Help me choose a portrait Lens

[ian in lancs]

I'm getting into Portrait / Fashion and want a fast, precise focussing telephoto zoom lens. I undersrtand the hot lens is the Nikon 70-200mm F2.8G AF-S VR IFED at £1430 and the new one is £2k. However, is it really twice the performance of the other lenses I've listed?

Nikon 55-200mm F4-5.6G AF-S DX £115 bargain basement?

Nikon 55-200mm F4-5.6G VR AF-S DX IF-ED £160 bargain basement with VR?

Nikon 80-200mm F2.8D IF-ED AF £720

Nikon 70-180mm F4.5D AF £840

Nikon 70-200mm F2.8G AF-S VR IFED £1430 The hot lens the pro's have

Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX DG APO HSM £630


I already have

Nikon 18-105mm F3.5-5.6G AF-S VR ED - Iuse the long end of this and its fine but not fantastic

And

Nikon 70-300mm F4-5.6G AF-S VR IF-ED - Fantastic lens but a bit slow focussing and I'm after more DoF flexibility.

As well as the following Sigma lenses

Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 EX DC Macro HSM the 50mm end is too short to prevent distortion

And

Sigma 70mm F2.8 EX DG Macro a great lens that'm using a lot for 3/4 shots.

[Dogsey]

I used a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 very briefly recently, seemed a fantasticly well made lens with great IQ.

Surely though you would be better off with a top notch prime for this sort of thing?

[Simpo Two]

I wouldn't have described a 70-200 f2.8 as a portrait lens. It will take portraits, but it's rather overkill IMHO.

I did a recent 'head and shoulders' shoot and the lens that worked best for me was a Nikon 50mm f1.4 used at f2. You could get visually the same results with the 50mm f1.8 which costs about £80 - leaving you plenty to spend on lighting

Edited by Simpo Two on Wednesday 14th October 13:32

[jon-]

Dogsey said:

Surely though you would be better off with a top notch prime for this sort of thing?

Spot on. Modelling work generally means you can pick your distance from the subject so a 35, 50 and 100mm prime will give you great results.

[Nick M]

The 70-200 is a cracking lens, but be aware that there is some light fall-off in the corners if used wide-open on a FX / 35mm body. It's fine on DX bodies.

That said, I'm assuming the newer lens cures this particular issue.

I'd discount the cheaper options - they're cheap for a reason - and then look at what you want to spend. The Nikon 80-200 is another great lens, but lacks VR (look for the AF-S version too). The Sigma is arguably not quite as good optically, but does have image stabilisation.

It sounds like you need flexibility though.

And are you shooting in a studio or are you looking for a lens you can use out and about ? If the former, then maybe VR / IS is less of an issue.

And by the same token, if you're in a studio, would a fixed prime lens be of any use ? Like the 105mm f2 DC lens ? Or the 85mm f1.4 ?

[Nero601]

85mm f1.8





next

[andy-xr]

Nero601 said:

85mm f1.8





next

Just about to add that, so I guess its +1

Also consider a 24-70. Nikon do one, Sigma do one. The price difference between the two isnt that obvious in the quality from my experience. I've also got a 50-150 2.8 which is pretty sharp

PS - discount #1 and #2, they're not great

Edited by andy-xr on Wednesday 14th October 15:39

[Nick M]

andy-xr said:

Also consider a 24-70.

I've also got a 50-150 2.8 which is pretty sharp

24-70 not really ideal for portraiture though - anything with a focal length of less than 50mm tends not to be very flattering in terms of how close you have to be to the subject and what that can do to the perspective. Also harder to separate the subject from the background - if you use a shallow DOF then you end up with not all of the person's features being in focus.


Re the other lens, I'd question whether sharpness is a definite prerequisite for a portrait lens. Not everyone wants a 'warts and all' (literally...) picture of themselves.


I think we need to know a little more about the OP's methods and intentions, otherwise we could just keep suggesting lens after lens without any real clue as to wether it's appropriate or not.

[jon-]

Nick M said:

I think we need to know a little more about the OP's methods and intentions, otherwise we could just keep suggesting lens after lens without any real clue as to wether it's appropriate or not.

Nikon AF-S II 600mm f/4. Excellent background separation and super sharp stopped down. You might have to be in the next town to shoot though...

[Olivero]

I have found the best lens is either the 85mm f1.4 or 135mm DF lens. The new 70-200mm is a very good lens and ultra sharp.
Primes are better but you need to move your feet to zoom!
All the photos in the "Meredith" albums were done with a Nikon 24-70mm.
All the "Studio" photos were done with a 50mm f1.8 because that was all I had at the time, and the studio was tiny.

http://christieimages.com/

[dumbfunk]

Nick M said:

24-70 not really ideal for portraiture though - anything with a focal length of less than 50mm ...(snip)

From the list at the the top the OP is clearly shooting on a DX sensor though so the 24-70 would be right on the money to cover that 85mm (full frame) sweet spot. I have the Nikkor 24-70 and am absolutely speechless at its sharpness and bokeh even compared to all sorts of other nice prime lenses I've owned or tried.


df

[ian in lancs]

Great info thanks!

I have found that closer to the 50mm range distorts the subject and end up using the Nikon 18-105mm a lot - as I said its fine but not fantastic. I'd like shallower or at least more range of DoF thats why I'm using the Sigma 70mm F2.8. What would be ideal is a Nikon 50-150mm f2 or 2.8 VR at about £500... But there isn't one!

Interesting that you'r not as keen on the Nikon 70-200 as I thought you'd be and I'm reluctant to buy for reasons of cost, size and overlap (with my 80-300mm).

Not keen on a prime as in a home space theres limited room to move about although I do use bigger studios.

[andy-xr]

ian in lancs said:

What would be ideal is a Nikon 50-150mm f2 or 2.8 VR at about £500... But there isn't one!

andy-xr said:

I've also got a 50-150 2.8 which is pretty sharp

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-sigma-50-150mm-f2-8-ex-dc-ii-hsm-lens-nikon-fit/p1023975

[ian in lancs]

andy-xr said:

ian in lancs said:

What would be ideal is a Nikon 50-150mm f2 or 2.8 VR at about £500... But there isn't one!

andy-xr said:

I've also got a 50-150 2.8 which is pretty sharp

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/buy-sigma-50-150mm-f2-8-ex-dc-ii-hsm-lens-nikon-fit/p1023975

True but the reviews say slow(er)to focus and its not a Nikon and it doesn't have VR. Otherwise I'd be ordering!

[Simpo Two]

ian in lancs said:

True but the reviews say slow(er)to focus and its not a Nikon and it doesn't have VR. Otherwise I'd be ordering!

Why do you need VR to take portraits? Most cameras synch at 1/250th and the focal lengths mentioned are not exceptional.

[andy-xr]

I'll grant you it's not as quick as some of the Nikon lenses, but chances are if you're scattergunning you're roughly at the same focal length. It's only when you go from 50-say 135 that it'll hunt a little while it works out whats going on.

There's ways and means to help it and I'm guessing the D300s you've now got will have a few tricks on it compared to say a D50/60/70/80/90

Havent found a need for VR on that lens, and it's fairly solid. The only thing is, it's a Sigma so it's always a lottery

[ian in lancs]

Simpo Two said:

ian in lancs said:

True but the reviews say slow(er)to focus and its not a Nikon and it doesn't have VR. Otherwise I'd be ordering!

Why do you need VR to take portraits? Most cameras synch at 1/250th and the focal lengths mentioned are not exceptional.

The D300 will sync much faster than that and I'm using flash but it wont just be used for portraits and I'd rather have it than not!

[jon-]

ian in lancs said:

Simpo Two said:

ian in lancs said:

True but the reviews say slow(er)to focus and its not a Nikon and it doesn't have VR. Otherwise I'd be ordering!

Why do you need VR to take portraits? Most cameras synch at 1/250th and the focal lengths mentioned are not exceptional.

The D300 will sync much faster than that and I'm using flash but it wont just be used for portraits and I'd rather have it than not!

You'll only "sync" higher using high speed sync which doesn't actually sync, just pulses the flash across the exposure. You can only do this using ETTL, so the flash needs to be on the hotshoe (BAD) or being commanded by CLS. It won't sync with cheaper flashes or studio lighting. It cuts power and eats batteries so you're best syncing to your max sync speed for portrait work.

Edited by jon- on Wednesday 14th October 22:32

[andy-xr]

And then there's yer trigger system...

[Simpo Two]

ian in lancs said:

The D300 will sync much faster than that

Officially 1/250th but you might get 1/320th with luck. However if you're using Speedlights on FP mode then you can get faster synch speeds albeit at lower power.