Author | Thread |
|
09/21/2009 03:38:56 PM · #1 |
I am wanting to buy a new lens. Currently I use a 50mm 1.8 lens when I do portraits (both outside and in). I just had back surgery and havent done any shoots in a while, but figured while I am recovering, I can get a new lens and go from there.
So, if you use a great lens for portraits, please share your opinions/thoughts. I have a full home studio set up, so i am looking for a lens that is going to give me sharp crisp shots.
thanks!
(and obviously I cant spell either since my title is spelled wrong)
Message edited by author 2009-09-21 15:40:02. |
|
|
09/21/2009 03:50:56 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by gwe21: I am wanting to buy a new lens. Currently I use a 50mm 1.8 lens when I do portraits (both outside and in). I just had back surgery and havent done any shoots in a while, but figured while I am recovering, I can get a new lens and go from there.
So, if you use a great lens for portraits, please share your opinions/thoughts. I have a full home studio set up, so i am looking for a lens that is going to give me sharp crisp shots.
thanks!
(and obviously I cant spell either since my title is spelled wrong) |
Budget?
For a D300...
less than $500
85mm 1.8
50mm 1.8
$500-$1000
80-200mm 2.8 Af-S
105mm VR macro
$1000+
70-200mm 2.8 VR
85mm 1.4
That is just Nikon lenses.
|
|
|
09/21/2009 03:52:45 PM · #3 |
I have the 85-200 f/2.8 and I love it. I also have the 50 1.8 and love that too.
If you are looking to use this in the studio, make sure you have enough space to use the 85-200, as in my home studio, I have to have my back against the wall at times to use it. |
|
|
09/21/2009 03:53:05 PM · #4 |
|
|
09/21/2009 03:53:56 PM · #5 |
oh yeah, I guess I didnt state a budget. Hmmm.... I am not sure that the budget matters to me as much as the lens quality.
The 70-200 2.8 would that one also be a multi-purpose for faster shots like baseball shots? I take a lot of sports shots for my son. But I only have a 70-200 3.5
|
|
|
09/21/2009 04:02:06 PM · #6 |
|
|
09/21/2009 04:04:08 PM · #7 |
The best lens ever made for a Nikon camera, the 105mm F2.5. Shame they never made it in an autofocus. |
|
|
09/21/2009 04:30:43 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by scarbrd: The best lens ever made for a Nikon camera, the 105mm F2.5. Shame they never made it in an autofocus. |
I disagree, the best lens is the one attached to your camera. |
|
|
09/21/2009 04:42:45 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by ben4345: Originally posted by scarbrd: The best lens ever made for a Nikon camera, the 105mm F2.5. Shame they never made it in an autofocus. |
I disagree, the best lens is the one attached to your camera. |
You should put that on one of those motivational posters with like a kitten in a ridiculous pose. |
|
|
09/21/2009 04:49:41 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by gwe21: oh yeah, I guess I didnt state a budget. Hmmm.... I am not sure that the budget matters to me as much as the lens quality.
The 70-200 2.8 would that one also be a multi-purpose for faster shots like baseball shots? I take a lot of sports shots for my son. But I only have a 70-200 3.5 |
Yes. The Nikon 70-200 2.8 VR is as sweet as they get. Very fast and very sharp. Nikon is just now releasing a new model with a a higher pricetag. I sold this lens some time back (I needed something longer for bird photography) and have always missed it. It was by far the sharpest lens I have owned.
BTW- are a couple of sample photos from that lens:

Message edited by author 2009-09-21 16:55:04. |
|
|
09/21/2009 04:56:06 PM · #11 |
85mm f1.4
best lens ever
order it with some superglue--you'll want it permanently attached to your camera |
|
|
09/21/2009 04:57:14 PM · #12 |
Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D for outside/available light! fast, sharp, small and light (compared to the 1.4 anyway), great bokeh, built like a tank and inexpensive!
Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 i use it for available also but mostly for studio work, since i'm a bit tight on space.
|
|
|
09/21/2009 04:59:30 PM · #13 |
Come on! Why hold back? Get the 200 f/2 :) That is one beast of a lens at a beast of a price. But imagine the head shots you'd get from that. |
|
|
09/21/2009 05:40:10 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by scarbrd: The best lens ever made for a Nikon camera, the 105mm F2.5. Shame they never made it in an autofocus. |
I would tend to agree with this. Good thing I have one...and it takes some really good bird portraits as well... |
|
|
09/21/2009 05:46:06 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by bassbone: Originally posted by scarbrd: The best lens ever made for a Nikon camera, the 105mm F2.5. Shame they never made it in an autofocus. |
I would tend to agree with this. Good thing I have one...and it takes some really good bird portraits as well... |
How about the 105mm f/2? Amazing lens, and it has Nikon's "defocus" control |
|
|
09/21/2009 05:56:46 PM · #16 |
BING!!!
As pawdrix said the 85mm 1.4 is going to be an outstanding lens. Sure it's nice to have a zoom but you will get much better results with a fixed 50mm, 60mm, 85mm, or 105mm. |
|
|
09/21/2009 05:59:42 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by robshookphoto: Originally posted by bassbone: Originally posted by scarbrd: The best lens ever made for a Nikon camera, the 105mm F2.5. Shame they never made it in an autofocus. |
I would tend to agree with this. Good thing I have one...and it takes some really good bird portraits as well... |
How about the 105mm f/2? Amazing lens, and it has Nikon's "defocus" control |
Yes! I've owned the 105mm f/2 DC for many years and I love it. One of Nikon's best efforts IMO. |
|
|
09/21/2009 06:16:47 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Wheaty: Originally posted by robshookphoto: Originally posted by bassbone: Originally posted by scarbrd: The best lens ever made for a Nikon camera, the 105mm F2.5. Shame they never made it in an autofocus. |
I would tend to agree with this. Good thing I have one...and it takes some really good bird portraits as well... |
How about the 105mm f/2? Amazing lens, and it has Nikon's "defocus" control |
Yes! I've owned the 105mm f/2 DC for many years and I love it. One of Nikon's best efforts IMO. |
I am waxing nostalgic now, but there was something very special about the 105mm f2.5.
It was originally a rangefinder design that was ported over to SLR. This lens was the reason I shot Nikon back in my photo journalism days. My first serious gear was a Nikon F2as, a Nikon F3, a 24mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4 and a 105mm 2.5, later I added a 300mm 2.8 for sports. I don't think I was ever happier before or since as I was with that bag of gear. |
|
|
09/21/2009 06:19:54 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by scarbrd: Originally posted by Wheaty: Originally posted by robshookphoto: Originally posted by bassbone: Originally posted by scarbrd: The best lens ever made for a Nikon camera, the 105mm F2.5. Shame they never made it in an autofocus. |
I would tend to agree with this. Good thing I have one...and it takes some really good bird portraits as well... |
How about the 105mm f/2? Amazing lens, and it has Nikon's "defocus" control |
Yes! I've owned the 105mm f/2 DC for many years and I love it. One of Nikon's best efforts IMO. |
I am waxing nostalgic now, but there was something very special about the 105mm f2.5.
It was originally a rangefinder design that was ported over to SLR. This lens was the reason I shot Nikon back in my photo journalism days. My first serious gear was a Nikon F2as, a Nikon F3, a 24mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4 and a 105mm 2.5, later I added a 300mm 2.8 for sports. I don't think I was ever happier before or since as I was with that bag of gear. |
Hey - I still have almost all that gear - including the F bodies! I don't have the 300mm but I do have the 35 f2.8. I still try and use them on challenges now and again - and they generally do pretty decent. Gotta love the focus control of your fingers... |
|
|
09/21/2009 06:31:09 PM · #20 |
I use my 35mm f/2 AF D, but I think I use that because I don't have any of the 50mm ( f/1.4 or f/1.8). Good thing about the 35mm is that if used with good ligthing, you can stop it down to f/2 and still extremely sharp photos. Imagine the DOF outdoors.
Edited to add: But it's a love or hate lens I think. Can be a bit hard to work with, but now; me with that lens on my D300 is a good team.
Message edited by author 2009-09-21 18:33:23. |
|
|
09/21/2009 08:15:17 PM · #21 |
I never considered the 70-200mm 2.8 as a portrait lens. I can certainly work but it weighs a freakin ton. Since you said you just had back surgery I would stay miles away from that one. I've parked mine because it's a drag to lug around and hard to move with. I have taken portraits with it but if you're actively changing position during a shoot it's not that flexible and it's minimum focusing range is 5 feet.
So if your in tight, you might not be able to shoot upwards or you'll need a ladder to shoot down onto your subject.
The 85mm 1.4 is good because it gives you comfortable distance from your model, it's wicked sharp, it renders the best bokeh around and doesn't force too much tele compression on the image. It's also very light if that's a factor, due to your back issues.
Message edited by author 2009-09-21 20:20:42. |
|
|
09/21/2009 08:57:49 PM · #22 |
The 50mm 1.8 and 1.4 are ideal glass for portraits.
a 35mm is good also especially in tight spaces.
I love my 80-200 2.8 however unless you are in a huge area it is not going to be easy to use.
And because it hasn't been suggested here yet.
This would be another choice.
17-55 2.8
Message edited by author 2009-09-21 20:59:44. |
|
|
09/21/2009 09:01:24 PM · #23 |
any thoughts on the nikon 16-85 lens? |
|
|
09/21/2009 09:07:01 PM · #24 |
And another question..... which would give me better bokeh? The 85 1.4 or the 50 1.4 or are they similar? |
|
|
09/21/2009 09:20:46 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by gwe21: And another question..... which would give me better bokeh? The 85 1.4 or the 50 1.4 or are they similar? |
The 85mm is affectionately nicknamed The Cream Machine for it's bokeh. I almost bought a 50mm 1.4 and decided against it because of a few reviews I didn't like and for some reason I don't jibe with that range. I have the 50mm 1.8 and have never clicked with it...don't know why.
The 85mm is almost literally glued to my camera.
eta: A few people mentioned lightness which it is at 18 oz. the same as the Tamron 28-75 and nothing compared to the 70-200mm which is 3.2 lbs. A featherweight compared to my 28-70mm 2.8 which comes in at 33.3 oz.
Message edited by author 2009-09-21 22:07:32. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 05/14/2025 04:57:43 AM EDT.