 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2005Macro/portrait lenses
I will buy a portrait/macro lens for my D70s, and am considering one of these: Sigma 105/2.8 DG Sigma EX 50/2,8 DG Macro Tamron SP 90/2,8 AF Macro Di Nikon AF Micro 60/2,8D Tokina AT-X M100/2,8 Pro D How would you think that they compare - what gives the best value for money? > I will buy a portrait/macro lens for my D70s, and am considering one of > these: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > How would you think that they compare - what gives the best value for > money? Consider also the Nikon 105. Then consider it and the Tamron 90 f/2.8 (and not necessarilly the Di model). Cheers, Alan  Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >I will buy a portrait/macro lens for my D70s, and am considering one of >these: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >How would you think that they compare - what gives the best value for money? The only one of these that is suitable for portraiture is the Tamron 90mm f/2.8. All the others have a poor rendering of the out of focus areas of the shot (harsh bokeh) which means that they are basically nowhere near ideal for portraits. However, they are all capable of delivering sharp macro images. The Tamron is the only dual purpose lens, equally suited to both macro work and portraiture. >>I will buy a portrait/macro lens for my D70s, and am considering one of >>these: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > The Sigma 105 has soft and smooth boket and makes a very nice portrait lens. Harsh boket is either a myth, or if not then certainly does not apply to the EX DG version of the lens. http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/shell.jpg http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/ninabw.jpg http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/down.jpg Go to http://www.fredmiranda.com and read some user reviews. >The Sigma 105 has soft and smooth boket and makes a very nice portrait >lens. Harsh boket is either a myth, or if not then certainly does not >apply to the EX DG version of the lens. I have tested several examples of the Sigma 105mm EX DG, and all had harsh bokeh. >http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/shell.jpg >http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/ninabw.jpg >http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/down.jpg Don't make me laugh! Why on earth did you choose a portrait with a blank background? To hide the bokeh, of course! The rendering of the child's face is harsh, showing the typical results of an over-corrected macro lens that is basically unsuitable for portraiture. Use this Sigma lens on a subject over 25 years old and you will get complaints from the subject, because every line, wrinkle and blemish will not only be visible, but cruelly emphasised by the edge effects that are a result of over-correction. You cannot remove them by using soft focus filters either. This is simply not a good portrait lens, whichever way you look at it. While the Sigma is a very unforgiving portrait lens, it is a very good macro lens, as the macro shots you linked to clearly show. >Go to http://www.fredmiranda.com and read some user reviews. User reviews by ignorant snapshooters are much the same wherever I read them. As with other similar "user review" sites, that site is a repository of reviews by people who wouldn't know a portrait lens if it hit them on the head. I wonder how many of the reviewers have even handled the equipment they "review", let alone used it. >>The Sigma 105 has soft and smooth boket and makes a very nice portrait >>lens. Harsh boket is either a myth, or if not then certainly does not [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > it hit them on the head. I wonder how many of the reviewers have even > handled the equipment they "review", let alone used it. I knew that you'd fall for that - sorry that wasn't fair. The portrait wasn't taken with a macro lens. (the other shots were) It was taken with an 85mm AI-s Nikkor at f4. Obviously not a very good portrait lens - as you have pointed out the faults so accurately. >>> The Sigma 105 has soft and smooth boket and makes a very nice >>> portrait lens. Harsh boket is either a myth, or if not then [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > Obviously not a very good portrait lens - as you have pointed out the > faults so accurately. Use of a DUTO filter softens such lenses and turns them into halfway decent portrait lenses. Some would say superiour portrait lenses. Unlike diffusion or "soft Focus" filters, Duto's are sharp at the centre or focus point. Douglas >>>The Sigma 105 has soft and smooth boket and makes a very nice portrait >>>lens. Harsh boket is either a myth, or if not then certainly does not [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Obviously not a very good portrait lens - as you have pointed out the > faults so accurately. I have an older 85 1.8 AI Nikkor lens which is a fantastic portrait lens. It's not a good macro lens, but it's very sharp and gives a nice blurred background when shooting at wide apertures. I mean, what's the idea here, to get a lens that "isn't" sharp to hide somebody's zits? Good lenses are supposed to be sharp, and there are a lot of ways to soften a portrait. You can also use Photoshop to remove a zit or a wrinkle here and there. >>>>The Sigma 105 has soft and smooth boket and makes a very nice portrait >>>>lens. Harsh boket is either a myth, or if not then certainly does not [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > supposed to be sharp, and there are a lot of ways to soften a portrait. You > can also use Photoshop to remove a zit or a wrinkle here and there. Hey - if it's an older MF one like the one I used, then it suffers the same "fault" as the 105mm Sigma. They both have 7 blade diaphrams, and small very bright highlights (sunlight reflected off water droplets etc) in out of focus areas can take on a polygonal appearance. IIRC the Tamron and later 85mm Nikkors have 9 bladed diaphrams, so are somewhat less likely to take on a polygonal appearance. But both provide nice soft rendering of out of focus areas. IMO either are fine as portrait lenses - with the proviso that ~100mm is getting quite long on a 1:1.5 crop ratio DSLR. "Edge effects that are the result of over-correction" is IMO absolute nonsense. The 105 Sigma and 85 Nikkor I used have surely been sharp as a pin. But I wouldn't think that using a lot of USM across the entire frame or having a digital camera on a high sharpness setting is a great idea for portraits. OTOH lack of sharpness in the eyes detracts from any portrait. You can use Photoshop (I use Gimp) to perform miracles. >"Edge effects that are the result of over-correction" is IMO absolute >nonsense. The 105 Sigma and 85 Nikkor I used have surely been sharp as >a pin. But I wouldn't think that using a lot of USM across the entire >frame or having a digital camera on a high sharpness setting is a great >idea for portraits. OTOH lack of sharpness in the eyes detracts from >any portrait. You can use Photoshop (I use Gimp) to perform miracles. If you use an over-corrected lens to create a portrait, no amount of post-processing can make right what was wrong in the first place. You cannot add smooth bokeh to a shot taken with a lens that doesn't have it, and you cannot hide an unpleasant rendition of people's natural imperfections without detracting from the shot in some other significant way. Why bother, when you can buy a lens that gets it right first time, every time. There are many excellent portrait lenses for 35mm cameras, some old, some new. There are many excellent macro lenses too. But there are very few that do both macro work and portraiture to a high standard, and unfortunately none of the current Sigma macro lenses is on that list (although a particular old one definitely is). Note that I am not criticising Sigma macro lenses. They are excellent for their purpose, especially the 105mm. They are just not good for portraiture. If you wish to believe otherwise, that is your choice. I wish you luck with your photography. > Why bother, when you can buy a lens that gets it right first time, > every time. There are many excellent portrait lenses for 35mm > cameras, some old, some new. There are many excellent macro lenses > too. But there are very few that do both macro work and portraiture > to a high standard, and unfortunately none of the current Sigma macro > lenses is on that list (although a particular old one definitely is). Would you consider a Nikkor AF 50mm f/1.4 D lens a good choice for portrait work since the camera has a 1.5x crop factor or would you still use the 85mm AF f/1.4 D instead? Rita >> Why bother, when you can buy a lens that gets it right first time, >> every time. There are many excellent portrait lenses for 35mm [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >work since the camera has a 1.5x crop factor or would you still use the 85mm >AF f/1.4 D instead? The crop factor is a real problem. The 85mm effectively becomes almost a 135mm, a focal length I would not choose to use for portraiture, because the camera-to-subject distance forced on the photographer makes for an unnatural perspective. The 50mm effectively becomes a 75mm, which is at the short end of the portrait range of focal lengths, but is more acceptable than 135mm in my opinion. But the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 has unpleasant, harsh bokeh. The 60mm macro, a fine macro lens, is even worse as a portrait lens than the 50mm f/1.4. I really don't know what to recommend as a good portrait lens for a Nikon digital SLR, other than the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro, which is too long, or to suggest you try various zoom lenses to see which has the best (or least worst) bokeh. The 18-70mm Nikkor 'kit' lens is in many respects very good, but you should check whether the bokeh is acceptable to you. The 75-150mm f/3.5 Nikon Series E has superlative bokeh, but it will not meter with your Nikon DSLR, although it will mount to it. I am sorry I cannot be of more help. I changed brands a couple of years ago from Nikon to Pentax because Nikon could not offer at least one lens in every focal length I needed which offered good bokeh. There was a good choice of Pentax lenses available in these focal lengths. When moving to digital I found my solution in the Olympus E system, with an outstanding 50mm f/2 macro lens that also performs very well as a portrait lens. The angle of view is the same as a 100mm lens on 35mm film. At the ISO levels I use, the E-1 and E-300 produce superb noise-free images, and the range of lenses is simply exceptional. > I really don't know what to recommend as a good portrait lens for a > Nikon digital SLR, The 50mm f/1.4 is a great focal length, though a bit short for a close-in head shot with some subjects. The bokeh is not stellar. The 85mm f/1.4 is a wonderful lens with great bokeh, and is a good focal length for head shots or partial-body shots with digital. The 105mm f/2 is also a great lens with great bokeh, but is a bit long for anything other than a head shot, unless you move way back or are looking for that particular effect. The 60mm f/2.8 macro is not a good choice at all; f/2.8 is not wide enough and the bokeh is not good. The best one I can think of would be the manual focus 58mm f/1.2, which is an amazing lens but is only available used now and is staggeringly expensive. I really wish Nikon still made this one, since the used price now exceeds the brand-new list price when it was available. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com >> Why bother, when you can buy a lens that gets it right first time, every >> time. There are many excellent portrait lenses for 35mm cameras, some [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > portrait work since the camera has a 1.5x crop factor or would you still > use the 85mm AF f/1.4 D instead? I think the best value-for-money lens out there for Nikon digital right now is the 18-70mm DX. I am finding it hard to use anything else on my D70 that renders images as nicely as this lens does. SignatureSave photography | shoot some film today! email: drop rods and insert surfaces Roxy d'Urban skrev: >>>Why bother, when you can buy a lens that gets it right first time, every >>>time. There are many excellent portrait lenses for 35mm cameras, some [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > now is the 18-70mm DX. I am finding it hard to use anything else on my D70 > that renders images as nicely as this lens does. That's really promising, makes the new Nikon 55-200 worth waiting for... >> I think the best value-for-money lens out there for Nikon digital right >> now is the 18-70mm DX. I am finding it hard to use anything else on my >> D70 that renders images as nicely as this lens does. >> > That's really promising, makes the new Nikon 55-200 worth waiting for... I haven't really investigated that one, not likely to need it since I have the 70-200mm VR. I *am* very interested in getting the 12-24mm f/4 DX though. Next on my list of can't-live-without items! SignatureSave photography | shoot some film today! email: drop rods and insert surfaces >>"Edge effects that are the result of over-correction" is IMO absolute >>nonsense. The 105 Sigma and 85 Nikkor I used have surely been sharp as [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > If you wish to believe otherwise, that is your choice. I wish you > luck with your photography. My experience leads me to a different conclusion. http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/ab.jpg I assure you that the sigma 105 is on the left. It does not have "harsh boket" compared with a portrait lens. I would like you to clarify how a lens can "over-correct", and show an example. To me that statement does not make any sense. >My experience leads me to a different conclusion. As I said, I wish you luck with your photography. >>My experience leads me to a different conclusion. > > As I said, I wish you luck with your photography. Thanks. But that's it? No explanation of how the optics of a lens can "over correct" as you claim? No comment on how you claim a lens has "harsh boket" when I go to the trouble of showing you how comparitively the exact lens you are talking about looks better than a "portrait lens" in terms of boket? Even if you are to say "the boket from that portrait lens looks nicer to me" I can accept - as that is an opinion. >>>My experience leads me to a different conclusion. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Even if you are to say "the boket from that portrait lens looks nicer to >me" I can accept - as that is an opinion. Tony only reads magazines and the internet. I suspect he holds no unique information or opinions not formulated by someone else. If your lens can form an image you can make great photography. David Burnett, a famous photojournalist, used a Holga to photograph the 2000 U.S. election with stunning results. Tony Polson uses his mind to create images that are stunning to him, for the fleeting few seconds he imagines them. >Thanks. You're welcome. >But that's it? Yes, that is it. You have your opinion about your lenses, and I have mine. ;-) >>Thanks. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > ;-) Too bad. I have searched the net for an explanation for the claim that you make that it is possible for a lens to "over-correct" and susequently be "too sharp", and can't find one. I hoped that you could enlighten me. >>My experience leads me to a different conclusion. > >As I said, I wish you luck with your photography. Yes, because if he doesn't buy lenses specifically for their bokeh he will never take a good picture again. I wish you luck with your photography, Tony. Have you taken a picture in the last 3 years? Or a good picture, ever? Armchair photographers talk about bokeh. Real photographers make images. > My experience leads me to a different conclusion. > http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/ab.jpg I assure you that the > sigma 105 is on the left. It does not have "harsh boket" compared with a > portrait lens. I would like you to clarify how a lens can "over-correct", > and show an example. To me that statement does not make any sense. That is some of the worst bokeh I have ever seen. Are you trying to pull a fast one? A good bokeh lens would have blurred the highlights into practically non-existance. SignatureSave photography | shoot some film today! email: drop rods and insert surfaces >>My experience leads me to a different conclusion. >>http://www.geocities.com/angels2000photos/ab.jpg I assure you that the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > A good bokeh lens would have blurred the highlights into practically > non-existance. I doubt it - unless opened up wide (those were at f4). That is sunlight reflected off very shiny and dark camellia leaves. I was trying to find something to provide the worst backgound I could. >> That is some of the worst bokeh I have ever seen. Are you trying to pull >> a fast one? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > reflected off very shiny and dark camellia leaves. I was trying to find > something to provide the worst backgound I could. Well you succeeded, but I can assure you that a good lens would have smeared those highlights into a paté. How far behind the subject are they? I have a couple of Nikon 105mm f/2.5's (not macro lenses, but outstanding portrait lenses) and if I shoot with that lens wide open the backgrounds become pretty much void, even with sharp highlights. SignatureSave photography | shoot some film today! email: drop rods and insert surfaces >>>That is some of the worst bokeh I have ever seen. Are you trying to pull >>>a fast one? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > portrait lenses) and if I shoot with that lens wide open the backgrounds > become pretty much void, even with sharp highlights. The foreground foliage about 2 metres. The very bright shiny spots on leaves about a metre behind that. Lenses weren't wide open - and remember camellia leaves are very dark green - and very shiny. >Well you succeeded, but I can assure you that a good lens would have >smeared those highlights into a paté. How far behind the subject are they? > >I have a couple of Nikon 105mm f/2.5's (not macro lenses, but outstanding >portrait lenses) and if I shoot with that lens wide open the backgrounds >become pretty much void, even with sharp highlights. The amount of blur are properties influenced by aperture and the focal length of the lens. The longer the focal length the shallower the depth of field, the wider the aperture the same. Bokeh only refers to the qualities of the out of focus highlights and how they're rendered by the lens, at least according to Dr Merklinger. > read them. As with other similar "user review" sites, that site is a > repository of reviews by people who wouldn't know a portrait lens if > it hit them on the head. I wonder how many of the reviewers have even > handled the equipment they "review", let alone used it. It's odd that you spout a lot about a variety of lenses, yet you never post anything original about anything; you never post your own images to illustrate anything. Very strange. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. Tamron 90mm Macro. I used one of the originals for film about 20 years agon and now use one on my digital Canon.. Greg >I will buy a portrait/macro lens for my D70s, and am considering one of >these: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > How would you think that they compare - what gives the best value for > money? >I will buy a portrait/macro lens for my D70s, and am considering one of >these: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > How would you think that they compare - what gives the best value for > money? I use the tamron 90mm as well.....excellent lens, does a great job with both |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.