Options
Portrait Lens Suggestions?
Dia
Registered Users Posts: 9 Beginner grinner
I've been picking up more assignments recently that are different from my norm (I usually do architecture, landscapes & event photography) These new shoots are 2nd camera on weddings, small informal beach weddings & beach portraits.
I currently have a Nikon D7000 & a D90, 11-16mm f2.8 Tokina, 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 Nikkor, 70-200mm f2.8 VR II (also have the kit lens 18-105).
I've been doing online research for a few weeks & I'm still not sure which lens I should purchase. I'm ok with a prime lens - but would prefer a more versatile lens. If the prime lens is the absolute best for portrait with the best bokeh that's fine too.
The standouts so far are:
85mm f1.8D
50mm f1.8 or f1.4
24-70mm f2.8
Sigma AF 17-70 f2.8-4.5 DC
Thank you!
I currently have a Nikon D7000 & a D90, 11-16mm f2.8 Tokina, 18-200mm f3.5-5.6 Nikkor, 70-200mm f2.8 VR II (also have the kit lens 18-105).
I've been doing online research for a few weeks & I'm still not sure which lens I should purchase. I'm ok with a prime lens - but would prefer a more versatile lens. If the prime lens is the absolute best for portrait with the best bokeh that's fine too.
The standouts so far are:
85mm f1.8D
50mm f1.8 or f1.4
24-70mm f2.8
Sigma AF 17-70 f2.8-4.5 DC
Thank you!
0
Comments
Just FYI: 24 is a bit on a short range for a portrait work. if you're talking portraits per se (headhots/upperbody) 70-200 is a much better range. Also consider 100/2.8 macro (or whatever analogue it has in N-world), as it has beautiful bokeh and you can get just an eyelash filling the frame:-)
~ducks out of convo, tail between legs~ :giggle
Nikkor AF-S 17-55mm, f2.8G IF-ED,
... but the
Tamron SP 17-50mm, f2.8 XR Di II LD IF
... in Nikon mount is a cost effective alternative. Add the Nikkor 85mm, f1.8 AF-D and you have, along with your Nikkor AD-S 70-200mm, f2.8 VR II, a rather excellent kit for most occasions and opportunities.
The standard zoom is usable for some portraiture and group shots, while the 85mm, f1.8 gives potentially better 1-2 head shots, if you have the space. The f1.4 is better still if you have the budget.
Your existing super-wide zoom is usable for establishing shots and such so it's handy in the kit too.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I do use my 70-200 for events and at the weddings (works great in low light situations) But for the beach portraits/weddings I really need a lens that can do it all. The group shots, the close up portraits, and people with the beach/sunset/water in the background.
The photographer I shoot with uses Canon exclusively. Her goto lenses for weddings and portraits are the Canon 24-70 and 85mm.
For the outdoor *portrait* shooting 70-200 would be by #1 choice hands down.
Having said that if my intensions are to include full body images (and for the outdoors it's often the case) I do use two extremes: 10-22 (on my x1.6 crop 7D body) and 100-400 (on 5DmkII FF).
24-70mm may be fine on a crop 1.5x/1.6x body (DX in Nikon speak) if all you shoot is outdoor weddings and events. For any indoor use the range from 17-50mm-ish is more useful. A longer focal length also forces you to work at a longer distance from the subjects, which can be tough on flash power.
24-70mm on a FF body, like the Canon 5D MKII or one of the 1Ds bodies, is a standard lens and very similar to 17-50mm on a crop body.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Thank you all so much!
On the flip side you need the 50mm1.8. It is wicked cheap, very sharp, and has a nice funky bokeh. I love that lens. It is a great walk around lens because it is so small light and cheap.
The 105VR is a very nice lens to have. But IMO it is a bit long on the DX body. You have the 70-200 and are covered in the longer focal range dept.
Indoors I use the 24-70 2.8 or 85 1.4.
These three lenses are also my weddings combo.
With the 24-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8 you would be well served for any kind of people shoot.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21695902@N06/
http://500px.com/Shockey
alloutdoor.smugmug.com
http://aoboudoirboise.smugmug.com/
x2!
Lens comparsion shot on my camera @B&H photo on a D90 crop body shot on 02/14/2010 this year.
<table id="settingsContainer" class="formTable" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr class="gallerySettingRow applyMultipleNotAllowed"><tr class="gallerySettingRow applyMultipleNotAllowed"> <td colspan="2" id="urlPreviewTD">http://www.djdimages.com/Other/LensShootout/11243760_o3aaR/
</td></tr></tr></tbody></table>
The tamron, hunts ALOT and also came out much darker than any of the other lens's in the test. In low light conditions, you will miss approx 33% of the shots with it.
"Don't worry when you are not recognized, but strive to be worthy of recognition."
-- Abraham Lincoln
I use a Tam 17-50 and have found it an excellent lens - certainly nothing like the anomalies your samples show! It's not as fast to focus as Canon's USM and it will hunt a bit sometimes, but it's not bad by any stretch of the imagination (Canon's 50 1.8 is far worse!) and has even coped in NO light (when I was doing a manual "paint by light" project).
Twitter | YouTube