DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Candid puplic portrait lens question
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 13 of 13, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 04/24/2005 03:09:26 PM · #1
I have the Nikon D70 and two lenses (28-80 3.3-5.6G, and 85mm 1.8 prime). I love taking public candid portraits which means it is soon time to invest in a longer lens with some range. It seems that the 70-200mm 2.8 is extremely popular, but I'm trying to decide if thats really long enough. Also, would it be worth it to lose the extra distance of a longer lens in order to keep the fast speed (2.8 aperature)???

Thoughts?

Thanks,

Chris A
 04/24/2005 03:24:02 PM · #2
while i like my 70-200mm 2.8 - it is sharp & fast
it is a beast - really really big & noticeable

given that -
if i could go back in time i would buy a 180mmf2.8 instead

yes ithe money is worthit for the F2.8 but if you are trying to be discrete - this is not the right lens

04/24/2005 03:30:58 PM · #3
LOL, If you think the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 will get you noticed, try the white Canon version!
That said, I wouldn't trade the 70-200 for anything. It's my most-often used lens for candids, and my method is not to try to be invisible, but to "hide in plain sight." Just stand there and snap away, and soon enough your subjects will just ignore you. Works in situations where you have some time to get the images you want. Works very well with small kids, one use for a short attention span :-)
 04/24/2005 03:41:25 PM · #4
I LOVE MY NIKKOR 85mm 1.8 It rocks. Very sharp by 2.0. Color is spectacular. It is very discreet. I bought a non D version of this lens for $200 from KEH.com

Go for it!

If you are using it for candids with no flash the D does not matter.

Message edited by author 2005-04-24 15:42:12.
 04/24/2005 03:48:06 PM · #5
Originally posted by kirbic:
LOL, If you think the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 will get you noticed, try the white Canon version!
That said, I wouldn't trade the 70-200 for anything. It's my most-often used lens for candids, and my method is not to try to be invisible, but to "hide in plain sight." Just stand there and snap away, and soon enough your subjects will just ignore you. Works in situations where you have some time to get the images you want. Works very well with small kids, one use for a short attention span :-)


I know what you mean kirbic. When I have my 'black' 18-55mm or 50mm f/1.8 canon lens on my camera, it seems no one notices. Let me pull out the 70-200mm f.4.0 L lens and they look at you like you have a rocket launcher or something. But even with the this lens I find myself wanting to get closer. Here is a very good lens for your Nikon. It will get you range! At full range you would need a very steady hand, high SS, or tripod I wold think.

Message edited by author 2005-04-24 16:04:34.
 04/24/2005 04:04:11 PM · #6
Originally posted by Montereykiddo:
I have the Nikon D70 and two lenses (28-80 3.3-5.6G, and 85mm 1.8 prime). I love taking public candid portraits which means it is soon time to invest in a longer lens with some range. It seems that the 70-200mm 2.8 is extremely popular, but I'm trying to decide if thats really long enough. Also, would it be worth it to lose the extra distance of a longer lens in order to keep the fast speed (2.8 aperature)???
Thoughts?


Aperture speed is important but so is focusing speed. I use the cheapy Nikon 70-300MM. It works, but I find myself working twice as hard as I like, and I miss shots left and right due to the inability to focus quickly. I do find myself shooting towards the high end however, so if you go down the 70-200MM route you might want to think about a 1.4 or 1.7 converter to extend the focal length.

If you are under bright daylight, you probably will not find yourself shooting down at f/2.8

My people outtakes, shot with the Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6D ED

04/24/2005 04:24:51 PM · #7
Nice shots!

I like the idea of have the option of shooting at 2.8, but I worry that 200mm isn't long enough! The 80-400mm may be overkill though and may not be fast enough. How many of you use the 70-200 with a converter to extend focal length? Does that work well? Can you shoot handheld easily when you're fully telephoto?

Thanks for all the responses guys. You're great!

Chris A
 04/24/2005 04:27:09 PM · #8
If you don't have to strugle with light and can use relativle high shutter speeds the Nikon Nikkor 70-300 f4-5.6D ED is a good lenses. I've got one, and I'm happy with it. Love it for portraits. It gets a blorred background than most of the lenses you've seen. More than the Sigma 50-500mm for what I've readed.
Here's two pics, just has they came out of the camera.


Both at f8, the first 1/250 at 75mm, the second 1/1000 at 130mm
 04/24/2005 04:30:09 PM · #9
I know the canon 70-200 will work pretty well with a 1.4x converter, OK with the 2.0x. I assume the Nikon's performance would be similar, since the optical quality is about the same. You'll lose a little sharpness wide open, but stop down one stop with the 1.4x and you should get a lot of that back.

04/24/2005 04:30:51 PM · #10
Originally posted by Montereykiddo:
Nice shots!

I like the idea of have the option of shooting at 2.8, but I worry that 200mm isn't long enough! The 80-400mm may be overkill though and may not be fast enough. How many of you use the 70-200 with a converter to extend focal length? Does that work well? Can you shoot handheld easily when you're fully telephoto?

Thanks for all the responses guys. You're great!
Chris A

You may find this thread helpful. It dicusses the difference between using a 2x convert with a 70-200 lens. The second post has a very good link that shows how using the 2X converter may cause you to loose detail.

04/24/2005 04:34:08 PM · #11


And this one is a bit on the limit. At 300mm f5.6 1/250, but very nice.
 04/24/2005 04:58:11 PM · #12
Here's a recent "failed" candid shot with my Canon 70-200 2.8 IS with a Canon 2.0x II teleconverter mounted, and at 200mm (400mm with converter, and a 640mm "35mm equivalent FoV"):



The first image is not full frame, it's about 80% of the frame height. The second image is a 100% crop of the first. Both have been post-processed, including only curves and USM.

Edit: 1/400s, f/8, ISO 200

Message edited by author 2005-04-24 16:59:20.
 04/24/2005 11:59:42 PM · #13
If you use a 70-200 f2.8 with a 1.4x TC, if will become a f4 lens, hence there will be a one f stop difference to a 70-300 f4-5.6 lens with still a 20mm shorter focal length. I've a white Canon 70-200 f2.8 and a Sigma 70-300 APO lens that I used at Hollywood, CA. Two people commented on the L lens and no one mentioned the smaller and darker Sigma. From now on, unless there is poor lighting, I intend to use the Sigma for street candids, less conspicuous and longer range.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 10/06/2025 05:55:19 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 10/06/2025 05:55:19 PM EDT.