| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/17/2015 01:51:27 PM · #26 |
5 pin version does not have an AF motor in the lens, so it will use your screw motor. 8 pin does have said motor, and can be used on bodies that lack a screw motor. Sounds like the focusing on the 8 pin might be slower but quieter. The 17-50 strikes me as being too wide for a lot of portrait work, and think if you're looking at Tamron that the 28-75 2.8 would better suit your needs. Image quality on a crop sensor is VERY good, very sharp, great color and contrast, and I would say it has less CA than my Nikon 28-70 wide open(the 24-70 doesn't have the same CA issues the 28-70 does). It works on full frame should you ever go that route (with some reservations, see below) while the 17-50 does not. It is also MUCH smaller and lighter than the Nikon 24/28-70. The sacrifice is that the AF is SLOW. On my D300 it focuses slow, but as it nears focus, begins to focus in small steps, slowing even more. It focuses a bit better on my D800E and doesn't do the step behavior, but still is pretty slow, especially compared to the Nikon equivalents. Build quality is also lower than the Nikon but still good. It's actually BECAUSE of the slow AF that I paid for a Nikon because I just couldn't shoot any sort of action. Having said that, it's still a great lens, and I often take it backpacking as a cheaper, lighter and smaller equivalent in image quality.
On full frame, the lens is usable, but wide open has significant vignetting and is not as sharp as the Nikon in the corners.
Message edited by author 2015-12-17 13:55:43. |
|
|
|
12/17/2015 03:04:23 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
So you're seeing a lot of recommendations for longer focal lengths, and when you have the room, that's a great idea. Very flattering results, and you don't need an extremely fast lens to get narrow DoF. On the other hand, you will be faced with situations where you don't have a lot of room to back up, and you will need something wider. It would seem to me that, being an APS-C shooter as you are, a 24-70 (36-105 equivalent) would be ideal. You might want something longer as well, and that could be a prime, say a 135 or 200. If I were packing a bag for this purpose, I would pack my 24-70, my 70-200, and 50/1.4.
I won't make specific recommendations since I'm not as versed in Nikon as Canon, but hopefully this give s you some guidance. |
Not to ask any stupid questions, but isn't this more about photo physics than brands???
|
|
|
|
12/17/2015 03:12:35 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by kirbic:
So you're seeing a lot of recommendations for longer focal lengths, and when you have the room, that's a great idea. Very flattering results, and you don't need an extremely fast lens to get narrow DoF. On the other hand, you will be faced with situations where you don't have a lot of room to back up, and you will need something wider. It would seem to me that, being an APS-C shooter as you are, a 24-70 (36-105 equivalent) would be ideal. You might want something longer as well, and that could be a prime, say a 135 or 200. If I were packing a bag for this purpose, I would pack my 24-70, my 70-200, and 50/1.4.
I won't make specific recommendations since I'm not as versed in Nikon as Canon, but hopefully this give s you some guidance. |
Not to ask any stupid questions, but isn't this more about photo physics than brands??? |
Yes, absolutely. That is where she needs to start. Once we understand what our application is really in need of, it narrows the spectrum of what we are choosing from, and makes it one heck of a lot easier to do the research!
|
|
|
|
12/17/2015 03:21:04 PM · #29 |
Thank you very much for the input on the lens...totally appreciated. I failed to mention that I have about $600 max to spend on the lens...
I took my 90mm f/2.8 in to have the lens repaired ($120 IF HE CAN FIX IT, $0 if not) and while he was looking at that he noticed that my camera body wasn't registering my f-stops correctly (I thought it was because the lens were older or I had some such button pushed or pulled wrong....pffffttttt). So he tried to clean the sensors and ended up taking off the mounting ring (my words) and when he lifted out another ring thingy (again....my words) a spring broke. So he's going to do a good cleaning and repair the ring for $60 more.
This all being said I had a couple of "duh moments"....he showed me the proper way to focus the diopter...ish...so easy. And we talked about lens (he's been repairing for a living since he was 16...nice fella to talk to). He had a 24-120 f/3.5-5.6...not fast enough for me and won't give me the bokeh I'm looking for (as easily). I just cked my last portrait setting and I used 35mm-140mm (mostly 35-65mm).
So anymore thoughts on this dead beat horse would be appreciated...
|
|
|
|
12/17/2015 03:34:26 PM · #30 |
I'm a lazy guy, and I dunno if any of this helps, but as you seem to not be one who wants to go conventional prime. all I can say is that these are pretty much all about the subject, and whatever happened in the background just kind of happened.
My Li'l Punkin is just an easy subject......the crop does it for me here. I like negative space for portraits.
The window frame is on the same plane, and gave nice texture and sideline interest.......the negative space inside the chicken house works.
The DoF just worked out on this one......not intentional other than I wanted the ring placement as the subject.
Couldn't help but have a gorgeous DoF on this one, as she was fifteen feet in front of everything else.
All four of these were taken with my 28-300VR. Like I said, I'm lazy. When I can get shots like these with that lens, why would I bother with anything else?
|
|
|
|
12/17/2015 08:54:58 PM · #31 |
you dont want a zoom for portraits. you need a fast prime, preferably a longer telephoto. On a crop that's an 85mm unless you want to stand across the street. id look for two lenses, a 35/1.4 and 50/1.4 or a 35/1.4 and an 85/1.8. sell off your 60 and 90 and get all three.
if you go wide, go fast, 2.8 on a wider zoom wont give you good bokeh, wide lenses will have a wider dof than telephotos at wide apertures so you have to get something fast to get image separation, especially on a crop where you have less control over the DOF.
i have a 24-70/2.8 that i rarely use for portraits.
this was taken with the 24-70 at f4.
this was with a 135 at f2
both were standing from the same spot. one has a background, the other doesn't.
Message edited by author 2015-12-17 21:05:44. |
|
|
|
12/17/2015 09:23:28 PM · #32 |
This lens is supposed to be superb and on an APS-C camera will give you the standard/traditional 85mm focal length and fast aperture. It is, however, manual focus so you need good focusing skills.
A B&H reviewer writes about it:
"I use the this lens on my D7000 so with the crop sensor it makes an excellent portrait lens. I am a huge fan of the colour reproduction and bokeh this lens produces. It is also superbly built and sharp. Excellent lens my only concern is whether the zeiss would be better for another 200 dollars. As it stands this lens is excellent and I am very happy."
Another:
"Everything photographic has a learning curve. I've had this lens for nearly 2 months and I'm comfortable with the lens. At f/1.4, the dof is very narrow and it can be a little soft but in a comfortable sort of way; much like a favorite old pair of jeans. Stop down a bit and the lens is magic. Beautifully made, small and unobtrusive, it's very easy to use. It stays on my D7100 and has produced several lovely portraits. As my eyes age, my focusing becomes a bit slower but when I hit the dot in the viewfinder, the image turns out sharp every time."
Reviewers seem to glow about it. Five stars on B&H for whatever that's worth. Not a very well known choice but seems worth the price for the qualities you get, and there are a lot.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2015 09:47:06 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by Mike:
you dont want a zoom for portraits. you need a fast prime, preferably a longer telephoto. On a crop that's an 85mm unless you want to stand across the street. id look for two lenses, a 35/1.4 and 50/1.4 or a 35/1.4 and an 85/1.8. sell off your 60 and 90 and get all three.
if you go wide, go fast, 2.8 on a wider zoom wont give you good bokeh, wide lenses will have a wider dof than telephotos at wide apertures so you have to get something fast to get image separation, especially on a crop where you have less control over the DOF.
i have a 24-70/2.8 that i rarely use for portraits.
this was taken with the 24-70 at f4.
this was with a 135 at f2
both were standing from the same spot. one has a background, the other doesn't. |
Seriously???
You're comparing these two images as if they're an example of how different lenses take the same picture???
Shoot two images with them framed the same way, then get back to this discussion.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2015 03:39:41 PM · #34 |
| Over budget I'm sure, but I can't imagine anything beating the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 for portraits! Amazing lens. Of course, it's heavy and big. |
|
|
|
01/09/2016 01:54:47 PM · #35 |
Well, I went with this lens....
And here are some shots from my first session. I still have a learning curve (please don't ever let that stop). But overall I'm very pleased...
     
Hope you like them... |
|
|
|
01/09/2016 02:14:06 PM · #36 |
| Well judging from the pictures, it looks like you made the right choice. Fast with a little reach. You do good work. |
|
|
|
01/09/2016 02:19:36 PM · #37 |
| My Canon 70-200 2.8 for outside stuff and some indoor. I like the compression of telephoto. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 04:23:09 AM EDT.
