Lens Conundrum - People Photography

[gingerweasel]

Okay, I've managed to get my panties in a right twist on this one. The idea is to simplify, buy less, but buy quality.

At this point I could go either Canon or Nikon FF.

• I shoot natural light. Street photography, candid portraits and people photography in general.
• I love the photojournalism and documentay style of shooting.
• Quality is a must.
• I was thinking of settling on two prime lenses, maybe even one. With my initial thoughts being 35mm and 85mm.

I have around £1200 to spend now but could pickup a second lens down the line if my budget really wasn't enough.

I looked at the manual focus Samyang lenses (awesome quality) but I'm very concerned about hitting focus and about missing photo oppertunities due to the extra time it will take to focus.

The Pro Nikon and Canon lenses look good but are very expensive. However Canon have a really nice 50mm f1.2 which could serve me well if I went for a single lens setup.

Sigma offer a great 50mm lens, and I've heard good things about theri new 85mm but I feel these focal lengths are too close to own both. I've also read a lot of negative reviews of the 30mm so that's not an option.


Thoughts?

:bang::bang::bang:

 

[SamP]

Does that include body prices?

Personally I'd hit up a Canon 24 1.8/Canon 50 1.4/Canon 135 2.

 

[woof woof]

Does that include body prices?

Personally I'd hit up a Canon 24 1.8/Canon 50 1.4/Canon 135 2.

The budget does seem a little optimistic.

I have the Siggy 50 and 85mm f1.4's and they're both good lenses although I think that the 85mm shades it, slightly. I used to have a Siggy 30mm and it was a cracking lens, sharp from f1.4. I always takes tales of Siggy woe with a very large pinch of salt as (I've never had a problem and) I think that there are an awful lot of people who, frankly, simply repeat internet rumour or don't have the faintest idea what they are doing with wide aperture lenses. However, it's immaterial as the Siggy 30mm is a small sensor only lens and will not give full coverage on a full frame camera.

If you are going for a full frame camera a fast 24mm might be a good idea and a manual lens might not be too bad an idea as a lot of quick grab shots could be taken by zone focusing with smaller apertures and a 24mm would be pretty much ideal if you're happy with that field of view.

One thing that would concern me about a full frame camera and something like a 85mm f1.4 is the bulk and weight and the possibility for attracting attention, with the type of subject and possible scenarios you might encounter. Have you thought about MTF? A GH2 with a fast lens might stretch the budget (to say the least) but the image quality should be there and from what I've read they're great for vid, compact and light too when compared to a full frame and fast prime.

 

[gingerweasel]

Does that include body prices?

No, the body is covered out of seperate funds. The £1200 is just for the lenses.

The budget does seem a little optimistic.

I have the Siggy 50 and 85mm f1.4's and they're both good lenses although I think that the 85mm shades it, slightly. I used to have a Siggy 30mm and it was a cracking lens, sharp from f1.4. I always takes tales of Siggy woe with a very large pinch of salt as (I've never had a problem and) I think that there are an awful lot of people who, frankly, simply repeat internet rumour or don't have the faintest idea what they are doing with wide aperture lenses. However, it's immaterial as the Siggy 30mm is a small sensor only lens and will not give full coverage on a full frame camera.

If you are going for a full frame camera a fast 24mm might be a good idea and a manual lens might not be too bad an idea as a lot of quick grab shots could be taken by zone focusing with smaller apertures and a 24mm would be pretty much ideal if you're happy with that field of view.

One thing that would concern me about a full frame camera and something like a 85mm f1.4 is the bulk and weight and the possibility for attracting attention, with the type of subject and possible scenarios you might encounter. Have you thought about MTF? A GH2 with a fast lens might stretch the budget (to say the least) but the image quality should be there and from what I've read they're great for vid, compact and light too when compared to a full frame and fast prime.

I'm dead set on fullframe to be honest.

I never really got on with 24mm as a focal length for people shots.

It's such a difficult choice. Looking at the Samyang images on the web they are nothing short of stunning, some of the sharpest images I've ever seen. However I can imagine the keeper rate when manual focusing at f1.4 is very low.

Also I'm concerned about the sheer size of the 35mm Samyang. It's far from discrete at almost a foot long

I guess my options are:

Sigma 50 / 85
Canon 35L (and the later purchase of the Canon 85L)
Canon 50 f1.2 (and stick with a one lens for everything option)


I'm not the type of person who does well with too many choices :bonk:

 

[ecniv]

samyang 85 f1.4 ? manual tho.... Think they do mounts for nikon and canon...
Approx 180ukp.. Search the forum for a review/example posts from full frame

Leaves you loads for 28mm/30mm/35mm type or would you go more 200mm for longer distance candids?
Sigma 30mm f1.4 is ok (if you get a decent one) but I've never used on ff so might not work?
35mm f1.8 nikon is cheap yet brilliant (i've heard) for around 170ukp (jessops online)

Or perhaps if manual is your thing, look towards an adapter and a leica lens or carl zeiss m42 ? Some of them are still going for 300+ even though they are old...

Good luck!


Edit:
Can you meet some people (perhaps from on here) who have the lenses you are interested in... at least you could try them out then?

 

[Laudrup]

A used Zeiss 50mm f/2 Makro-Planar for manual focus would be nice, or blow all/most the budget on a 35mm f/1.4. An 85mm f/1.8 if you wanted longer focal length which are great value for money.

 

[woof woof]

I'm dead set on fullframe to be honest.

I never really got on with 24mm as a focal length for people shots.

It's such a difficult choice. Looking at the Samyang images on the web they are nothing short of stunning, some of the sharpest images I've ever seen. However I can imagine the keeper rate when manual focusing at f1.4 is very low.

Also I'm concerned about the sheer size of the 35mm Samyang. It's far from discrete at almost a foot long

Forget the Siggy 30mm, it is deffo a DC lens and is not suitable for full frame. I don't know what coverage you'd get but the lens isn't designed for full frame.

I shoot a manual f0.95 on MFT with few problems and a significant proportion of my APS-C and full frame shots are manual focus with similar results. Manual does take longer than AF but there's no real reason why you couldn't get a high keeper rate even at wider apertures especially if there's a bit of distance between you and the subject as distance equals deeper DoF and that'll go some way to hiding any issue due to focus inaccuracy or camera or subject movement.

 

[NorthernNikon]

Thoughts?

First thoughts that hit my mind are:

• The best portrait lenses are fast zoom lenses.
• Unless you already have a very particualr style that relies solely on one or two focal lengths, only having one or two prime lenses will dictate style to you and restrict you from being able to find your own natural style.
• There is no such thing as the ideal focal length for portraiture, so unless you have a clear idea of the types of portraits you want to take, the typical subject to camera distance and how much of the subject you'll be framing and how large they will appear in the frame no-one can give an informed recommendation for any prime lens.
• The old premise that the image quality of prime lenses was far better than zooms is at least ten years out of date. Many of todays prime lenses are fundamentally old designs, only updated with modern coatings for digital photography. Most pro-level zooms on the other hand are very modern in design and the IQ from them is good enough for 99.999% of photographers (irrespective of whether they actually know or concede it).
• Extremely shallow depth of field achieved with fast f/stops is over-rated and hackneyed. f/2.8 is shallow enough for most portraits.
• Prime lenses dictate how far from the subject you have to be for a given framing. This means that the lens controls the perspective not the photographer. Zoom lenses allow the photographer to control and maintain the perspective while altering the framing of the shot.
• As a result of the above, zooms allow more flexibility, bringing in more shots of a greater variety than shooting with primes alone would.
• If you have to pin me down to using only prime lenses for portraiture on a Nikon full frame body, I'd probably go for: 28mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, the 105mm f/2 AF-DC and the 200mm f/2.
• Given the OP's budget that would be restricted to buying 2nd hand lenses: 28mm f.28, 50mm f/1.8, and either the 105mm f/2 AF-DC or the 180mm f/2.8.
• Since getting the 24-70mm f/2.8 & 70-200mm f/2.8, the only prime lens I use with any regularity for portraiture is the 200mm f/2
• The OP should buy a 24-70 f/2.8 lens, stop worrying, start saving for the 70-200mm f/2.8 to go with it and get out and take some photos.

 

[woof woof]

I was with you a lot of the way there but shallow DoF overrated? My my... At least if you have a wide aperture available it's a creative tool in the box and you can decide if and when to use it. Anyway, a wide aperture does not always have to equal shallow DoF if your framing allows a little distance between you and the subject.

Ref 28mm f2.8, good zooms being as good as they are I really see little point in a f2.8 prime unless it's macro or very cheap or used because it's compact and light. Other than those caveats a f2.8 zoom makes much more sense IMVHO.

 

[NorthernNikon]

I was with you a lot of the way there but shallow DoF overrated? My my...

Well each to their own, but to me it is. f/2.8 is more than shallow enough for portraiture, especially when shots are not straight on where you need deeper depth of field to get both eyes in focus (I find shots with only the leading eye in focus just plain odd.)

At least if you have a wide aperture available it's a creative tool in the box and you can decide if and when to use it.

Yes, but f/2.8 is a wide aperture. The old need for very fast lenses for low light shooting has been nullified to a great extent by the improvement in high ISO performance. IMVHO the advantages of a zoom lens far outweighs any perceived loss of creative options by the very small increase in minimum depth of field.

Anyway, a wide aperture does not always have to equal shallow DoF if your framing allows a little distance between you and the subject.

No it doesn't, but I'm not against wide apertures per se, I'm only against their hackneyed use in portraiture. You point about framing reiterates mine where primes lenses dictate the distance to subject for any given framing of an image.

Ref 28mm f2.8, good zooms being as good as they are I really see little point in a f2.8 prime unless it's macro or very cheap or used because it's compact and light. Other than those caveats a f2.8 zoom makes much more sense IMVHO.

The 28mm f/2.8 is only there because of the hypothesis of only being able to have prime lenses. I no longer have one and wouldn't bother with one for as long as I have a 24-7-mm zoom.

 

[gramps]

The OP should buy a 24-70 f/2.8 lens, stop worrying, start saving for the 70-200mm f/2.8 to go with it and get out and take some photos.

Totally agree.

 

[Laudrup]

I wouldn't bother with the 24-70, it's gigantic, heavy and conspicuous. The 70-200 even more so. The system I shoot (which are all primes) I've seen people go for a 3 lens solution, like a 21mm/35mm/75mm or 28mm/50mm/90mm.

If you aren't so keen on the wide end a 35mm/85mm/135mm might be something worth looking at. I like the 50mm focal length on full frame so a Zeiss 50 f/2 would be on my list, but it is whatever floats your boat.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

Going by your past behaviour, anything you buy will be back in the classifieds within a few weeks, so buy something that there's a ready resale market for

 

[NorthernNikon]

The system I shoot (which are all primes) I've seen people go for a 3 lens solution, like a 21mm/35mm/75mm or 28mm/50mm/90mm.

You've no option but to shoot primes on a rangefinder (IFAIA there's only one true zoom which works on one), and you need at least three lenses to cover a decent range of focal lengths.

Of course what you haven't mentioned is the limitation of rangefinders in terms of maximum usable focal length. 90mm is generally the longest focal length for most rangefinders users while the longest lens Leica produce is only a 135/3.5. I shoot roughly half of my portraiture at focal lengths over and above 90mm and would be severely restricted if I had to use a rangefinder system.

All this is by the by though. Even the cheapest Leica lens will blow the OP's budget never mind the price of an M9.

 

[Laudrup]

You've no option but to shoot primes on a rangefinder (IFAIA there's only one true zoom which works on one), and you need at least three lenses to cover a decent range of focal lengths.

Of course what you haven't mentioned is the limitation of rangefinders in terms of maximum usable focal length. 90mm is generally the longest focal length for most rangefinders users while the longest lens Leica produce is only a 135/3.5. I shoot roughly half of my portraiture at focal lengths over and above 90mm and would be severely restricted if I had to use a rangefinder system.

All this is by the by though. Even the cheapest Leica lens will blow the OP's budget never mind the price of an M9.

I wasn't suggesting he shoot an M9. If the OP is going for primes I was telling him the popular 3 lenses people shoot on the M9 system which are all primes. If the OP doesn't like the size of the 35mm Samyang then the bigger and heavier 24-70 is hardly going to appeal.

A 35/85 1.8 combo would be nice. Out of the lenses I've owned my favourites for portraits were all primes.

 

[BacktotheFuji]

If you can get used the manual focusing (I get about 90% hit rate now) then the Zeiss lenses are stunning. The 50/1.4 is great for street stuff, full of pop. Perhaps a 35/2 Distagon would be a nice addition? the Zeiss 85/1.4 is stunning too, but a bit long for general walkaround use IMO.

 

[onform]

My 2 pence?

Canon 35mm f1.4L
Sigma 85mm 1.4

For people and portraits a cracking combo.

 

[DigitalRelish]

Okay, I've managed to get my panties in a right twist on this one. The idea is to simplify, buy less, but buy quality.

At this point I could go either Canon or Nikon FF.

• I shoot natural light. Street photography, candid portraits and people photography in general.
• I love the photojournalism and documentay style of shooting.
• Quality is a must.
• I was thinking of settling on two prime lenses, maybe even one. With my initial thoughts being 35mm and 85mm.

I have around £1200 to spend now but could pickup a second lens down the line if my budget really wasn't enough.

I looked at the manual focus Samyang lenses (awesome quality) but I'm very concerned about hitting focus and about missing photo oppertunities due to the extra time it will take to focus.

The Pro Nikon and Canon lenses look good but are very expensive. However Canon have a really nice 50mm f1.2 which could serve me well if I went for a single lens setup.

Sigma offer a great 50mm lens, and I've heard good things about theri new 85mm but I feel these focal lengths are too close to own both. I've also read a lot of negative reviews of the 30mm so that's not an option.


Thoughts?

:bang::bang::bang:

If you went back to Nikon FX, I would suggest:

• Nikon 35mm f/2 AF-D - tiny lens, relatively fast, cheap.
• Sigma 50mm f/1.4 - sharp, very nice bokeh.
• Nikon 85mm f/1.4 AF-D - very sharp, creamy bokeh.

Buy them used and it might cost you about £1k.

I have these 3 lenses and do mostly people shooting. They're not the most expensive, they're not the biggest, they're not the fastest, but they're as good as I need them to be to get the photographs I want. I could spend more and buy faster, bigger and heavier lenses, but I've no need to.

Personally, I'd avoid the 50L due to size and speed of AF (from what I've read). I'd also avoid the manual focus lenses. The D700 has fantastic AF which means I can concentrate on things like composition and exposure. Also, manual focusing in low light... Why, if you don't need to? Unless you've already spent some time manual focusing then it could be something you'll regret especially when you're working with very shallow depth of field and fleeting moments.

At 85mm and at close range, I often find I have to stop down to f/1.8-f/2 because the depth of field is just too shallow. Sure, it's got its uses, but having just a single eyelash in focus becomes a bit boring after a while and that's when you've nailed the focus. Incredibly shallow depth of field is sometimes just a bit too much and you end up wondering where the heck the subject was. Nah, these days, I want subject separation from the background, but I also want some context.

However, at longer distances (> 2m) the likes of the 85mm at f/1.4 come into their own and you can easily pick individuals out of a crowd. For me, a max aperture of f/1.4 means smaller and lighter lenses which are not only less conspicuous, but also more comfortable to carry.

As for 50mm and 85mm being too close, I disagree, especially when shooting wide open. No point me trying to explain it. Just go and look at some photos to compare!

Whatever you decide, John, just remember that there are photographers out there shooting better photos with technically inferior kit. You don't need the biggest, fastest and most expensive kit to produce the best photos you possibly can.

 

[gingerweasel]

Some great advice in this thread, so thank you. I can always rely on TP to give me a kick in the arse and bring me back down to earth.

For some reason I just can't get comfortable with any camera setup. I'm always looking across the fence at the neighbours grass and it always looks soooooo much greener

The annoying thing is I know it's the photographer that makes the picture. I see some stunning images on her from wedding photographers using the 5D classic and some of the cheaper primes. Yet time and time again I still let doubt creep in.

I guess I need professional help

@ DigitalRelish - As always the voice of reason

@ NorthernNikon - A well put together post that makes a lot of sense.

@ FlashInThePan - I may have owned a camera or two

With the exception of the viewfinder I think the D7000 is an amazing camera. The quality of the images, the ISO performance is far beyond what I'd expected. It can do so much more than I've been able to get out of it and I know I'm giving up on it too quickly.

I'm going to order the magnifying eyepiece and give it another try. Worst case senario I still can't live with it and sell up in a few weeks.

I've posted a wanted thread for a Nikon 17-55 if anyone has one their willing to part with .

I'll keep the 35G f1.8 (sell the 50mm f1.8) and pickup a 70-200 f2.8 at a later date if I settle into the camera. I could even pickup a second hand 70-300 as a stop gap. This should cover pretty much all bases.

 

[DigitalRelish]

I don't think you're going to be happy until you've got a full frame camera in your hands again

I really wouldn't bother with the 70-200 f/2.8 unless you've a real need for it. I rarely use mine unless I want it for a specific reason. It never goes out with me on the off chance of getting a shot. It's just too big and bulky. Usually, the lenses I'll have with me are the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and Nikon 24-70 f/2.8. Sometimes, maybe the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 too. The 70-300mm is handy if you want the focal length, but I'd imagine you'd find the variable max aperture a bit limiting.

For street shooting, the Nikon 35 f/2, Nikon 50mm f/1.8 and Nikon 85mm f/1.8 make for as much discretion as you can get with a DX/FX DSLR. Subject separation and bokeh on the 85mm f/1.8 is actually really good...


Smoke and Rain by DigitalRelish, on Flickr

 

[woof woof]

Well each to their own, but to me it is. f/2.8 is more than shallow enough for portraiture, especially when shots are not straight on where you need deeper depth of field to get both eyes in focus (I find shots with only the leading eye in focus just plain odd.)

No it doesn't, but I'm not against wide apertures per se, I'm only against their hackneyed use in portraiture. You point about framing reiterates mine where primes lenses dictate the distance to subject for any given framing of an image.

Unsurprisingly I still disagree

Primes don't dictate the distance to subject or framing if you choose what lens you want to use. You choose the length you want with a zoom so choose which prime you want.

What I find most hackneyed is the tight head shot with no context. Go for a shot like that and I'd agree that shallow DoF could give you an out of focus eye but that's just a boring choice IMVHO and such a shot would have me bored rigid in 0.1 second. I personally would rather back up to include some context and do that and f1.x is no longer going to give you eye trouble and is a tool you can use when f2.8 isn't enough. So to me a wide aperture prime will always give more options but if by a portrait shot you mean a tight head shot I'd agree that f2.8 could be enough, I'm just bored by that.

 

[NorthernNikon]

Unsurprisingly I still disagree

Primes don't dictate the distance to subject or framing if you choose what lens you want to use. You choose the length you want with a zoom so choose which prime you want.

Theoretically you're right. Of course if you had the full range of primes you would be able to pick and choose to pretty much frame as you wish without too much limitation.

Practically however, this just never happens. Most people will have a limited number of primes and the OP was looking at just a couple. In the real world the primes available to most photographers do dictate the subject to distance for a certain framing because at most a photographer would typically have only two or three primes covering the range of one zoom.

What I find most hackneyed is the tight head shot with no context. Go for a shot like that and I'd agree that shallow DoF could give you an out of focus eye but that's just a boring choice IMVHO and such a shot would have me bored rigid in 0.1 second.

This is the kind of shot I was referring to. I find them the triumph of kit over creativity; photographers shoot them because they can, not because they should.

I personally would rather back up to include some context and do that and f1.x is no longer going to give you eye trouble and is a tool you can use when f2.8 isn't enough. So to me a wide aperture prime will always give more options but if by a portrait shot you mean a tight head shot I'd agree that f2.8 could be enough, I'm just bored by that.

I'm in total agreement about contextualising a portrait like this, but with an 85mm shooting c4m away from the subject, the difference in total DOF is less than 20cm. Now there will be certain situations where that 20cm or so could completely change the look of the image, (e.g. the subject is leaning against a wall receding in the frame) and I'm not denying that, but in real, practical terms, as a creative advantage the ability to have such shallow DOF is far less significant than the many advantages that shooting portraiture with zooms give you.

That's why I feel that fast zooms make better portrait lenses and should be the first port of call for a photographer interested in portraiture. Once they've got a 24-70/2,8 and a 70-200/2.8 then fast primes will compliment the zooms giving the added creativity that you refer to.

I'm not dissing primes, nor shooting at fast apertures, they have their place and I use them myself. I shoot portraits and depending on the shoot will take a variety of lenses. The bare minimum I would take would be the 24-70/2.8 & 70-200/2.8, and only after these two lenses are account for will I then consider primes; mainly 20mm f/1.8, 50mm f/1.4, and 200mm f/2. I did have a 105mm f/2 AF-DC but had to trade it in to get my D300. It was a lovely lens and I'd really like another copy, but deep down I know that it wouldn't get the use it would deserve because the Nikkor zooms are that good (even with the Mark I 70-200/2.8 vignetting on the D3.)