Ideal Lenses For Studio

A

AR101

Messages
133
Edit My Images
No
Hi there :)
I am weighed down by so much choice what to buy.

I use a Nikon DX format DSLR and need decent lenses:
-with high image quality for portraiture,
-mainly in the studio, but not restricted to that,
-for use into the future on a FX camera.

Initially I looked into getting the 85mm F1.8, 105mm F2 and the 135mm F2.
With the price of these three lenses, it seemed it could possibly be a good idea to instead get either a Nikon 80-200 or 70-200, getting a better range with one lens, for potentially cheaper. What sacrifices would I get? Image quality? Contrast?

Ideas? Suggestions? Anything would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks :)
Adam
 
If you're going to work primarily within a studio environment, opt for the primes. You'll have the luxury of a typically static model, meaning you can just move around to get the best crop, and primes give the best IQ, all other things being equal.

I'm Canon based, 5D, and although everyone swears by the 24-105mm, unless I'm on walkabout, I rarely take my 85mm 1.8 off the body, and even then I'd rather use the 35mm or even the nifty fifty before the 24-105 for studio portrait work.
 
Its always best to use primes, they are the shapest, and id go for the best you can afford.. although some of the cheaper lens's are good for the job too..

I use Canon, and id love to have the "Holy Grail" which is the 50 1.2 the 85 1.2 and the 135F2..

Of course these are the IDEAL lens's as title says, a lot of togs use the 70-200 to great effect.. iv got the 24-70 which is pretty good too..

Im sure a Nikonian will be along soon to put you straight.. FOr my money, IDEALLY id get the best i could afford and move on from there..
 
Just thought I would post to bump it up to the top in the hope of more responses,
no harm meant :p
 
All I'll say is that don't presume that the sharpest lenses are the best for portraiture. What's the point in having the sharpest lenses when all they do it show up all the imperfections?

If I were you I'd look at either the 70-200 f/2.8 or the 24-70 f/2.8. If you're looking for a lens purely for studio work then I'd look at the latter as the 70-200 will be too much at the long end.

On a DX format camera the 24-70 will give you the equiv of 36-105mm, ideal for portraiture and a flexible zoom range for you to go from full length to torso to headhsot without having to move.
 
primes are best, but diddydave shot the pic below on the 18-70 3.5-4.5 kit lens

Emma_285_.jpg


thread with rest of pics here
 
I tend to use the 24-105 over my nifty because I'm such a shortarse I end up shooting off a stepladder, so the zoom is more useful to me than absolute image quality. (plus on a 5D the nifty is in your model's face) lol.
 
Monkey said:
primes are best
Click to expand...

No they are not. Unless you are going to qualify any remark like that please don't make such inaccurate sweeping statements.

For the benefit of the OP, you can get good primes and you can get crap primes, you can get good zooms and crap zooms. Generally, a good prime will have better image quality than a good zoom, however IQ means jack if you miss the shot because you've got the wrong focal length on your DSLR.

The best lens is the lens that enables you to get the best possible shot and as such only you can decide what combination of IQ, cost, focal length range, max aperture and build quality will give you the best possible shots now and for years to come.
 
Primes are best, but it just so happens the 80/70-200's are fablious lenses.
If all I was doing ever was shooting portraits, I'd pick a prime, but sometimes its worth making a compromise when talking money.
If you are a professional, earning money from portraits = prime
If not the zooms are mighty fine for portraits, I don't actually go with the length issue, 200mm is not that far for a head shot.
Fullframe headshot is 12ft @ 200mm.....I just tried it, I'd use this lens more in studio, if it had a flippin tripod mount.

edit....ok, good primes are best then...:popcorn:
 
i do appreciate your point but i hardly meant a crap prime was good.

Generally speaking a prime lens will give better IQ because it is manufactured to be used at a fixed point and not a range.

Its commonly known zooms offer less performance at the top and bottom end than in the middle.

I dont actually have a prime lens, cant afford to fill a bag with them, but in an ideal world id have loads of them.
 
Monkey said:
i do appreciate your point but i hardly meant a crap prime was good.

Generally speaking a prime lens will give better IQ because it is manufactured to be used at a fixed point and not a range.

Its commonly known zooms offer less performance at the top and bottom end than in the middle.

I dont actually have a prime lens, cant afford to fill a bag with them, but in an ideal world id have loads of them.
Click to expand...

All you are talking about there is image quality. If you said that primes give the best image quality then I wouldn't have issue with your statement because in the main primes do offer better IQ than zooms.

But what makes a lens better than another isn't just image quality, it's a question of being fit for purpose. Just as you can't say a hammer is better than a saw, a prime isn't better than a zoom. Now, a hammer can be better than a saw at doing a certain job, just as a prime can be better than a zoom at doing a certain job, but conversely a saw can be better than a hammer and a zoom better than a prime, depending on the job.

Now, the whole thing about image quality is that 99.99% of members of this forum do not need the increase in image quality that a top quality prime offers over a top quality zoom. Now the OP is looking at some flexibility in the lens choice so having said all of the above I would reiterate that a zoom would be best for the OP.
 
I'd like to add my bit to the debate. Firstly I'm a canon user, so I cannot comment on the quality of nikon glass.
I've recently done a studio session with a canon 24-70L on a 1.3 crop body. I was at the 70 end most of the time. Next time I'm gonna try the 70-200 on that body (rather than 1.6 crop as I did).
The comment re primes and zooms. I have to day been looking at the following web site:-
www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews...CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=2
comparing primes to zooms. you can change the lens focal length etc. You will see that there are some primes that don't match up to the sharper zooms. In theory a prime should be sharper as it is optimized for 1 focal length, where as a zoom isn't and can be a compromise. But that doesn't always seem to be the case.
 
Thanks for all your help :)
Much appreciated, I think the only way I can be happy is if I get every decent lens :p
Till then, I have a list of primes and zooms I will be buying over the summer.
Thanks again,
Adam
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top