NIKON- Best Portrait lens!?! MONEY NO OBJECT!

[lukewoodford]

Ok i have witnessed a few best portrait lens threads, alot of people say nifty 50 (i have the 1.4) but is this because it is cheap? If money was no object what lens would you have for portraits?

[kalibre]

IMHO - Probably the new Sigma 50mm 1.4 EX HSM. £330.

[Flash In The Pan]

Ok i have witnessed a few best portrait lens threads, alot of people say nifty 50 (i have the 1.4) but is this because it is cheap? If money was no object what lens would you have for portraits?

Yes, in general I'd say that was the reason. I wonder how many people get sucked in by the hype and buy one, only for it to lie unused in their camera bag?

Personally, I'd like an 85mm f/1.4, I have the 1.8 and really like it,but the 70-200 is great for portraits too.....

[lukewoodford]

Yes, in general I'd say that was the reason. I wonder how many people get sucked in by the hype and buy one, only for it to lie unused in their camera bag?

Personally, I'd like an 85mm f/1.4, I have the 1.8 and really like it,but the 70-200 is great for portraits too.....

Yeah this is what i mean, i have 18-200mm VR and 50mm 1.4, i like the 50 dont get me wrong but i have been looking at the 85 1.4 and the 70-200 as portraits and weddings are my focus. I have been recomended the 50mm alot, i dont regret getting it, however i feel some people recomend it for the price whereas im quite happy investing more money in a better quality lens.

[StuartH]

I have the 85mm 1.4 and love it!..It really is a superb lens.

[Flash In The Pan]

There is, as you highlighted in a previous post, a big difference in the gap between a 50mm f/1.8 and the 1.4, against that between the same aperture 85mm lenses.

I could probably rationalise the £100 or so in the 50mm case if I were to purchase one, but at the moment I can see far better places to put the £3-400 extra that upgrading to an f/1.4 85mm would cost...

[puddleduck]

50mm is a really unflattering portrait length.

Look at around 85mm to 105mm. The 50mm gets recommended due to folks says it acts like a 75mm on DX (which is rubbish of course)

Money no object - the 85mm f/1.4

[kalibre]

50mm is a really unflattering portrait length.

Look at around 85mm to 105mm. The 50mm gets recommended due to folks says it acts like a 75mm on DX (which is rubbish of course)

Money no object - the 85mm f/1.4

Unless I'm missing something then the portrait lengths on a DX using the 50 WILL be the same as a FX @ 75-80. Other than a slight DOF difference I'm not sure what's rubbish.......:thinking:

[theory]

Yeah, the FOV is to do with the distance from the subject rather so 'equivalent focal length' in this respect does seem to apply. I think thats why the stunning voigtlander 58mm glass works so well on cropped sensors for portraits... that and the bokeh :) although its possibly not quite a 'cream machine' as it would be on FF.

[puddleduck]

Unless I'm missing something then the portrait lengths on a DX using the 50 WILL be the same as a FX @ 75-80. Other than a slight DOF difference I'm not sure what's rubbish.......:thinking:

Yes, you are missing a lot actually.

Its all to do with angles of view and not effective focal length.

Imagine taking a portrait at 20mm, on a theoretical camera with a 10x crop factor (would you say that made it a 200mm lens?) and you will see why you are missing the point. A portrait at 20mm is always going to be unflattering, no matter the crop factor.

Don't mistake angle of view with a hard crop.

[theory]

Hmm, dude I'm pretty certain that the compression is to do with the distance between the lens and the subject while the focal length is simply how much fills the frame. I would say the effective focal length works for compression.

I should probably check up on google actually... I'll be back :)

[puddleduck]

Thats beside the point - 85mm is a better focal length that a 50mm cropped on DX for portraits.

Its all to do with angles, *not* the stuff thats cropped out. The crop doesn't change this.

50mm really isn't 75mm on DX - its 50mm regardless of cropped or not cropped.

There is a very good reason why most of the classic portrait lenses are from around 85mm to about 105mm. DX and crop doesn't change this.

[theory]

I'm only talking about compression really so maybe you're getting at something else (although I'm not entirely sure what, besides perhaps the OOF rendition and subject isolation) but with regards to perspective, only distance seems to be the key.

http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/perspective-subject-distance-focal-length.html

[puddleduck]

I'm quite happy to prove this with my D60, D700 and Voightlander 58mm f/1.4

If I take the same image with both cameras, then *crop* my D700 image down to the same proportion as the D60 cropped image, I'd have to have had a hard bump on the head to claim it make it an 87mm lens really...

[AR101]

Yes, you are missing a lot actually.

Its all to do with angles of view and not effective focal length.

Imagine taking a portrait at 20mm, on a theoretical camera with a 10x crop factor (would you say that made it a 200mm lens?) and you will see why you are missing the point. A portrait at 20mm is always going to be unflattering, no matter the crop factor.

Don't mistake angle of view with a hard crop.

Agreed, 20mm at a hard crop will leave the model with a lovely big nose if shot straight on, now thats not very flattering, unless your into that kind of thing.

Nikon 85mm f1.4 is commonly quoted as the best for Nikon for portraits, I would be interested if a newer version will be coming out at photokina, as im looking to get one of these. If a new version comes out, presumably it will be better in many respects, and a possibility for me, Otherwise the older version will be good too, especially as its prices hopefully should fall :)

[theory]

That would be good to see actually because my understanding is totally different and I can't get my head round it atm. I know the bokeh will be lovely but if you have a 58mm and a 85mm (pretty much about perfect for this comparison) then it sounds like a good thing to do. :)

btw a 20mm on a cropped sensor still only equates to 35mm which is yuck. I would say 50mm is about the lower limit for decent portrait on a cropped sensor from my experience but then I'm not quite as up on these things as PD.

[puddleduck]

That would be good to see actually because my understanding is totally different and I can't get my head round it atm

Think of "angles" vs "bounding rectangles".

Unfortunately so much rubbish has been written about a 300mm lens becoming 450mm than its become "truth" while it was always garbage.

Thats not to say that DX doesn't have advantages in some cases, but thats due to pixel density... not this mythical "reach".

[Flash In The Pan]

I think the "crop factor" seems to be misunderstood by a lot of people, it refers to fov (hence "effective focal length) not actual focal length. A 50mm lens is still a 50mm lens on a cropped sensor, what it does have, however, is a more restricted fov,equivalent to what you would see with lens of around 75mm on a full frame camera.

[theory]

I think the "crop factor" seems to be misunderstood by a lot of people, it refers to fov (hence "effective focal length) not actual focal length. A 50mm lens is still a 50mm lens on a cropped sensor, what it does have, however, is a more restricted fov,equivalent to what you would see with lens of around 75mm on a full frame camera.

Yes I fully understand this 'crop factor' and the reach advantage etc

My problem is that I don't see how the FOV can change without changing the distance from the subject. If I wanted to take a shot of a silhouetted person against a huge sun I could use the cropped sensor to my advantage and get the FOV of a 750mm lens by using a 500mm bit of glass, although it wouldn't behave like a 750mm in other respects.

Actually your post alludes to say the same as my understanding... hmm. I think I'll step aside on this one now :)

[Wail]

I think the best lens I've used for portraits, with my wobbly hands, would have to be the 70-200 AF-S VR. This, on a DX or FX body, gives a wonderful range and great bokeh.

Of course, the 85mm (both f1.8 and f1.4) fall in this range with even better bokeh. So, for prime lenses I'd have to agree on any of these two lenses .. for zoom (cost being not a worry) I'd say the 70-200 VR AF-S.

[Wail]

OK, so I didn't reply to this thread as soon as I saw it .. and what do you know .. a debate on FOV vs. DX vs. flatenning of image.

Stick with the 70-200VR and you'd be safe .. regardless of DX or FX body :p

[EdinburghGary]

I think the 50mm is a fantastic lens, I use the 1.4 a lot, and there have been SEVERAL situations where an 85mm would have been too long, when I did the photos of the hair and Makeup models, I was against their back wall with the 50mm on FF. 85 would have made it impossible. When I got the 50mm, it had nothing to do with finances, I literally havent a clue what lenses are available - although, for 3 weeks, I have been pining for a canon and the magic f1.2 lens. Only reason I don't have an 85mm for the nikon :)

Gary.

[lukewoodford]

I think the best lens I've used for portraits, with my wobbly hands, would have to be the 70-200 AF-S VR. This, on a DX or FX body, gives a wonderful range and great bokeh.

Of course, the 85mm (both f1.8 and f1.4) fall in this range with even better bokeh. So, for prime lenses I'd have to agree on any of these two lenses .. for zoom (cost being not a worry) I'd say the 70-200 VR AF-S.

Thanks for your reply,which lens produces sharper images? And does the VR make a difference if im not going to go past 150 on the 70-200?

[EdinburghGary]

Ok i have witnessed a few best portrait lens threads, alot of people say nifty 50 (i have the 1.4) but is this because it is cheap? If money was no object what lens would you have for portraits?

If cost is no issue, you want a Canon and f1.2. Thats what I am doing, surely brand loyalty is pointless in this hobby?

Gary.

[Wail]

Well, the VR is best for wobbly hands .. for me, even at 70mm I wasn't able to hand-hold this lens steady enough to get a good image (please note that this is nothing to do with the lens, most people get crisp sharp images with this lens as it is one of the best ever to be made by Nikon .. I just have serious hand issues).

Frankly, if you can afford it, go with the 70-200 .. it is more than twice the price of the 85 f1.4 . but it gives you a huge range ..

An alternative, if you still want to get the 85 f1.4, would be to get the 80-200 AF-S (I think this is discontinued, but you can find them 2nd hand for a bargain .. about 1/2 the price of the new 70-200VR which replaces it) .. The 85 f1.4 is known as the Cream Machine .. and guess why? Magical bokeh on this lens.

[Wail]

If cost is no issue, you want a Canon and f1.2. Thats what I am doing, surely brand loyalty is pointless in this hobby?

Gary.


I am not so sure that the f1.2 is all that's hyped to be .. of course Canon fanboys will come out in mobs to skin me shortly :p

[EdinburghGary]

I am not so sure that the f1.2 is all that's hyped to be .. of course Canon fanboys will come out in mobs to skin me shortly :p

I have seen some fantastic stuff on FlickR with it, it really does look the business. Anyway, just saying "I have f1.2" is rock solid :D

Gary.

[Wail]

I am sure it is a fantastic lens .. I was just being envyous (sp) ... silly, I know :p .. but Lens Lust is aching me all over; and any mention of the 70-200VR hurts my ego big time

[Flash In The Pan]

If cost is no issue, you want a Canon and f1.2. Thats what I am doing, surely brand loyalty is pointless in this hobby?

Gary.

:shake: :lol:

[EdinburghGary]

I am sure it is a fantastic lens .. I was just being envyous (sp) ... silly, I know :p .. but Lens Lust is aching me all over; and any mention of the 70-200VR hurts my ego big time

Get full frame, then you wont want it until the replacement arrives ;)

Gary.

[EdinburghGary]

:shake: :lol:

He did ask :D

[Flash In The Pan]

Uch, just get a Hassy, the 31mp one is down to about £10k now....

[EdinburghGary]

Uch, just get a Hassy, the 31mp one is down to about £10k now....

I know! We were all discussing it in the chatroom a week or so ago, one day, in the not so distant future :D

Gary.

[Lensflare]

You have ALL missed the best lens for portraits that Nikon have ever built. They built a lens (two actually) specifically for portraiture.

The BEST lens for portraiture from Nikon is the 105 f2 DC lens. they also do a 135, but the 105 is the better of the two in my opinion.

With the Dc, you can still obtain out of focus backgrounds even if you shoot at f8 to keep the entire face in focus. There is a seperate control for the edge sharpness. Stunning - and not so pricey as to put it out of range of anyone on here. Not as expensive as the 70 - 200 VR. But, more portraite specific, which is what the original question was about. A PORTRAIT lens, not a general lens for portraiture!

[EdinburghGary]

You have ALL missed the best lens for portraits that Nikon have ever built. They built a lens (two actually) specifically for portraiture.

The BEST lens for portraiture from Nikon is the 105 f2 DC lens. they also do a 135, but the 105 is the better of the two in my opinion.

With the Dc, you can still obtain out of focus backgrounds even if you shoot at f8 to keep the entire face in focus. There is a seperate control for the edge sharpness. Stunning - and not so pricey as to put it out of range of anyone on here. Not as expensive as the 70 - 200 VR. But, more portraite specific, which is what the original question was about. A PORTRAIT lens, not a general lens for portraiture!

Sounds interesting, would be good to see some examples of this in action.

Gary.

[Flash In The Pan]

Sounds interesting, would be good to see some examples of this in action.

Gary.

Just get yer VISA card out :lol:

[lukewoodford]

You have ALL missed the best lens for portraits that Nikon have ever built. They built a lens (two actually) specifically for portraiture.

The BEST lens for portraiture from Nikon is the 105 f2 DC lens. they also do a 135, but the 105 is the better of the two in my opinion.

With the Dc, you can still obtain out of focus backgrounds even if you shoot at f8 to keep the entire face in focus. There is a seperate control for the edge sharpness. Stunning - and not so pricey as to put it out of range of anyone on here. Not as expensive as the 70 - 200 VR. But, more portraite specific, which is what the original question was about. A PORTRAIT lens, not a general lens for portraiture!


Yeah id love to see some examples of this lens in action. I have a D300 so would this lens be slightly long? The stuff that i do is on my website.

[Lensflare]

Go on the NIKON UK website and look for some - or request a brochure from the brochure hotline.

The DC bit is the trickery - it stands for Defocus Control. This is the bit that allows you to adjust the amount of out of focus background you have - clever, n'est pas!

[EdinburghGary]

Go on the NIKON UK website and look for some - or request a brochure from the brochure hotline.

The DC bit is the trickery - it stands for Defocus Control. This is the bit that allows you to adjust the amount of out of focus background you have - clever, n'est pas!

Ramp it up to the max? :D

[Blapto]

All this talk about angular field of view...

I don't think people are taking into account that on a crop body you're going to stand further from the subject if you use the same lens.

[theory]

All this talk about angular field of view...

I don't think people are taking into account that on a crop body you're going to stand further from the subject if you use the same lens.

I am :)

Erm... but I really do rate the 58mm F1.4 voigtlander, even over the 70-200 2.8mm for portraits. Sorry if I helped derail this thread a bit :geek:

[kalibre]

All this talk about angular field of view...

I don't think people are taking into account that on a crop body you're going to stand further from the subject if you use the same lens.

That's exactly what I meant, if you are standing further away then the 'distortion' caused by the more restrictive FoV is irrelvant. Obviously a 20mm regardless of the body isn't going to be flattering, however the difference in the compensated FoV between 50 and 80 is so small that it couldn't be flatly dismissed as always 'unflattering'.

M2C

[reddeathdrinker]

Shame it's a Nikon you need it for...(did I just say that!!)

Some say it's the Leica Noctilux-M 50 mm f/1.0.
http://img395.imageshack.us/img395/6840/leicaqm2.jpg

Others that it's the Canon 50mm f/0.95.
http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/8752/canon50mmf095ur7.jpg

But some say it's the Carl Zeiss 50mm f/0.7 ;)
http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/9872/tnmitchellgm5.jpg

Personally, I find the 100mm end of my 100-300mm f/4 is just about perfect :)

[AR101]

Yes I fully understand this 'crop factor' and the reach advantage etc

My problem is that I don't see how the FOV can change without changing the distance from the subject. If I wanted to take a shot of a silhouetted person against a huge sun I could use the cropped sensor to my advantage and get the FOV of a 750mm lens by using a 500mm bit of glass, although it wouldn't behave like a 750mm in other respects.

Actually your post alludes to say the same as my understanding... hmm. I think I'll step aside on this one now :)

http://www.flickr.com/photos/evnd/2678838187/
Even if the crop factor makes this lens into an 85mm, the distortion on the face will still be there. The further away you get with a longer lens, the more accurate the portrait, thus the reason 85mm or 105mm is commonly used on the Nikon platform for portraits.

[theory]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/evnd/2678838187/
Even if the crop factor makes this lens into an 85mm, the distortion on the face will still be there. The further away you get with a longer lens, the more accurate the portrait, thus the reason 85mm or 105mm is commonly used on the Nikon platform for portraits.

58mm with crop factor gets you about as far away as an 85mm lens would do on a 35mm sensor which makes for the same flattering perspective.

technically, as blapto pointed out you could use a 20mm lens providing you stand far enough away but you'd need to crop it to get a head and shoulder portrait. It would still flatter despite being a tiny crop and losing a fair bit of detail. :)

[Lensflare]

58mm with crop factor gets you about as far away as an 85mm lens would do on a 35mm sensor which makes for the same flattering perspective.

technically, as blapto pointed out you could use a 20mm lens providing you stand far enough away but you'd need to crop it to get a head and shoulder portrait. It would still flatter despite being a tiny crop and losing a fair bit of detail. :)

It wouldn't be ideal then!:bonk:

[NorthernNikon]

50mm is a really unflattering portrait length.


Strange, Jane Bown made a living and her reputation a neknowned portrait photographer using just this lens on a 135 SLR.

There is no such thing as the best portrait lens. One person might want tight facial crops, another two-thirds shots and third might want a wide angle envirnmental portrait. To say that 20mm or 50mm will always create an unflattering portrait is rubbish, you just wouldn't wnat to us one too close to the subject. Step back and they can be brilliant lengths for portraiture.

The porblem is that people of become hung up ona certain focal length (eg 85mm) being the ideal for portraiture. It's not, there is no ideal. In the studio perhaprs 85mm gives the best perspective for a standard headshot but who says anyone has to be standard?

I've seen brilliant portraiture taken at all focal lengths and with both primes and zooms.

[lukewoodford]

Strange, Jane Bown made a living and her reputation a neknowned portrait photographer using just this lens on a 135 SLR.

There is no such thing as the best portrait lens. One person might want tight facial crops, another two-thirds shots and third might want a wide angle envirnmental portrait. To say that 20mm or 50mm will always create an unflattering portrait is rubbish, you just wouldn't wnat to us one too close to the subject. Step back and they can be brilliant lengths for portraiture.

The porblem is that people of become hung up ona certain focal length (eg 85mm) being the ideal for portraiture. It's not, there is no ideal. In the studio perhaprs 85mm gives the best perspective for a standard headshot but who says anyone has to be standard?

I've seen brilliant portraiture taken at all focal lengths and with both primes and zooms.


Thanks for that, i understand what your saying. I even use my 18-200 VR for full length shots when i dont want the background blurred. I guess i just wanted an upgrade from my 50. I still think it will come in handy quite alot but as im getting people paying me know i want the best quality lens (within price reason) for the stuff i do. I think ill go for the 85 1.4 soon and the 70-200 in a year or so. I think!:thinking:

[Lensflare]

There is a difference between a portrait and a picture with a person in it.

What we like to call environmental portraiture, or editorial portraiture for that matter, is arrely portraiture at all. It is putting someone in a scene to give more idea of the surroundings - that is a picture with a person in it, we call it portraiture, but stricly speaking it isn't.

Portraiture, true portraiture, is when the picture is made up entirely of the sitter, whether that be full length or tighter. Once you start to include other information and details you start to stray away from portraiture. Nice pictures though they are, they are not portraits in the true sense of the word.

[NorthernNikon]

Thanks for that, i understand what your saying. I even use my 18-200 VR for full length shots when i dont want the background blurred. I guess i just wanted an upgrade from my 50. I still think it will come in handy quite alot but as im getting people paying me know i want the best quality lens (within price reason) for the stuff i do. I think ill go for the 85 1.4 soon and the 70-200 in a year or so. I think!:thinking:

In that case I would wholeheartedly recommend the Sigma 50-150mm f:2.8. Its focal length is ideal for portriature and it's image quality is good enough for pro work. Its not that expensive and if you find that you're using one focal length far more than any other you can then get the relevent prime at a later date or if notm upgrade the Sigma to a 70/80-200mm f:2.8.

[lukewoodford]

There is a difference between a portrait and a picture with a person in it.

What we like to call environmental portraiture, or editorial portraiture for that matter, is arrely portraiture at all. It is putting someone in a scene to give more idea of the surroundings - that is a picture with a person in it, we call it portraiture, but stricly speaking it isn't.

Portraiture, true portraiture, is when the picture is made up entirely of the sitter, whether that be full length or tighter. Once you start to include other information and details you start to stray away from portraiture. Nice pictures though they are, they are not portraits in the true sense of the word.

Im glad i know, i havnt been to college or anything to learn so i dont know this kind of thing. :)

[lukewoodford]

In that case I would wholeheartedly recommend the Sigma 50-150mm f:2.8. Its focal length is ideal for portriature and it's image quality is good enough for pro work. Its not that expensive and if you find that you're using one focal length far more than any other you can then get the relevent prime at a later date or if notm upgrade the Sigma to a 70/80-200mm f:2.8.

Im just about getting my head round the Nikon range, let alone the other brands. Id like to know other peoples oppinions on this lens. The prices is appealing however i dont mind spending the extra money for the nikon 85 1.4 if the quality is better. I have no problem using Sigma/Tamron lenses if they are on par with nikon. Thanks alot for all the help guys and gurls!

[NorthernNikon]

There is a difference between a portrait and a picture with a person in it.

True, but the only difference is that in a portrait the person/s is/are the subject.

What we like to call environmental portraiture, or editorial portraiture for that matter, is arrely portraiture at all. It is putting someone in a scene to give more idea of the surroundings - that is a picture with a person in it, we call it portraiture, but stricly speaking it isn't.

I have to say that's aboslute rubbish. Of course environmental portaiture is portraiture, if it wasn't it wouldn't be called environmental portraiture. It's a portrait about a person and the environment tells us more about the person. I don't think any knowledable photograher would call putting a figure into a scene to add scale a portrait because it's obvisou that the figure isn't the subject.

Portraiture, true portraiture, is when the picture is made up entirely of the sitter, whether that be full length or tighter. Once you start to include other information and details you start to stray away from portraiture. Nice pictures though they are, they are not portraits in the true sense of the word.

Again, that's rubbish. There is no such thing as 'true portraiture' other than the concept of a photograph where the subject is either a human or an animal. Tyring to elavate one form of portraiture over another by defining one type as 'true' is nothing but misconstrued elitism.

[NorthernNikon]

Im just about getting my head round the Nikon range, let alone the other brands. Id like to know other peoples oppinions on this lens. The prices is appealing however i dont mind spending the extra money for the nikon 85 1.4 if the quality is better. I have no problem using Sigma/Tamron lenses if they are on par with nikon. Thanks alot for all the help guys and gurls!

What do you want the extra quality for? How do you define quality? Is it image quality? Does the quality of image only refer to the sharpness at a given focal distance? First rule of photography, get the shot. Once you've got the shot then you worry about image quality. 50-150mm will give you far more flexibility and variety of shot than a 85mm prime.

IMVHO The Sigma will give you all the image quality 90% of the members here will need and of that other 10% I would say 90% of them were just obsessed pixel peepers.

[rdh]

Im just about getting my head round the Nikon range, let alone the other brands. Id like to know other peoples oppinions on this lens. The prices is appealing however i dont mind spending the extra money for the nikon 85 1.4 if the quality is better. I have no problem using Sigma/Tamron lenses if they are on par with nikon. Thanks alot for all the help guys and gurls!

Gets very good reviews on www.fredmiranda.com. Very tempting, actually!

[lukewoodford]

What do you want the extra quality for? How do you define quality? Is it image quality? Does the quality of image only refer to the sharpness at a given focal distance? First rule of photography, get the shot. Once you've got the shot then you worry about image quality. 50-150mm will give you far more flexibility and variety of shot than a 85mm prime.

IMVHO The Sigma will give you all the image quality 90% of the members here will need and of that other 10% I would say 90% of them were just obsessed pixel peepers.

Ive only been doing this 3 months so bare with me, I mean image quality, sharpness and bokeh. For example if i took the exact same shot on the sigma-70-200 or 50-150 and the nikon 70-200 which would produce the better image? Are the Sigma and Tamron lenses cheaper because they arent called canon or Nikon and they have to try and compete with less profit margin or are are the quality generally not as good?

[theory]

I have to say I think there is a difference in quality, and not just sharpness but having used some zeiss and voigtlander lenses I see a far greater amount of 'character' (I know thats subjective, but I reckon most would agree) and again with other primes (generally) this is true also... You can take a picture of some really mundane things and yet some lenses make it look special somehow.

I do like the 70-200mm loads and would like to have another, but I do find it gets over-rated sometimes. It is brilliant but I doubt it's as good for people shots as the 85mm 1.4 or the zeiss/voigtlander alternatives out there...

Granted, I've never used a lot of lenses and I know there are some really special zooms out there (28-70mm canon L glass really took me by surprise) but I do think the use of primes should be promoted, because they're ace! :)

Check out Zeiss and Voigltander glass shots on flickr and see what I mean... also search for the cream machine. Wonderful stuff.

[NorthernNikon]

Ive only been doing this 3 months so bare with me, I mean image quality, sharpness and bokeh. For example if i took the exact same shot on the sigma-70-200 or 50-150 and the nikon 70-200 which would produce the better image? Are the Sigma and Tamron lenses cheaper because they arent called canon or Nikon and they have to try and compete with less profit margin or are are the quality generally not as good?


But you've got a case of diminishing returns. Once you've reached an acceptable standard which all these lenses will give you, it's not the sharpness and bokeh people will notice it's the quality of the photographer. Think of all the famous photographs you can bring to mind. How many of them are memorable because of the sharpness and bokeh?

There are too many gear freaks on the web and not enough photographers IMVHO.

[lukewoodford]

But you've got a case of diminishing returns. Once you've reached an acceptable standard which all these lenses will give you, it's not the sharpness and bokeh people will notice it's the quality of the photographer. Think of all the famous photographs you can bring to mind. How many of them are memorable because of the sharpness and bokeh?

There are too many gear freaks on the web and not enough photographers IMVHO.

I understand but trust me i am not a gear freak, i have been self employed for the last four years and had enought money in the bank to buy 7 D3's however i bought just a D300, camera bag and 18-200mmVR to start. All i have bought since then is the SB-800 and the 50mm 1.4. I think its a good lens but think most people reccomend it based on price whereas i have money for a better quality lens for portraits. I am happy with the quality and versitility the 18-200mm is giving me but want an upgrade from the 50mm 1.4 :)

[NorthernNikon]

I am happy with the quality and versitility the 18-200mm is giving me but want an upgrade from the 50mm 1.4 :)

That doesn't make sense though. There is no upgrade to the 50mm f:1.4 unless you look at the Sigma 50 HSM f:1.4 or one of the other exotic third party manufacturers. But then you say you're happy with the quality of the 18-200 which scrafices image quality for the versitility of the zoom range?

Being a gear freak isn't about spending money, there are plenty poor ones around. It's about worrying about technical factors which will have very little influence on your photography.

[lukewoodford]

That doesn't make sense though. There is no upgrade to the 50mm f:1.4 unless you look at the Sigma 50 HSM f:1.4 or one of the other exotic third party manufacturers. But then you say you're happy with the quality of the 18-200 which scrafices image quality for the versitility of the zoom range?

Being a gear freak isn't about spending money, there are plenty poor ones around. It's about worrying about technical factors which will have very little influence on your photography.

Ok, the shoot i did with Cayley who is on the main page of my website wearing black i was very happy with as i wanted everything in focus and it worked well. I use the 50 when i want a blurred background but it hasnt been giving me the sharpness of the subject i want (some of the time). Maybe this is down to me then but as i have stated and been told there are better lenses than the 50mm 1.4.

[kalibre]

Ok, the shoot i did with Cayley who is on the main page of my website wearing black i was very happy with as i wanted everything in focus and it worked well. I use the 50 when i want a blurred background but it hasnt been giving me the sharpness of the subject i want (some of the time). Maybe this is down to me then but as i have stated and been told there are better lenses than the 50mm 1.4.

Hi Luke,

Don't worry about people arguing over semantics what you meant by the word 'upgrade', if you are new to the game then you can't always express what you want 'correctly' enough for some people.

From what I understand you seem to be happy with the focal length of the 50mm on your D300. The issue or limitation that you've hit as you've just explained is some softness creeping in some of the time. The Nikon 1.4 (and 1.8s) a known to be a tad soft wide-open. So the alternatives are either stop it down a bit (maybe 2.8-3.5) whilst still retaining a fairly shallow DoF, or purchase a lens that is sharper at larger apertures. To the best of my (limited) knowledge the new Sigma does seem to promise that, but at a higher cost.

Close?

[EdinburghGary]

search for the cream machine.


Cheers mate, I just searched for the cream machine in Google Images, to see some sample shots, and lets just say - I won't be having my Lunch, especcially the yogurt :puke:

Gary.

[NorthernNikon]

Ok, the shoot i did with Cayley who is on the main page of my website wearing black i was very happy with as i wanted everything in focus and it worked well. I use the 50 when i want a blurred background but it hasnt been giving me the sharpness of the subject i want (some of the time).

If I'm reading this right it's not an issue with the lens per se, it's the limitation of juggling focal length, depth of field and distance from subject of both the camera and the background. From the sound of it, what you wanted to achieve with the Cayley shot would be pretty tricky to get with the right focal length and aperture but the key thing is that that focal length and aperture would only be right for a photo with the same ration of factors. Move to a different location and the distances change and therefore the requirements of the lens change too. One right lens for one situation won't necessarily be the right one for another, or the next one, or the one after that.

Maybe this is down to me then but as i have stated and been told there are better lenses than the 50mm 1.4.

Okay, ask yourself some questions.

Why do you want this uber-sharpness?
What do people mean by 'better'?
Are these people in a position to talk from good experience or are they just repeating web forum myths?

The Nikkor 50mm f:1.4 is a brilliant portait lens.
Professional portrait photographers come in many different shapes and sizes and they use all kinds of different kit. The one thing they have in common is the ability to produce portraits which sell. I would recommend a fast (f:2.8) zoom for the two reasons I've stated previously 1) It's flexible 2) You get a variety of shots. Unless you have a very particular style and want to work with only a set focal length and certain parameters flexibility and variety are key.

I got a book on the business of photography as a christmas present last year. The only thing it taught me was how not to be a portrait photographer. The author, an american, was shooting medium format film in a studio. He used the same lighting set up time and time again, even to the extent of advocating having legnths of string so that you can measure the distance of the lights from the subject's nose. His photos are all, IMVHO, awful. Photography has moved on. Portraits are rarely static. They're taken in all kinds of locations, from all kinds of angles. These are the shots that sell, not just to magazines but in the lifestyle market too. If all your shots are taken at 85mm f:2.8 how many different shots will the buyer want? One? Maybe two if you're luck? What if they're taken at a variety of focal lengths, close up, environmental, full length. Now a number to choose from they're going to want more. This is what you want whether you selling them or not. Sure you can walk around with a prime, but all that walking around takes time, distracts the subject, you miss looks, reactions you could get by zooming in quickly.

Finally, the most important thing about portraiture is the ability of the photographer to capture something special about the subject and to translate that into the photograph. The only way that kit affects this is in a detrimental way, if the kit is intrusive say or awkward for the photographer to use.

[theory]

Cheers mate, I just searched for the cream machine in Google Images, to see some sample shots, and lets just say - I won't be having my Lunch, especcially the yogurt :puke:

Gary.

hahaha!!! :bonk: I meant on flicker but that gave me a good laugh :thumbs: I'm kinda tempted to do the same search (only I know better!!!)

[lukewoodford]

Hi Luke,

Don't worry about people arguing over semantics what you meant by the word 'upgrade', if you are new to the game then you can't always express what you want 'correctly' enough for some people.

From what I understand you seem to be happy with the focal length of the 50mm on your D300. The issue or limitation that you've hit as you've just explained is some softness creeping in some of the time. The Nikon 1.4 (and 1.8s) a known to be a tad soft wide-open. So the alternatives are either stop it down a bit (maybe 2.8-3.5) whilst still retaining a fairly shallow DoF, or purchase a lens that is sharper at larger apertures. To the best of my (limited) knowledge the new Sigma does seem to promise that, but at a higher cost.

Close?

Thank you thanks exactly what i mean:)! Do you mean the sigma 50-150 or 50mm prime? Also when shooting outdoors in light i sometimes get a blue line round part of the subject. Is this due to lens flare?

[kalibre]

Thank you thanks exactly what i mean:)! Do you mean the sigma 50-150 or 50mm prime? Also when shooting outdoors in light i sometimes get a blue line round part of the subject. Is this due to lens flare?

The new 50mm 1.4 EX HSM is the one I meant (£330). The blue you describe could be flare or just CA, both of which the Sigma is meant to tackle very well due to unique element arrangment and 'special' combination of coatings.

[lukewoodford]

If I'm reading this right it's not an issue with the lens per se, it's the limitation of juggling focal length, depth of field and distance from subject of both the camera and the background. From the sound of it, what you wanted to achieve with the Cayley shot would be pretty tricky to get with the right focal length and aperture but the key thing is that that focal length and aperture would only be right for a photo with the same ration of factors. Move to a different location and the distances change and therefore the requirements of the lens change too. One right lens for one situation won't necessarily be the right one for another, or the next one, or the one after that.



Okay, ask yourself some questions.

Why do you want this uber-sharpness?
What do people mean by 'better'?
Are these people in a position to talk from good experience or are they just repeating web forum myths?

The Nikkor 50mm f:1.4 is a brilliant portait lens.
Professional portrait photographers come in many different shapes and sizes and they use all kinds of different kit. The one thing they have in common is the ability to produce portraits which sell. I would recommend a fast (f:2.8) zoom for the two reasons I've stated previously 1) It's flexible 2) You get a variety of shots. Unless you have a very particular style and want to work with only a set focal length and certain parameters flexibility and variety are key.

I got a book on the business of photography as a christmas present last year. The only thing it taught me was how not to be a portrait photographer. The author, an american, was shooting medium format film in a studio. He used the same lighting set up time and time again, even to the extent of advocating having legnths of string so that you can measure the distance of the lights from the subject's nose. His photos are all, IMVHO, awful. Photography has moved on. Portraits are rarely static. They're taken in all kinds of locations, from all kinds of angles. These are the shots that sell, not just to magazines but in the lifestyle market too. If all your shots are taken at 85mm f:2.8 how many different shots will the buyer want? One? Maybe two if you're luck? What if they're taken at a variety of focal lengths, close up, environmental, full length. Now a number to choose from they're going to want more. This is what you want whether you selling them or not. Sure you can walk around with a prime, but all that walking around takes time, distracts the subject, you miss looks, reactions you could get by zooming in quickly.

Finally, the most important thing about portraiture is the ability of the photographer to capture something special about the subject and to translate that into the photograph. The only way that kit affects this is in a detrimental way, if the kit is intrusive say or awkward for the photographer to use.


On your first point thats not exactly what i meant, im probably not explaining very well. I was very happy with those shots of Cayley with the 18-200mm lens. Its when using the 50mm on different shoots it sometimes doesnt produce the quality i would like. If i could get nice blurred backgrounds with the 18-200mmVR then i would stick with that but i cant.

And on your second point check out my website. If i was to get an 85mm lens it does not mean all the shots will be taken from the same distance. You can see from my website i mostly shoot outdoors from different angles, distances and i try to be very creative. I am not agaist having a zoom but it does not mean by getting the 85mm 1.4 i cannot use my legs! :)

[lukewoodford]

The new 50mm 1.4 EX HSM is the one I meant (£330). The blue you describe could be flare or just CA, both of which the Sigma is meant to tackle very well due to unique element arrangment and 'special' combination of coatings.

ok great, i must say i dont have a lens hood for that lens. What is CA by the way? thank you for the help :)

[icecavern]

IMHO the look of the images out of the 85/1.4 is why so many people rave about it. I use a D3 with 24-70/2.8 and a D700 with 85/1.4 at weddings. Without looking at file names I can instantly tell which were taken with the 85mm even when looking at the small previews in aperture. It has that... something... for me. The images definitely have nicer colours straight out of the camera, and the bokeh is just so nice and smooth. I think all of my favourite wedding shots have been with the 85.

I think the 105DC and the 85/1.4 are Nikons best lenses for standard head shot style portraits due to focal length and the way they render the image.

Pete

[icecavern]

ok great, i must say i dont have a lens hood for that lens. What is CA by the way? thank you for the help :)

CA wont improve with a lens hood. I never shoot without a hood on the lens though to try and stop any lens flare.

[NorthernNikon]

On your first point thats not exactly what i meant, im probably not explaining very well. I was very happy with those shots of Cayley with the 18-200mm lens. Its when using the 50mm on different shoots it sometimes doesnt produce the quality i would like. If i could get nice blurred backgrounds with the 18-200mmVR then i would stick with that but i cant.

The you've lost me completely. Unless you've a faulty 50mm there's no way the 18-200 will match it for image shaprness or quality.

[rdh]

The you've lost me completely. Unless you've a faulty 50mm there's no way the 18-200 will match it for image shaprness or quality.

I think he means he'd like the shallow DOF of the nifty on his zoom lens. Hence he'd not need the fifty.

Edit: Ah, I see your perspective. My nifty is tack sharp, I must say.

[lukewoodford]

CA wont improve with a lens hood. I never shoot without a hood on the lens though to try and stop any lens flare.

I just wondered what CA stands for?

[icecavern]

I just wondered what CA stands for?

Google is your friend

http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/Chromatic+Aberration+(lens+error)

[lukewoodford]

I think he means he'd like the shallow DOF of the nifty on his zoom lens. Hence he'd not need the fifty.

Edit: Ah, I see your perspective. My nifty is tack sharp, I must say.

Yes thats what i mean. I am perfectly happy with that lens, if id known at the time portraits were going to be my focus i wouldnt have bought it but i do use it. Examples are on my site, the ones with cayley wearing black against the white background with pillars. And also the shot which is the background for my clients section. I do get good shots out of the 50 1.4 but i feel the quality (mainly sharpness of the subject) could be better with a more expensive lens? I understand money doesnt necessarily mean its better but this is why i asked the origional question. "If money was no object?" Because alot of people reccomend the 50mm because of the price, whereas if theres better options i can afford it. I dont find investing in better quality if it means my images are going to be better quality. And i dont mean its going to improve my photography as im happy with the way im progressing for only been doing it 3 months.

[lukewoodford]

:)Google is your friend

http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/Chromatic+Aberration+(lens+error)

Thanks i didnt think anything would come up if i typed that in google. Porbably jusy the state of California

[NorthernNikon]

I do get good shots out of the 50 1.4 but i feel the quality (mainly sharpness of the subject) could be better with a more expensive lens?


Have you asked yourself the questions I suggested in one of my previous posts? Why do you want this uber-sharpness? For generations photogrpahers have been do various things to soften portraits up and even if such techniques are hackneyed nowadays no-one wants to see every line and wrinkle. I may be wrong but it seems to be that you've just been swayed by internet gear freak BS.

[theory]

I think you need to check out the Carl Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 ZF Planar T* (http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/256-zeiss-planar-zf-t-85mm-f14-review--test-report) to really fire up that lens lust if you want glass with that special 'something'. :)

[NorthernNikon]

I think you need to check out the Carl Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 ZF Planar T* (http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/256-zeiss-planar-zf-t-85mm-f14-review--test-report) to really fire up that lens lust if you want glass with that special 'something'. :)

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

[lukewoodford]

Have you asked yourself the questions I suggested in one of my previous posts? Why do you want this uber-sharpness? For generations photogrpahers have been do various things to soften portraits up and even if such techniques are hackneyed nowadays no-one wants to see every line and wrinkle. I may be wrong but it seems to be that you've just been swayed by internet gear freak BS.

First of all id just like to say i have enjoyed this debate/conversation.

I dont want the sharpest pictures in the world, i just want slightly better than what i have been getting with it (on some occasions). I want to give the client the best quality image:)

[theory]

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

hahaha... I do agree with you btw as I think a 50mm 1.4 is fine, but he wants a lens to lust after and the nikon 85mm 1.5 ain't (quite) as lust worthy imo :) I have a zeiss and a voigtlander lens, they've both been the best learning aids for photography of all my lenses so far (aside from reading) and they *do* take nicer shots. They are sharper and have nicer bokeh, but they have more than that.

Some people like taking pictures don't forget and don't need to call themselves amazing photographers to enjoy this hobby.

You could have used the abbreviation btw - it would have saved me hitting wikipedia! :)

[NorthernNikon]

I want to give the client the best quality image:)

Okay let's break this down then. Why? Is this what the clients are saying? Do they tell you that they're sick of chromatic aberrations? Have you got a whole inbox of complaints about pincushion distortion? Have you lost a sale because the depth of field was too deep and you got her left ear in focus?

Clients don't buy photos for technical reasons they buy them for emotional ones. Even commercial buyers they just want the emotional repsonse to come from a third party.

[Flash In The Pan]

But you've got a case of diminishing returns. Once you've reached an acceptable standard which all these lenses will give you, it's not the sharpness and bokeh people will notice it's the quality of the photographer.

Couldn't agree more. I've got the 85mm f/1.8 and it produces lovely, sharp images. Now the f/1.4 I'm sure, would help me get a slightly better image, but I'm also sure that a more technically accomplished (ie better) 'tog could produce superior images from the kit I already have (or indeed lesser kit) that I ever could.

For the price of an 85 1.4 you could kit yourself out with a decent selection of "lesser" lenses and then once you discover what it is you really need (against want) then you can trade up, safe in the knowledge that you aren't making an expensive mistake..

[lukewoodford]

Okay let's break this down then. Why? Is this what the clients are saying? Do they tell you that they're sick of chromatic aberrations? Have you got a whole inbox of complaints about pincushion distortion? Have you lost a sale because the depth of field was too deep and you got her left ear in focus?

Clients don't buy photos for technical reasons they buy them for emotional ones. Even commercial buyers they just want the emotional repsonse to come from a third party.

I have had no complaints but i dont agree with you at all thats its just emotional. Of course the quality of the actual image matters. Well its does to me anyway. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

[lukewoodford]

Couldn't agree more. I've got the 85mm f/1.8 and it produces lovely, sharp images. Now the f/1.4 I'm sure, would help me get a slightly better image, but I'm also sure that a more technically accomplished (ie better) 'tog could produce superior images from the kit I already have (or indeed lesser kit) that I ever could.

For the price of an 85 1.4 you could kit yourself out with a decent selection of "lesser" lenses and then once you discover what it is you really need (against want) then you can trade up, safe in the knowledge that you aren't making an expensive mistake..

I dont care if the best lens for what i need cost £50. The reason i put "Moeny no object" in the title is because i didnt want to be reccomended the a lens that is great value for money. I have money to invest so dont mind paying more for a better lens.

[NorthernNikon]

I have had no complaints but i dont agree with you at all thats its just emotional. Of course the quality of the actual image matters. Well its does to me anyway. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

That's fine, but if you're looking to sell photos then you have to understand why people buy photos. No one has ever bought a photo because it was sharp.

[Flash In The Pan]

A technically flawed image that grabs the viewer will always sell better than a technically perfect but totally bland, uninteresting one.

[lukewoodford]

That's fine, but if you're looking to sell photos then you have to understand why people buy photos. No one has ever bought a photo because it was sharp.

What i said was- "I dont agree with you at all thats its JUST emotional." I know no one is going to buy an image just because its sharp I believe its a mixture of the two.

[lukewoodford]

A technically flawed image that grabs the viewer will always sell better than a technically perfect but totally bland, uninteresting one.

Again, I agree, I dont understand why you have said that this statement? I want technically perfect, interesting images. Thats what im aiming for. Im not stupid and of course understand that a totally bland, unintersting image wont sell. Am I coming across as dumb? I am still learning alot about photography but find that statement insulting. It has nothing to do with my previous comment. From me saying "I dont care if the best lens for what i need cost £50. The reason i put "Moeny no object" in the title is because i didnt want to be reccomended the a lens that is great value for money. I have money to invest so dont mind paying more for a better lens." you have put A technically flawed image that grabs the viewer will always sell better than a technically perfect but totally bland, uninteresting one. ?

[theory]

Dude, you should check out photozone.de and fredmiranda.com for their reviews and opinions, then after that go use flickr.com and pbase.com to see examples from said lenses.

[lukewoodford]

Dude, you should check out photozone.de and fredmiranda.com for their reviews and opinions, then after that go use flickr.com and pbase.com to see examples from said lenses.

Thank you :)

[Flash In The Pan]

Again, I agree, I dont understand why you have said that this statement? I want technically perfect, interesting images. Thats what im aiming for. Im not stupid and of course understand that a totally bland, unintersting image wont sell. Am I comcing across as dumb? I am still learning alot about photography but find that statement insulting.

It wasn't meant as insulting, sorry if it came across that way. What both NN and I meant was that buying the absolute top equipment isn't always necessarily. If you are coming from a consumer lens like the 18-200 VR then pretty much any "pro" lens is going to produce as near technically perfect images as you could wish for.

If you are equating the highest price with highest quality and money is no object then I'm sure there are people here who could point you in the direction of some uber-expensive 3rd party optics...

[lukewoodford]

It wasn't meant as insulting, sorry if it came across that way. What both NN and I meant was that buying the absolute top equipment isn't always necessarily. If you are coming from a consumer lens like the 18-200 VR then pretty much any "pro" lens is going to produce as near technically perfect images as you could wish for.

If you are equating the highest price with highest quality and money is no object then I'm sure there are people here who could point you in the direction of some uber-expensive 3rd party optics...

No worries mate but no no no no NO! :) I put "I dont mind if the lens is £50 if its the best for the job" because im not looking to go out and spend stupid money that is not needed. However I dont mind spending money if its worth it. Im careful with my money and will stay that way. The ONLY reason I put "MONEY NO OBJECT" in the thread title is because I didnt want to be reccomended a lens thats "just great value for money" when I have money I can spend for better quality. :)

[NorthernNikon]

What i said was- "I dont agree with you at all thats its JUST emotional." I know no one is going to buy an image just because its sharp I believe its a mixture of the two.

Well you're wrong. Non-photographers couldn't give a stuff about technically correct photos, only emotion sells, the emotion they get when they look at the picture. Whether you personally want 'technically correct' shot is irrelevant to the buyer. It's also a nonesense as there is no such thing as technical perfection in any form of art.

[icecavern]

Well you're wrong. Non-photographers couldn't give a stuff about technically correct photos, only emotion sells, the emotion they get when they look at the picture. Whether you personally want 'technically correct' shot is irrelevant to the buyer. It's also a nonesense as there is no such thing as technical perfection in any form of art.

Indeed this is 100000000000000% right. Take my own wedding photos for instance. Personally I'm not happy with them. I hat most of the photos in the album. BUT I'm looking at them from a photographers perspective. My wife, and everyone that has seen the photos, absolutely loves the images.

I've also been asked for prints of an image I would have consigned to the waste bin normally ( it wasn't sharp, camera shake and the focus was off. ) but the client REALLY loved the shot for emotional reasons and wanted it anyway.

Pete

[lukewoodford]

Well you're wrong. Non-photographers couldn't give a stuff about technically correct photos, only emotion sells, the emotion they get when they look at the picture. Whether you personally want 'technically correct' shot is irrelevant to the buyer. It's also a nonesense as there is no such thing as technical perfection in any form of art.

There may not be perfection but i was replying to flashes statement to make a point. And i dissagree, If you but i shot of you kinds and want it hanging up on your living room wall, you want the quality to be good.Same as wedding photos, I believe i captured some good emotional moments in my first try, but what good are they if they are poor quality? Look at it this way. You do a wedding with a £70 compact flash. You have the exact same photos taken with a D300. Which ones are you going to buy and reccomend the tog to your friends?

[lukewoodford]

Indeed this is 100000000000000% right. Take my own wedding photos for instance. Personally I'm not happy with them. I hat most of the photos in the album. BUT I'm looking at them from a photographers perspective. My wife, and everyone that has seen the photos, absolutely loves the images.

I've also been asked for prints of an image I would have consigned to the waste bin normally ( it wasn't sharp, camera shake and the focus was off. ) but the client REALLY loved the shot for emotional reasons and wanted it anyway.

Pete

Im clearly not being understood. I NEVER once said in this thread that the capture of the subject wasnt important, if not more important than the quality of the image. What I am saying is that quality ALSO matters.

[theory]

Hmmm, I don't think thats true. Of course its a mixture of the two. You could have a totally out of focus shot that is good, but only if it looks like it was intended that way... If I wanted a shot of, say a kingfisher perched on a stump, then I'd want it to be sharp particularly if it were for the sake of reference.

Gotta say Ice Cavern is deffo right too, but then he probably wouldn't get hired for other stuff on the basis of his soft (but meaningful) shots at that wedding he used in his example.

I think you have the argument pretty well covered though, tbh.

[NorthernNikon]

Look at it this way. You do a wedding with a £70 compact flash. You have the exact same photos taken with a D300. Which ones are you going to buy and reccomend the tog to your friends?

Let me rephrase your question, if I was offered the alternative of Ian Rankin or David Bailey with a £70 compact or you with the 'best' gear money could buy to shoot my wedding who do you think would get the gig?

[theory]

Let me rephrase your question, if I was offered the alternative of Ian Rankin or David Bailey with a £70 compact or you with the 'best' gear money could buy to shoot my wedding who do you think would get the gig?

If you could get a photographer with an unknown level of skill what equipment would you want him to use? a compact or a good SLR with a decent bit of glass?

Lets hold hands while we go round in circles, wheee! :lol:

[icecavern]

Gotta say Ice Cavern is deffo right too, but then he probably wouldn't get hired for other stuff on the basis of his soft (but meaningful) shots at that wedding he used in his example.

And you'd be wrong... Because I did get hired again, by a friend of theirs and also by the couple themselves again.

[NorthernNikon]

If you could get a photographer with an unknown level of skill what equipment would you want him to use? a compact or a good SLR with a decent bit of glass?

Lets hold hands while we go round in circles, wheee! :lol:

I wouldn't get a photographer with an unknown level of skill as the photographer is the most important part of the equation.

Turning that one around, how many (non gear freakish) wedding couples ask their tog "What gear do you shoot with?" Answer? The square root of knack all.

[lukewoodford]

Let me rephrase your question, if I was offered the alternative of Ian Rankin or David Bailey with a £70 compact or you with the 'best' gear money could buy to shoot my wedding who do you think would get the gig?

Thats not rephrasing the question that is a different question. Anyway Ian or David would get it as they are extremly famous. Thats still a totally different question though.

[lukewoodford]

Lets leave this debate because its not getting us anywhere. I stick with my point that quality and sharpness ALSO matters.

[NorthernNikon]

Thats not rephrasing the question that is a different question. Anyway Ian or David would get it as they are extremly famous. Thats still a totally different question though.

Oh FFS, I give up. You haven't got a scooby. :bang::bang::bang:

[theory]

And you'd be wrong... Because I did get hired again, by a friend of theirs and also by the couple themselves again.

Fair enough and well done btw, but I can't imagine it was totally based on those soft shots and probably more to do with your other shots, how natural and good you are with people and your price etc... I'm sure you know what I mean anyway, I just thought I'd point out that saying (in absolute terms) its *only emotion* that sells isn't true because there are always exceptions to every rule.

BTW I only used the ridiculous hypothetical question to demonstrate that this wasn't helping when all the poor guy wants is a bit of helpful advice.

[Monkey]

You do a wedding with a £70 compact flash. You have the exact same photos taken with a D300. Which ones are you going to buy and reccomend the tog to your friends?

That depends more on who took the photo!!!

I use a Nikon D300, and a close friend of mine has a D40. Some of his D40 pics are quite nice, i once let him have a go of mine and everything he took was utter *****!

The customer doesnt give two hoots what you shot the image with, ive had people say they arnt keen on images from my D300. But ive had others totally wowed by a shot ive grabbed with the sony cybershot in a split second.

No one ( other than photographers ) will see the difference between a shot on the 18-200 at f4.5 and a shot on the 85mm at f1.8.

The customer isnt going to say, "erm excuse me but can we have a discount on this picture here because i really like it but theres a little chromatic abberation, a touch of distortion and i dont like the bokeh"

Get real fella

[theory]

No one ( other than photographers ) will see the difference between a shot on the 18-200 at f4.5 and a shot on the 85mm at f1.8.

I get people at work all the time saying things like "how comes your pictures on facebook look so much better than mine?" usually commenting on DOF although not understanding how to communicate 'bokeh' very well. They have no idea I'm using an SLR or fast glass, they just think I've done some amazing post processing... even normal people do notice this stuff.

What Northern Nikon has been saying has mostly been 99.99% true, especially that the person behind the camera is more important than the gear itself but if the gear didn't matter, then it wouldn't exist.

No need to be so harsh. You should check his website out, I just did and it's very good. I'm not surprised he wants to upgrade from his 18-200 at all, it looks (to my eyes) like he's got a lot out of it and would bennefit from better glass easily.

[lukewoodford]

That depends more on who took the photo!!!

I use a Nikon D300, and a close friend of mine has a D40. Some of his D40 pics are quite nice, i once let him have a go of mine and everything he took was utter *****!

The customer doesnt give two hoots what you shot the image with, ive had people say they arnt keen on images from my D300. But ive had others totally wowed by a shot ive grabbed with the sony cybershot in a split second.

No one ( other than photographers ) will see the difference between a shot on the 18-200 at f4.5 and a shot on the 85mm at f1.8.

The customer isnt going to say, "erm excuse me but can we have a discount on this picture here because i really like it but theres a little chromatic abberation, a touch of distortion and i dont like the bokeh"

Get real fella

I totally agree with you 100%, the point i was tryint soooo hard to make is that the quality of the image ALSO matters. Thats all.

[lukewoodford]

I get people at work all the time saying things like "how comes your pictures on facebook look so much better than mine?" usually commenting on DOF although not understanding how to communicate 'bokeh' very well. They have no idea I'm using an SLR or fast glass, they just think I've done some amazing post processing... even normal people do notice this stuff.

What Northern Nikon has been saying has mostly been 99.99% true, especially that the person behind the camera is more important than the gear itself but if the gear didn't matter, then it wouldn't exist.

No need to be so harsh. You should check his website out, I just did and it's very good. I'm not surprised he wants to upgrade from his 18-200 at all, it looks (to my eyes) like he's got a lot out of it and would bennefit from better glass easily.
I have the 50mm 1.4 as well as previously stated :)

[Monkey]

No need to be so harsh.

Im not intending to be harsh, im merely being realistic.

The other point to note is while fast lenses are good at minimising DOF, lenses are always sharpest stopped down a little, On his 50mm f/1.4, if he shot at f/4 he would get a nice DOF and about as sharp as sharp gets.

[theory]

Im not intending to be harsh, im merely being realistic.

The other point to note is while fast lenses are good at minimising DOF, lenses are always sharpest stopped down a little, On his 50mm f/1.4, if he shot at f/4 he would get a nice DOF and about as sharp as sharp gets.

Yeah my 58mm 1.4 sweet spot is F4 - the bokeh is nicer there too imo.

[lukewoodford]

Im not intending to be harsh, im merely being realistic.

The other point to note is while fast lenses are good at minimising DOF, lenses are always sharpest stopped down a little, On his 50mm f/1.4, if he shot at f/4 he would get a nice DOF and about as sharp as sharp gets.

Is there anything that better about the 85mm 1.4 than the 50mm 1.4? I heard it has better bokeh but im not an equipment junkie and its a big price difference.
Edit: I do notice my 50mm sometimes has a problem focusing, but that may just be me.

[Flash In The Pan]

here's a suggestion then, buy a 1.8 85mm, if you like the iq then you've won a watch (and saved enough to buy one too :lol:), if you don't then flog it and buy the 1.4 version. Or if you feel a sudden urge to spend money do it the other way round ;)

[Monkey]

Yeah my 58mm 1.4 sweet spot is F4 - the bokeh is nicer there too imo.

My 50mm f/1.8 at f/4 is spot on too.

But i still use my 18-70 most of the time, which in comparison is soft, but no normal person can tell them apart, unless i do a 100% crop.

[Monkey]

Is there anything that better about the 85mm 1.4 than the 50mm 1.4? I heard it has better bokeh but im not an equipment junkie and its a big price difference.
Edit: I do notice my 50mm sometimes has a problem focusing, but that may just be me.

How do you mean a problem focusing, do you mean you get alot of OOF shots?

[theory]

My 50mm f/1.8 at f/4 is spot on too.

But i still use my 18-70 most of the time, which in comparison is soft, but no normal person can tell them apart, unless i do a 100% crop.

I find the colours and contrast on my 58mm is an important difference between it and other lenses. Also the way the bokeh blends together is nice too. Its less convenient (being unable to zoom and autofocus) but still I get much more enjoyment and satisfaction from using it than other lenses.

My Tamron 17-50mm is very good but there is a certain difference. When I take pictures of often mundane stuff the voigtlander can really bring something out in those shots... I hate not being able to quantify exactly what it is that is special about this lens but searching flickr would probably be enough to convince most people I expect.

I agree most people would barely notice but there are differences and the more quality going into your shots, the more you can get out. :)

[lukewoodford]

How do you mean a problem focusing, do you mean you get alot of OOF shots?

A bit of both really. I think the OOF shots is down to me, for example when i did my baby shoot, the lens focused but i took the shot a second later sometimes and of course the baby has moved slightly. Also sometimes the lens just doesnt focus, it just moves in and out like it cant find anything, this has only happened a few times though.

[Monkey]

A bit of both really. I think the OOF shots is down to me, for example when i did my baby shoot, the lens focused but i took the shot a second later sometimes and of course the baby has moved slightly. Also sometimes the lens just doesnt focus, it just moves in and out like it cant find anything, this has only happened a few times though.

If you subject isnt completely still use a higher f stop. if youre shooting in the studio you want to be up around f/8 anyway as background blur isnt as big of an issue if at all, not telling you how to suck eggs as the images on your website are spot on, im just telling you what i do.

Ive only ever had a lens fail to focus in extremely low light or zoomed to 300mm so im not sure why you are getting that problem.

[lukewoodford]

If you subject isnt completely still use a higher f stop. if youre shooting in the studio you want to be up around f/8 anyway as background blur isnt as big of an issue if at all, not telling you how to suck eggs as the images on your website are spot on, im just telling you what i do.

Ive only ever had a lens fail to focus in extremely low light or zoomed to 300mm so im not sure why you are getting that problem.

I appreciate the advice, ill keep an eye on my focusing problem. I dont actually have a studio, the baby pictures were done in my living room :)

[kalibre]

Well done Luke, you've made 3 pages, 2 of them argument and probably only a handful of posts being helpful! Who'd of thought it would be so emotive.......lol

If you've only been in the game for 3 months then grasping some of the concepts that others have been flinging around isn't that easy, we are all on the same never ending learning curve here, just some are further along it than others. It doesn't mean that you 'don't have a scooby'.

Seriously, do you feel that you are closer to understanding the answer to your original question, which afterall is the most important thing?

[lukewoodford]

Well done Luke, you've made 3 pages, 2 of them argument and probably only a handful of posts being helpful! Who'd of thought it would be so emotive.......lol

If you've only been in the game for 3 months then grasping some of the concepts that others have been flinging around isn't that easy, we are all on the same never ending learning curve here, just some are further along it than others. It doesn't mean that you 'don't have a scooby'.

Seriously, do you feel that you are closer to understanding the answer to your original question, which afterall is the most important thing?

lol ive forgotton what the origional question was! This thread did get alot deeper than was needed, maybe its because I put "Money No Object" but this was purely because I didnt want to be reccomended a lens base on value for money. Im going to stick with the 50mm 1.4 for now and stop it down a bit and see what happens. I do produce what i believe to be good images with it however at times I do have a few problems with it.

Out of curiosity what lens would you pick?

[kalibre]

If you believe the hyp and the Nikon mount version is as good as the Canon, then I would probably opt for the new Sigma 50, however that's coming from someone with no 1.4 glass. How much difference you'd notice (other than the weight and size!) between that and your current Nikkor I don't know........

That is of course if you like 50mm.......cue arguement.........lol..........

[lukewoodford]

If you believe the hyp and the Nikon mount version is as good as the Canon, then I would probably opt for the new Sigma 50, however that's coming from someone with no 1.4 glass. How much difference you'd notice (other than the weight and size!) between that and your current Nikkor I don't know........

That is of course if you like 50mm.......cue arguement.........lol..........

lol, ok heres a serious question for you. Is the price difference in the 1.4's to 1.8 just the extra stop or are 1.4 lenses better in other ways? I notice the build quality to be a bit better but its such a small difference in arpature for such a big price difference, especially in the 85mm. I have looked on review sites but still learing all the jargon.

[Monkey]

in my opinion its no better, just the apeture.

some say the f1.8 actually has less distortion, and is sharper till you get to f/4. then they both are about equal.

i see no reason to go for the f/1.4, the DOF is way too narrow so you would never really use it wide open anyway.

[kalibre]

lol, ok heres a serious question for you. Is the price difference in the 1.4's to 1.8 just the extra stop or are 1.4 lenses better in other ways? I notice the build quality to be a bit better but its such a small difference in arpature for such a big price difference, especially in the 85mm. I have looked on review sites but still learing all the jargon.

The 1.8 is a plastic build whereas the 1.4 is metal I believe, but I've never heard of anyone describing the 1.8 as flimsy. So in essence I think the difference is mainly aperture and the extra 'engineering' that goes into making a 1.4.

(Sorry just reread your post, the above is for the 50mm range, I confess I don't know a lot about the 85's.)

[lukewoodford]

in my opinion its no better, just the apeture.

some say the f1.8 actually has less distortion, and is sharper till you get to f/4. then they both are about equal.

i see no reason to go for the f/1.4, the DOF is way too narrow so you would never really use it wide open anyway.

Thats also what ive been reading, its a good money maker! I have the 1.4 and the only thing i can see it being better for is for shooting gigs (which i dont think ill be doing much of anyway).

[photon]

Think of the f/1.4 as a mechanism for extracting your cash for a trinket.

They wouldn't be made if there wasn't a big enough market for them. On the other hand, f/1.7 to f/2.something has been seen as the best design compromise for fast lenses. Going to f/1.4 entails further compromises that may be impossible to compensate for, maybe slight vignetting and soft corners.

Undeniably, you'd get the benefits/problems of the wider maximum aperture and should expect a better build quality. Whether the faster lens matches the cheaper one over the rest of the apertures is something you should check.

The last time I was thinking about a 50mm f/1.4 the consensus was that there was no point; obviously, using it wide open gives very narrow DOF but film grain needed to be taken into account. Soon after I got one with a body, but I've never used 50mm a great deal and haven't compared the f/1.4 with my f/1.7

Here's an oddball for you: http://www.adaptall-2.com/lenses/51A.html

[lukewoodford]

Think of the f/1.4 as a mechanism for extracting your cash for a trinket.

They wouldn't be made if there wasn't a big enough market for them. On the other hand, f/1.7 to f/2.something has been seen as the best design compromise for fast lenses. Going to f/1.4 entails further compromises that may be impossible to compensate for, maybe slight vignetting and soft corners.

Undeniably, you'd get the benefits/problems of the wider maximum aperture and should expect a better build quality. Whether the faster lens matches the cheaper one over the rest of the apertures is something you should check.

The last time I was thinking about a 50mm f/1.4 the consensus was that there was no point; obviously, using it wide open gives very narrow DOF but film grain needed to be taken into account. Soon after I got one with a body, but I've never used 50mm a great deal and haven't compared the f/1.4 with my f/1.7

Here's an oddball for you: http://www.adaptall-2.com/lenses/51A.html


Great thanks for that, another lens to think about:thinking:! Someone needs to make a website comparing all lenses of the same focal ranges from all brands with the same photo taken from each to make it easy to see which one is the best!

[EdinburghGary]

Wow, thos thread got crazy :D

Nothing wrong with wanting the best and most expensive glass, if you can afford it, then who cares? If money trully is no object, get to the shops, buy them, and if you dont like, sell :D

I still maintain, the Canon 85mm F1.2 and the other two canon "portrait lens" are apparently flawless. Also gives you an excuse to expand your gear massivly. Definately the route I plan to take.

Gary.

[lukewoodford]

Wow, thos thread got crazy :D

Nothing wrong with wanting the best and most expensive glass, if you can afford it, then who cares? If money trully is no object, get to the shops, buy them, and if you dont like, sell :D

I still maintain, the Canon 85mm F1.2 and the other two canon "portrait lens" are apparently flawless. Also gives you an excuse to expand your gear massivly. Definately the route I plan to take.

Gary.

It did get very crazy:bonk: but again the only reason i put "MONEY NO OBJECT" is because i didnt want to be reccomended a lens that was "great value for money." I just wanted to see what people would use :)

[englandshottest2]

hmm interesting thread here :D, have to say my pick would be the marvelous Canon 85mm f/1.2, hands down!

[lukewoodford]

hmm interesting thread here :D, have to say my pick would be the marvelous Canon 85mm f/1.2, hands down!

Great and i have Nikon! :thinking:

[englandshottest2]

ahhh :D:D

[EdinburghGary]

It did get very crazy:bonk: but again the only reason i put "MONEY NO OBJECT" is because i didnt want to be reccomended a lens that was "great value for money." I just wanted to see what people would use :)

Yer, I got that :D

85mm f1.2, you know you want to :D

G

[EdinburghGary]

Great and i have Nikon! :thinking:

Money is NO object, buy canon.

Gary.

[lukewoodford]

Yer, I got that :D

85mm f1.2, you know you want to :D

G

I take it i cant get that for my D300?

[EdinburghGary]

I take it i cant get that for my D300?

No chance, 1ds / 1d mkiii is what you want :love:

Gary.

[Flash In The Pan]

No chance, 1ds / 1d mkiii is what you want :love:

Gary.

No it's not....you need a good talking to, young Gary :bat:

[EdinburghGary]

No it's not....you need a good talking to, young Gary :bat:

Och I know, sorry. The 1D/s MKiiii cant be too far away ;)

Gary.

[lukewoodford]

Och I know, sorry. The 1D/s MKiiii cant be too far away ;)

Gary.

Id only be complicating myself at the moment, well at least thats one option written off! I think im going to say with my 50mm 1.4 for the time being and experiment stopping it down more and see what i come up with, im in no rush to spend my money. :)

[EdinburghGary]

Id only be complicating myself at the moment, well at least thats one option written off! I think im going to say with my 50mm 1.4 for the time being and experiment stopping it down more and see what i come up with, im in no rush to spend my money. :)

I absolutely adore the 50mm, especcially when used at 1.4 on full frame, it throws the background into another dimension, never to be seen again. Its superb.

Gary.

[Flash In The Pan]

Och I know, sorry. The 1D/s MKiiii cant be too far away ;)

Gary.

Yup....as long as you factor in the three month return to base for the af to get sorted on the new model :lol:

[Nicos Rex]

Short answer to your question - the best Nikon fit lenses that I have used for portraiture are the 85mm f/1.4 and the 105mm f/1.8 - these are both Ai-S lenses so are manual focus but the optics and build quality are hard to beat.

Compared to the cost of modern AF glass these can be picked up relatively cheaply although they can be a bit of a pig to focus on modern bodies - the cameras of that era had the split prisms and matte areas on the screen to assist you and without these it can be very tricky to get it spot on especially if you are shooting with them wide open.

The 105mm, lovely bit of kit though it is may be a tad long on a crop sensor body as you would end up perhaps a bit too far away from the subject.

[Flash In The Pan]

That reminds me, there's always the 50mm f/1.2 AI-S as well, iirc these will meter on the likes of a D300,but as Nicos says they are manual focus.......

[lukewoodford]

That reminds me, there's always the 50mm f/1.2 AI-S as well, iirc these will meter on the likes of a D300,but as Nicos says they are manual focus.......

Flash go away your giving me way to many decisions!!;) At the moment though im sticking with my 50 1.4, i just ordered the lens hood for it and going to experiment stopping it down a bit. This is a great thread for future refference though.
Im suprised no one has mentioned the Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G ED, as people have mentioned the 70-200 VR. the 24-70 sounds ideal?

[theory]

Its probably to do with needing to get closer to your subject that its not been mentioned I'd expect. Deffo a sweet lens though.

Did you check out photozone btw? what did you think? I really like their tests, I just wish they had more lenses

[lukewoodford]

Its probably to do with needing to get closer to your subject that its not been mentioned I'd expect. Deffo a sweet lens though.

Did you check out photozone btw? what did you think? I really like their tests, I just wish they had more lenses

Yeah i checked it out, really good site, being new to this however its quite hard to understand all the tests, especially when you had a whole day debating on TP!:lol: One thing that i didn't get was when they do thier final 5 star rating sometimes the 5th star is in white and not black. I wondered if this meant it was 41/2 or 5? check out the nikon 85 1.4 verdict to see what i mean. Idealy I want to find a website that compares photos of the different brands lenses of the same focal range. e.g the canan, nikon, sigma 50mm 1.4.

[fracster]

Yes, in general I'd say that was the reason. I wonder how many people get sucked in by the hype and buy one, only for it to lie unused in their camera bag?



Lord help me...........I find myself agreeing with you again......:gag:

[Flash In The Pan]

Lord help me...........I find myself agreeing with you again......:gag:

I'm getting seriously worried here ;)

[fracster]

Yeah, think i`ll go and get some fresh air.

[Flash In The Pan]

Flash go away your giving me way to many decisions!!;) At the moment though im sticking with my 50 1.4, i just ordered the lens hood for it and going to experiment stopping it down a bit. This is a great thread for future refference though.
Im suprised no one has mentioned the Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G ED, as people have mentioned the 70-200 VR. the 24-70 sounds ideal?


http://i1.ebayimg.com/04/i/001/0b/7d/fd35_1.JPG

:naughty::lol:

[theory]

Yeah i checked it out, really good site, being new to this however its quite hard to understand all the tests, especially when you had a whole day debating on TP!:lol: One thing that i didn't get was when they do thier final 5 star rating sometimes the 5th star is in white and not black. I wondered if this meant it was 41/2 or 5? check out the nikon 85 1.4 verdict to see what i mean. Idealy I want to find a website that compares photos of the different brands lenses of the same focal range. e.g the canan, nikon, sigma 50mm 1.4.

yeah thats a 'half star'...

Did you get your head around the MTF charts? I thought given you wanted sharpness that this would be useful to you. And you can check the canon section for their reviews, just look out for their differing charts as usually nikon lenses are capped at 2250 where as the Canon ones get capped at 2150...

If the sigma 1.4 isnt in the nikon section it'll often be worth looking in the canon section for it... 3rd party lenses arent usually reviewed twice on that site. also its worth noting that some things that are special about lenses aren't measurable by these tests (bokeh is an easy example) and thats where fredmiranda, this place and the flickr/pbase type sites come in handy.

[lukewoodford]

yeah thats a 'half star'...

Did you get your head around the MTF charts? I thought given you wanted sharpness that this would be useful to you. And you can check the canon section for their reviews, just look out for their differing charts as usually nikon lenses are capped at 2250 where as the Canon ones get capped at 2150...

If the sigma 1.4 isnt in the nikon section it'll often be worth looking in the canon section for it... 3rd party lenses arent usually reviewed twice on that site.


Its that first big grid chart i couldnt get my head around, but ill look with a fresh head today. All that debating yesterday made my eyes go funny.

[theory]

Its that first big grid chart i couldnt get my head around, but ill look with a fresh head today. All that debating yesterday made my eyes go funny.

Ah thats distortion... so if you were taking technical shots, or pictures of architecture then it might matter (but those grids can help you fix it in PP anyway)

[rdh]

Enjoyed this thread!

Luke: I wish I could answer your simple question with an answer, i.e. "yes grab the XXmm f/Y.Z as it's tack sharp and is perfect for portraiture", but I can't. No-one can, because different people have different styles, suited best to different lenses.

It does seem that you've been getting some unfair stick as to spending money / getting the best, perhaps some comments have been based on a misunderstanding that you wanted to spend for the sake of spending.

I do agree with NorthernNikon & Flash. As long as you know how to get the best out of your lenses, you're only ever limited by your own abilities.

Grab the 85/1.8, use it, and see if you really need 1.4. I very much doubt you will, because your skill as a tog will sell your photo's (which you seem to be doing), not the lower f-stop which is pretty much pointless anyway.

Just for the record, I'm getting the 85mm/1.8 for portraiture, along with the 50mm 1.8. The money I save from not getting 1.4's will go towards getting the next body up instead :)

[Hacker]

Interesting thread which I must admit I have just skimmed through as my head hurts this morning. :beer: :D Luke, as you have said you want the best portrait lens I really cannot see the point of going for something like the 85mm f/1.4 as you would very rarely (if ever) use it at that aperture for portraits, I would stick with the f/1.8 if I were you and put the rest of the money towards other kit. I speak from experience with this one as I have the 50mm f/1.4 which I bought when suffering an attack of lens lust and I have hardly ever used it at that aperture, I have since also tried the f/1.8 version and cannot tell the difference between the two. I am almost certain this will apply to the 85mm version as well and whilst I would like the f/1.4 it's just too damned expensive for what I want it for so will probably go for the f/1.8 eventually. I was with MooMike recently and he was using the 85mm f/1.8 in a low light situation (equestrian shoot) and the IQ cannot be faulted.

For my portrait shoots I use the 70-200mm VR and this serves my purpose as well as being more versatile for other uses. I think what you have got to ask yourself is will your customers 'pixel peep' as much as you? No, of course they won't, they will not be looking at the image thinking "Nice shot, but the bokeh could be better/I wonder if this was taken with the cream machine/he should have used the f/1.4 version of this lens instead of the f/1.8", they will be looking for an emotional response from the image (as should you) which will make them go "Wow, great picture!"

My final point in this rambling post is why you really want portrait pictures to be so pin sharp. Many portraits are ruined by being over sharp IMO and with a digital camera you will only ever get a certain amount of sharpness due to the anti-aliasing filter, any picture you take will require sharpening in post production.

Hope this helps!

[lukewoodford]

Thanks for the above posts, ive been going back through my raw files and looking at the images im not 100% with and ive noticed that nearly all of them were shot at 1.4. And the ones I think are good enough are 2.8. Im going to stop it down more and have a play in my next shoots. Thanks for the help and advice:)

[Wail]

Flash go away your giving me way to many decisions!!;) At the moment though im sticking with my 50 1.4, i just ordered the lens hood for it and going to experiment stopping it down a bit. This is a great thread for future refference though.
Im suprised no one has mentioned the Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G ED, as people have mentioned the 70-200 VR. the 24-70 sounds ideal?


I would have suggested the 24-70 AF-S G ED you talk about, which I do have and love it so much more than words can say; but it is just not long enough for portraits, even on a DX body. It's a wonderful "all round" lens, which is on my camera most of the time ... but up to 55mm it's still too short for portrait. Unless you're shooting in a studio made for the Smurfs :thinking:

[Flashman]

My final point in this rambling post is why you really want portrait pictures to be so pin sharp. Many portraits are ruined by being over sharp IMO...

Good point. I remember back in the 1970's my first SLR was an Olympus (OM10, followed by OM2n then OM4). I chose the brand especially because it was said that the softness of Olympus lenses made them better than Nikon/Canon for portraits... David Bailey was a user which, at the time, gave them a lot of credibility for portraiture.

Flashy

[lukewoodford]

Good point. I remember back in the 1970's my first SLR was an Olympus (OM10, followed by OM2n then OM4). I chose the brand especially because it was said that the softness of Olympus lenses made them better than Nikon/Canon for portraits... David Bailey was a user which, at the time, gave them a lot of credibility for portraiture.

Flashy

Thats extemely interesting, I think ive come across as wanting the sharpest pictures possible which is not quite the case, I just wasnt happy with the 50mm some of time, but on review it seems like 90% of the ones i was unhappy with were at 1.4. Also I have just ordered the lens hood as I think flare has been effecting some of my images.

[CT]

My final point in this rambling post is why you really want portrait pictures to be so pin sharp. Many portraits are ruined by being over sharp IMO and with a digital camera you will only ever get a certain amount of sharpness due to the anti-aliasing filter, any picture you take will require sharpening in post production.



This is actually a good point Colin, but it's also an argument in favour of the 85mm 1.2. Used wide open the DOF is extremely shallow. Careful focusing will get the eyes in sharp focus, but DOF falls off so sharply at both sides of that point, that beautiuful soft skin tones result. It's a very forgiving, very flattering lens. It's also capable of making the most intrusive background blend into something resembling an impressionist painting.

85mm f1.2 wide open. The brown/white blur at lower left is a block of flats right behind the guy!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3294/2400244901_57c514bbbf_o.jpg

Stopped down just a stop or two though and it becomes cruelly sharp!

[CT]

Just sticking my Canon nose a bit further into your Nikon thread, I'd have to say a quality zoom covering the 70-120 range will do you a good job but if you really want the shiznitz, then get the Nikon 85mm 1.4, which will give the wide open soft look, or stop down for those biting character shots.

50mm isn't an ideal portrait length for good perspective, and it's also rather intimidating for subjects working that close.

[lukewoodford]

Just sticking my Canon nose a bit further into your Nikon thread, I'd have to say a quality zoom covering the 70-120 range will do you a good job but if you really want the shiznitz, then get the Nikon 85mm 1.4, which will give the wide open soft look, or stop down for those biting character shots.

50mm isn't an ideal portrait length for good perspective, and it's also rather intimidating for subjects working that close.

wow that 85 1.2 is cool, shame its for the cannon though, at least it rules it out. Im not too bothered about having a zoom as im quite happy using my legs. I do think my next purchase will be the 85mm 1.4 or 1.8 but im going to experiment with my 50mm 1.4 a bit more first.

[EdinburghGary]

This is actually a good point Colin, but it's also an argument in favour of the 85mm 1.2. Used wide open the DOF is extremely shallow. Careful focusing will get the eyes in sharp focus, but DOF falls off so sharply at both sides of that point, that beautiuful soft skin tones result. It's a very forgiving, very flattering lens. It's also capable of making the most intrusive background blend into something resembling an impressionist painting.

85mm f1.2 wide open. The brown/white blur at lower left is a block of flats right behind the guy!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3294/2400244901_57c514bbbf_o.jpg

Stopped down just a stop or two though and it becomes cruelly sharp!



CT - I want this lens badly :D

Gary.

[CT]

CT - I want this lens badly :D

Gary.

And a Canon body to go with it? :D

It's a bit of a monster, everything about it is extreme, from the weight to the slow focus, and focus has to be spot on wide open or you just get nowt, but it's an exciting lens, and it enables you to do available shots in virtually any light.

[Flashman]

And a Canon body to go with it? :D

Nikon are really missing a trick by not having an equivalent :( . My 1.4 is prolly my favourite lens but I'd love to get that extra stop for more extreme occasions. Maybe Nikon are working on a 1.1 instead? ;)

Flashy

[SLRist]

theory is correct - a 50mm lens on a DX body will give exactly the same effect as a 75mm lens on a FX body. The reason is that you stand the same distance from the subject in both cases to take the same portrait, and distance from the subject is what causes effects like foreshortening.

Imagine three images taken with three lenses - all on an FX body. A 20mm, a 50mm and a 75mm lens. Take all three images 20 feet from the subject. Now, zoom into the same portion of the image in all three cases (the subject's face) and the image will be identical.

The reason a wide angle lens makes a person's features look distorted in a full face portrait is because you're standing 6 inches away from them. If you took the same portrait with the same lens from 20 feet away and cropped to just the face, it would have much less distortion, of course.

A DX lens will only use the centremost portion of a 50mm lens - the portion which distorts least, and gives effectively the same refraction effect as the full width of a 75mm lens, which would be what an FX body would use.

So in short - a 50mm lens on a DX body *is* exactly equivalent to a 75mm lens on a FX body.

Of course, there are some differences in *depth of field* caused by the sensor of the FX being larger, but these are largely irrelevant here, and have nothing to do with distortion.

[Joe T]

Woah! Holy thread revival batman! :D

[lukewoodford]

Woah! Holy thread revival batman! :D

Thats exactly what I though, I want to forget this damn thread!!

[Bob]

Ive really enjoyed this thread please keep it going I know it started life as What would you buy but it has grown into a really informative thread with no arguements each passing on a point of veiw and experience
Bob

[SLRist]

I stumbled across this thread on Google, and couldn't resist chucking my hat in the ring. Apologies.

FWIW, my favourite lens for portraits is the Nikon 105mm VR Macro. Autofocus isn't the best, but the VR works OK at distance, and on the DX it approximates the 150mm favoured by fashion photographers, which gives a very flattering appearance, and it has rounded diaphragm blades, so bokeh is great. Trouble is, it's far too long to use indoors most of the time, so for I tend to use my Nikon 50mm f1.4 for the majority of indoor portrait work.

For FX, the 70-200 is commonly thought to be the lens of choice for fashion portraiture, but that's no great secret.

[lukewoodford]

I stumbled across this thread on Google, and couldn't resist chucking my hat in the ring. Apologies.

Ha, no problem :)

Just so you know what it was if I remember correctly, I didn't know too much about lenses at the time. I was happy with the sharpness of my 50mm, just not wide open. I just seemed to start are gigantic thread :)

[Naboo32]

Ha, no problem :)

Just so you know what it was if I remember correctly, I didn't know too much about lenses at the time. I was happy with the sharpness of my 50mm, just not wide open. I just seemed to start are gigantic thread :)

And if I may say, I thought that the way in which you responded to the (quite unneccessary, IMHO) "assault" on your desire to improve your image quality by purchasing a new lens, was nothing short of masterful diplomacy, Luke :D!

An object lesson to us all :thumbs:.

(I would have lost my rag and gained myself some infraction points, had this been my thread :lol:)

[specialman]

Skimmed over this thread so have only picked up the odd comment but it seems we have a lot of 85mm and 50mm fans.
Thing is, a lot of folk are mentioning very fast apertures like f/1.2 and f/1.4 but is that really going to help you out? Yes, for these really shallow DOF shots then it's fine but what about head and shoulder portraits – there's little benefit from such a narrow DOF except for more flattering skin tones in the DOF drop-off. A good make-up artists is going to help you do that without buying new glass.

For me I like a 70-200mm simply because I don't think you can shoot portraits with just one fixed focal length lens, well, not to get an degree of versatility and variety. Even the 70-200 is limiting. I like shooting long but I also recognise the need to be able to shoot wide and I'd hazard a guess that any portrait photographer worth their salt will never limit their options just for the sake of owning one piece of kit. Surely lighting and rapport with the client is what matters, not whether you've got a top lens - they won't know the difference?

[lukewoodford]

Oh dear this truly has been revived :bonk: