 |
 | 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 / General Photo Topics / General Topics / July 2006Nikon Portrait Lenses
I have a Nikon d50. The speed of the kit zoom lenses is very limiting. I would like to buy a fast lens for general available light pictures and portraits. I am looking at two lenses: 1. AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D 2. AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D Which would be a better portrait lens? Which would be a better all around lens? Thanks Drew Hi Drew, I have the 50mm 1.8 and it's one of the best value for money lenses you can get. Can't really speak for the 85, but know it's more expensive. Also - for a better all-round lens, it does depend a bit on whether you personally like to go in a bit closer (85mm) or slightly wider angle. For portraits the 50mm is excellent - razor sharp and at 1.8 fast enough for my usage. I'd say get the 50mm 1.8, best bang for your buck you'll ever get. Cheers, Wim -- CreativeCreek.net Portfolio websites in 3 easy steps. Sign up, design, upload. Beta version available now: http://www.creativecreek.net/beta >I have a Nikon d50. The speed of the kit zoom lenses is very limiting. I >would like to buy a fast lens for general available light pictures and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Drew I have the 50 1.8. with the 1.5 crop factor, you get the results of a 75mm - good for a close portrait lens. I haven't done portraits, but for about $100.00 - it is a real bargain - and I've heard people say that it is among the sharpest. I haven't used it much, but I'll have to use it more.  SignatureStan Beck > From New Orleans to Brandon MS It's hard to soar with the eagles in the morning if you've been hooting with the owls all night. To reply, remove 101 from address. *** >I have a Nikon d50. The speed of the kit zoom lenses is very limiting. I >would like to buy a fast lens for general available light pictures and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Drew >I have a Nikon d50. The speed of the kit zoom lenses is very limiting. I >would like to buy a fast lens for general available light pictures and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >1. AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D Pass on this one for portraiture. But since they are available for peanuts on eBay, I would highly recommend taking your time to find a bargain, and picking one up for more general use in poorly lit situations. >2. AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D A good choice. If you can afford one, the 85mm f/1.4 is an even better choice for portraits, though perhaps not for general use. >Which would be a better portrait lens? Easily the 85mm. For general available light use, perhaps the 50mm. Both are relatively sharp, perhaps the 50mm is sharper. The 50mm has relatively poor bokeh and the 85mm has relatively good bokeh. The 85mm being a bit longer means the depth of field is smaller, and you might well find that very nice for portraits (you can, for example, easily have the nose and eyes in focus and the ears out of focus, or from the side have the near eye in and the far eye out). The 50mm is better for group shots, e.g. for "snapshots" of kids playing, and the 85mm is better for portraits of individuals. I bought a 85mm f/1.8 specifically to take pictures of my grandchildren. I bought a 50mm f/1.8 because it was very cheap and filled an even smaller niche: group shots with poor lighting. At public meetings it has been a life saver. >Which would be a better all around lens? That depends greatly on what you do. I love the 85mm, but don't use it often. I typically use the 18-70mm f/3.5-5G zoom as a walk about lense. If I'm planning something, then most likely it is with a 80-200mm f/2.8 AFD ED zoom. Both of those lenses are also great for portraits in situations where wider or longer focal length can be traded for lense speed. Incidentally, if you have any desire to also do closeup work, various 90mm and 105mm macro lenses are also great portrait lenses. Virtually all of them are very sharp (and some as sharp as anything gets). I tend of use them more for macro work and I have older AI manual focus lenses that your D50's light meter won't work with; hence I can't really recommend specific lenses as suitable. SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > The 85mm being a bit longer means the depth of field is > smaller, and you might well find that very nice for portraits The drawing is better too. SignaturedadiOH ____________________________ dadiOH's dandies v3.06... ...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico > >I have a Nikon d50. The speed of the kit zoom lenses is very limiting. I > >would like to buy a fast lens for general available light pictures and [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > 50mm has relatively poor bokeh and the 85mm has relatively good > bokeh. The 85mm being a bit longer means the depth of field is smaller, and you might well find that very nice for portraits (you can, for example, easily have the nose and eyes in focus and the ears out of focus, or from the side have the near eye in and the far eye out). Shooting f/1.8 can cause lots of focus problems for anyone, so be careful. Also, clarity in NOT necessarily a good thing with portraits. That's why they make "soft focus" lenses. But the comment re the DOF is slightly off (not much, just slightly). If one were to take a box and set it one the ground -- say a soccer goal just so you can visualize it -- and you were to shoot it at f/anything, say f/2, then you would have basically the same DOF from a lens of ANY focal length. If you shot the goal with a 50 mm, you would need to be some distance back to exactly fit the box (soccer goal). If you shot with a 100mm lens (which would have a slightly lesser DOF from the same spot but not fit the box), you would get the same DOF when you backed up in order to fit the box. OTOH, you would get a very different look to the pictures because the larger lens would "compress" the image more and give it that telephoto look. > The 50mm is better for group shots, > e.g. for "snapshots" of kids playing, and the 85mm is better for [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> > Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com I don't do portraits, so this is just a straight question: Wouldn't a soft focus filter compensate a bit for the sharpness of the lens, if you want a softer appearance? SignatureStan Beck > From New Orleans to Brandon MS It's hard to soar with the eagles in the morning if you've been hooting with the owls all night. To reply, remove 101 from address. *** > . . . > Shooting f/1.8 can cause lots of focus problems for anyone, so be > careful. Also, clarity in NOT necessarily a good thing with portraits. > That's why they make "soft focus" lenses. > > . . . Yes. In the "old days", people have been known to make their own soft focus filters. It was an art and I never mastered it. But when someone got one they likes, they guarded it with their life. What people would do is take a filter -- say you had one that was scratched anyway -- and gingerly scratch it with steel wool or some other abrasive --- or sometimes a light acid to etch it. The trick was to graduate the softness and keep it clear in the middle. Other times people would do special effects, like a wedding photographer would scratch the top 1/3 or 1/4 to make the ceiling at the reception soft. Back in "the day", you didn't necessarily want a portrait to be too sharp because retouching was a pain. Air brushes weren't all they were cracked up to be. Hand spotting was nearly impossible to master. So a soft focus was used to hide skin blemishes, out of place hair, etc. Also it looked good with highlights. As I remember it, a soft focus lense and a filter gave a slightly different look, but if you have a scratched filter lying around, it might be fun to experiment with. I am not too old, but I am definately "old school" and I remember when people made/modified their equipment more than people do now. However, I think that working on equipment was good for your development as a photographer because you got to understand it better. I also think that for the most part, it is far easier to take the picture the way you want it than it is to photoshop things later. PS has it's time and place, but so does doing it in the camera. Pat. > I don't do portraits, so this is just a straight question: Wouldn't a soft > focus filter compensate a bit for the sharpness of the lens, if you want a [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > > > . . . Thanks for the reply. That is pretty much what I thought. I'm not a pro, and never was, and likely never will be. Even though I am all digital now, I came up with cameras that were all manual, everything, and special effects were through filters. Darkrooms were a mystery. This is why I find my viewfinders today look like the cockpit of a 747. SignatureStan Beck > From New Orleans to Brandon MS It's hard to soar with the eagles in the morning if you've been hooting with the owls all night. To reply, remove 101 from address. *** > Yes. > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] >> > >> > . . . >> The 85mm being a bit longer means the depth of field is smaller, and >>you might well find that very nice for portraits (you can, for example, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >careful. Also, clarity in NOT necessarily a good thing with portraits. > That's why they make "soft focus" lenses. However, we are talking about AF lenses... hence focus isn't a problem. (I might note that my favorite subjects are children, and AF is the best thing since sliced bread.) Granted that soft focus can be nice, but that is easy to introduce, and much easier to control, after the fact. The tack sharpness of a really good lense is of course impossible to produce after the fact, so while a "soft portrait lense" can be useful, a "tack sharp lense" much better. Especially given that the OP specifically asked about lenses that can be put to some unspecified general use other than portraits. Bokeh is another characteristic that is inherent in the lense. A tack sharp lense with great bokeh is a good investment. Unfortunately for the OP, a Nikon D50 doesn't couple its light meter to AiS manual focus lenses. Otherwise I would have suggested he find a Nikon Series E 70-150mm zoom. It's hard to use for children, because they won't sit still, but otherwise is great when the photographer has the time to focus manually. >But the comment re the DOF is slightly off (not much, just slightly). > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >you shot with a 100mm lens (which would have a slightly lesser DOF from >the same spot but not fit the box), you would get the same DOF when you Then you agree that with a given working distance, the DOF is less with the longer focal length. It is only equalized when the framing is the same. >backed up in order to fit the box. OTOH, you would get a very >different look to the pictures because the larger lens would "compress" >the image more and give it that telephoto look. Portrait photographers (using Nikon DSLRs) who chose 50mm focal length vs 85mm focal length, *don't* tend to frame the same pictures. If they get that close with the 50mm focal length the subjects have large noses, big mouths, and rounded faces! Pictures of children taken by adults standing from above them appear to have huge heads and tiny feet. Instead, typically the framing changes because the working distance stays relatively the same. The reason for choosing shorter or longer focal length lenses is to get the different effects _at_ _that_ _working_ _distance_. Magnification is the most obvious effect, but the DOF at that specific working distance will be greater for the shorter focal length lense than it is for the longer focal length lense. Magnification is technically the reason, but the photographer can make use of the effect for artistic purposes. From the OP's perspective, the question is does he want subjects larger or small in the frame, from the *same* distance! I like very close framing, and often work at a significant distance. (I took a neat portrait yesterday with an 800mm lense! I more than 100 yards from the subject... shooting pictures of seal hunters offshore in the Arctic Ocean, and happened to spot an opportunity on shore.), I commonly use 100 to 120mm focal lengths for portraits (on Nikon DSLRs, so that is equivalent to 150 to 180mm on a 35mm film SLR). The 50mm, on the OP's Nikon D50, is a 35mm equivalent of 75mm, which is way too short for my tastes (but just right for many). The 85mm is 127mm, which is way to long for some, but about the minimum for the effects that I like. Your mileage, and the OP's, of course will vary... SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com > >> The 85mm being a bit longer means the depth of field is smaller, and > >>you might well find that very nice for portraits (you can, for example, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >careful. Also, clarity in NOT necessarily a good thing with portraits. > > That's why they make "soft focus" lenses. However, we are talking about AF lenses... hence focus isn't a problem. (I might note that my favorite subjects are children, and AF is the best thing since sliced bread.) Nah, I'm outside of Buffalo. Lately, A/C is the best thing since slice bread. Hot and humid today, over 90F. Wow. Hot. Bring back the snow. > Granted that soft focus can be nice, but that is easy to > introduce, and much easier to control, after the fact. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > less with the longer focal length. It is only equalized when > the framing is the same. Yes, and no. Hence why I said "slightly". If you frame it with a 50mm and you stay in the same place and throw on a 100 mm, then the 100 mm has a smaller depth of field but you might be shooting nose hair. If you back up, trip over the cat, move the couch and keep the same framing, then the DOF is the same. And agreed, the two pics would have different looks to them.. > >backed up in order to fit the box. OTOH, you would get a very > >different look to the pictures because the larger lens would "compress" [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > length vs 85mm focal length, *don't* tend to frame the same > pictures. If they get that close with the 50mm focal length the subjects have large noses, big mouths, and rounded faces! Pictures of children taken by adults standing from above them appear to have huge heads and tiny feet. You say that like its a bad thing.... > Instead, typically the framing changes because the working > distance stays relatively the same. The reason for choosing [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> > Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >>If they get that close with the 50mm focal length the >> subjects have large noses, big mouths, and rounded faces! >> Pictures of children taken by adults standing from above them >> appear to have huge heads and tiny feet. > >You say that like its a bad thing.... Opinions, like mileage, may vary. But quite honestly, every time I've done it I end up laughing... and sending that image to the bit bucket. :-( I like the look of a portrait taken with a 100mm lense! SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com Actually, I know a guy who uses this effect to his advantage. He hunts a lot and whenever he gets a deer, turkey or anything else he wants to brag about, he puts it out well in front of him, has somone get up pretty close and has the picture taken with a wide-angle lens. As they say, the camera adds 10 points. When it's your turkey, I guess that's a good thing. > >>If they get that close with the 50mm focal length the > >> subjects have large noses, big mouths, and rounded faces! [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> > Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com >Actually, I know a guy who uses this effect to his advantage. He hunts >a lot and whenever he gets a deer, turkey or anything else he wants to >brag about, he puts it out well in front of him, has somone get up >pretty close and has the picture taken with a wide-angle lens. I've seen some *really* awesome bear pictures made that way! :-) Works well with a moose too. The Big White Hunter sits at the rear end of the dead animal, holding the rifle well in front and vertically to avoid giving away the perspective. The head is propped up in front and looks twice as big as it is! The newspaper in Fairbanks just delights in publishing that kind of thing. >As they say, the camera adds 10 points. When it's your turkey, I guess >that's a good thing. Hmmmm... maybe this fall I'll take a picture of somebody with a fishing pole standing next to a 50 foot bowhead whale! >> >>If they get that close with the 50mm focal length the >> >> subjects have large noses, big mouths, and rounded faces! [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> >> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com If you want one for portrait use the 105. Best lens made. Very sharp. On some women with skin problems you might want to use a soft-focus adapter with it. > I have a Nikon d50. The speed of the kit zoom lenses is very limiting. I > would like to buy a fast lens for general available light pictures and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Drew Ok, now that we are discussing lenses, it is ok to ask which Nikon lens would be good for close ups of flowers ?? I have the Nikon D-70. --James-- > Ok, now that we are discussing lenses, it is ok to ask which Nikon lens > would be good for close ups of flowers ?? The f/3.5 28-105 is a nice walkaround lens with good macro magnification (1:2). ED glass, fairly fast auto-focus - a bargain at under $300USD. http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/28-105_35_afd http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=1 65829&is=USA Examples using a N80 35mm (factor 1.5x crop for D70): http://www.pbase.com/hornbaker/macro_tests Drawbacks: It doesn't have internal focus, so the front ring rotates (inconvenient with circular polarizing filters). And it'd be nice if it went below f/29 for better macro depth of field. If you search groups.google.com for this newsgroup, you'll find several past discussions on other macro lenses, buying tips, etc. Cheers, Richard Thanks Richard !! --james-- I use a PMC (Panagor)Auto-Macro 90mm 2.8. I really Like it. It goes to 1:1 without any adapters. > Ok, now that we are discussing lenses, it is ok to ask which Nikon lens > would be good for close ups of flowers ?? > > I have the Nikon D-70. > > --James-- |
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
|
©2008 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.