does anyone have any experience with it and portraits?

105 Micro is supposed to be good for portraits. A bit long on a D200 though.

The classic Nikon portrait lens is the 85 f/1.4. For shallow DOF like you mention, you'll find little (nothing) better.

If you like zooms as you imply, you have a couple choices:

the new 24-70 f/2.8. Heavy, but stellar. Expensive.

the slightly older 28-70 f/2.8. Heavy again, but was considered stellar up until the lens above beat it. Used: about $1100.

the even older 35-70 f/2.8. Used to be called Nikon's sharpest lens. It is a push-pull zoom, so if you hate that forget it (zoom doesn't creep, though). The nice thing is that it's relatively cheap: $325 buys it used. You could buy it and an 85 f/1.4 and still have $500 left over (to upgrade to a D300 ). I happen to own one (sample below). One caveat: if you put a bright light anywhere near the frame, this lens flares badly, unlike the others above.