| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/22/2005 11:41:56 AM · #1 |
I've never done any portrait photography but would like to start. Would be grateful for advice on best lens/lenses to use and people's experience with primes vs zooms. My interest is in portraits of people in their setting - indoors or outdoors - using natural light only if possible. No studio work.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
12/22/2005 11:58:28 AM · #2 |
Since you cannot push the Canon 85f1.8 onto your D100 and I don't know Nikon lenses I am not adding much value here :-)
I would say stick with something in the 75-135mm range in 35mm terms (not sure if you have a 1.5 crop or not so adjust accordingly) for head shots and something in the 50mm range for wider. I personally don't like to go much wider than that but some people do.
For natural light you will want something that can open to f1.8-f2 ish range - although sometime f1.4 is good for extra light I find it too shallow on faces most of the time.
Edit: Forgot to add that I personally prefer primes for this since they are affordable for the faster speeds and I have time to move around. The zooms are generally not as fast as primes and are always more expensive and heaver if they are as fast.
Message edited by author 2005-12-22 12:02:34. |
|
|
|
12/22/2005 12:05:22 PM · #3 |
Most portrait photographers consider a 105mm prime to be the best lens for portrait work.
I see you have a Nikon AF Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.0-5.6D ED
This lens will probably work pretty well at the lower end of it's zoom range as long as you aren't in low light.
Message edited by author 2005-12-22 12:08:36.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2005 12:09:34 PM · #4 |
Take a look at the Color Portrait challenge and look to see what lenses were used in the ones you like. I like the 50mm which with the 1.6 crop aproximates the classic 80mm portrait lens, but I know some love the 70-200 length, and others go much shorter.
What works best for you will depend on how you like to work with your subjects, close in or at a distance. If you go too short you get some wierd distortions, if you go too long it is hard to seperate the subject from the backround. |
|
|
|
12/22/2005 12:29:08 PM · #5 |
Thanks for these comments.
One of the things I can;t get my head round is the "classical portrait lens" and digitial. I was under the impression that the 100mm-ish length was the one most commonly used because its perspective was the most flattering on the features. If that's the case, then the digital sensor crop is only a crop and has no impact on perspective making me think that the "optimal" focal length remains unchanged for digital in terms of perspective.
Trouble is with the crop you might end up having to stand back quite a way.
Am I understanding this right?
Someone suggested that this lens is to die for for portraiture. I guess it should be at this price.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2005 12:39:47 PM · #6 |
| The crop factor is basically a multiplier. In other words a 100mm prime would actually be...on a canon with a 1.6 crop.....160mm. So to get the 100mm you would actually need to use around a 60mm focal length. |
|
|
|
12/22/2005 01:46:13 PM · #7 |
The whole topic of perspective can cause a lot of debate, but from my own personal experience 85mm on my 1.6 crop provides the same results as 135mm on full frame or film based 35mm slr. The ideal length seems to vary a little by brand with Nikon's tradional portrait lens being the 105mm f/2.5 and Canon's being the 135mm f/2L. With canon the 85mm f/1.8 is fantastic and there is even a 85mm f1.2L if you have the money and don't mind the slow focusing. I have no idea how the Nikon 105mm f/2.5 has translated to their newer autofocus lenses (mine was an AIS manual focus) or what a nice equivalent is for the 1.5 crop cameras, but I'm sure there is a Nikonian here who will help.
Message edited by author 2005-12-22 13:47:32. |
|
|
|
12/22/2005 02:08:24 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by joezl:
Thanks for these comments.
One of the things I can;t get my head round is the "classical portrait lens" and digitial. I was under the impression that the 100mm-ish length was the one most commonly used because its perspective was the most flattering on the features. If that's the case, then the digital sensor crop is only a crop and has no impact on perspective making me think that the "optimal" focal length remains unchanged for digital in terms of perspective.
Trouble is with the crop you might end up having to stand back quite a way.
Am I understanding this right?
Someone suggested that this lens is to die for for portraiture. I guess it should be at this price. |
"Perspective" is absolutely independent of the lens used. It is 100% dependent upon where you stand in relationship to your subject. The key here is "angle of view", and that changes depending on whether you use a cropped sensor or not. With the 1.6 cameras you need to use a shorter lens to get the same angle of coverage, that's all. The perspective will remin the same.
R. |
|
|
|
12/22/2005 04:12:40 PM · #9 |
Well said Nusbaum, good techo detail.
The 'standard' 35mm portrait lens I've always thought of as 135mm but as he says differing brands give choices. Your D100 has a 1.48 ration to 35mm. So 135mm/1.48=91mm eqivalent.
Brett |
|
|
|
12/22/2005 04:13:48 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
Well said Nusbaum, good techo detail.
The 'standard' 35mm portrait lens I've always thought of as 135mm but as he says differing brands give choices. Your D100 has a 1.48 ration to 35mm. So 135mm/1.48=91mm eqivalent.
Brett |
uh, multiply, not divide dude.
|
|
|
|
12/22/2005 04:41:42 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Originally posted by KiwiPix:
Well said Nusbaum, good techo detail.
The 'standard' 35mm portrait lens I've always thought of as 135mm but as he says differing brands give choices. Your D100 has a 1.48 ration to 35mm. So 135mm/1.48=91mm eqivalent.
Brett |
uh, multiply, not divide dude. |
No, he did it right. Given the 35mm length that he wants, you have to divide by the crop factor to find the digital equivalent. |
|
|
|
12/22/2005 04:55:07 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
"Perspective" is absolutely independent of the lens used. It is 100% dependent upon where you stand in relationship to your subject. The key here is "angle of view", and that changes depending on whether you use a cropped sensor or not. With the 1.6 cameras you need to use a shorter lens to get the same angle of coverage, that's all. The perspective will remin the same.
R. |
Thanks for this clarification.
I guess I was using 'perspective' in a slapdash fashion. I remember reading somewhere that the 'flattening' effect (ie bringing things closer together) of a telephoto lens helps make sure that people don't have, shall we say, over-prominent features. That's what I was meaning by 'perspective'. Am I right is assuming that this 'flattening' effect is the same with a 100mm lens whether used on film/full frame/cropped sensor?
Thanks
|
|
|
|
12/22/2005 04:56:56 PM · #13 |
This is the one on my wish list:
Tamron 90mm |
|
|
|
12/22/2005 05:08:43 PM · #14 |
Tamron SP 24-135.
Outstanding lens, about $400. See fredmiranda.com for reviews.
Since you want to take shots in their surroundings, this gives you the flexibility to do so.
Sample shots:
   
   
The last two - the lens moves, i don't - something a prime can't do.
In the studio the zoom is again great to have:
  
Message edited by author 2005-12-22 17:09:16.
|
|
