Lens for H+S portraits (outdoors)

PatrickO

PatrickO

Messages
2,816
Name
Patrick
Edit My Images
Yes
I do a fair bit of outdoors people stuff. Couples/families that sort of thing. I want to be able to do head/shoulders (or closer sometimes) shots without getting too up close and personal with the subject. I mainly use my 85mm f/1.8 which gives very nice results and a good shallow DOF, but I do need to get in a bit closer than is comfortable to fill the frame. I often end up standing back and then cropping in PP. I really want to keep a shallow DOF.

So , I guess the question is what would you guys use for H+S portraits? I've looked at the 70-200mm f/2.8 , but it's MASSIVE. The cheaper ones don't give wide enough aperture. Also considered the 24-120 f/4, but not sure if that's wide enough aperture for shallow DOF and also whether it's long enough.

I'm on Nikon full frame (D700)
 
A few suggestions, 105 or 135 DC are both nice, on the prime front the 180 f2.8 is a lovely lens imo, have you thought about trying the new 70-200 f4? the few images I've seen have been really good with pleasant bokeh. I also think most of the 100/105/150mm macro lenses would be worth considering.
 
We use the 105mm Micro a lot - but not for Portraits... it's TOO sharp! Which is why I agree with others about the 135mm f2 DC... perfect length and more manageable than a 70-200mm.

So, another vote for the 135mm DC :)
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't worry too much about a fast aperture unless you need the low light capabilities. My 70-300 Tamron VC puts the BG out of focus superbly. Even more so if you move your subject closer to you and further away from the BG.
The 70-200's are indeed mahooosive.
 
I use a 180mm 2.8 for this, it's very compact especially next to a 70-200! Only flaw is it loses a lot of contrast when shooting into the lIght wide open.
 
You have a whole ton of choices.

The 135mm DC mentioned above is a classic H&S portrait lens and thew 180mm f2.8 is also excellent, and to round off the primes the 105 DC or the 105 Micro would also work nicely. You can always soften in post a little if you need to - I'd rather a sharp lens and deal with it than a soft lens and have no choice.

Personally I use the 70-200mm, I don't find it "MASSIVE" and it gives me the flexibility to shoot full length to headshot without moving - that said if you find that too large then you wouldn't like the suggestion of the 200mm f/2 either ;-)
 
Bight the bullet and get a 70-200. It's versatility means you can leave the 85mm at home.
 
meonshore said:
You have a whole ton of choices.

--Clip You can always soften in post a little if you need to - I'd rather a sharp lens and deal with it than a soft lens and have no choice.

Personally I use the 70-200mm, I don't find it "MASSIVE" and it gives me the flexibility to shoot full length to headshot without moving - that said if you find that too large then you wouldn't like the suggestion of the 200mm f/2 either ;-)
Click to expand...

I agree about handling it in Post but it's an extra task and (for a lens collector) the opportunity to have the bit of glass I fancy.

70-200mm on a gripped dSLR, for a studio studio is an exercise too many.... big, cumbersome and becomes tiring. Given a choice it would be the physically, lighter option for me. I agree quality will still be there though.
 
Phil Young said:
Bit of a strange thing to say??
Click to expand...

Not at all strange.... it captures EVERY little detail. Blemishes, spots, wrinkles.... it's a busting good lens but gives you too much work to do if you want to please an attractive model!
 
chuckles said:
70-200mm on a gripped dSLR, for a studio studio is an exercise too many.... big, cumbersome and becomes tiring.
Click to expand...

That entirely depends on your strength and technique and the way you work, as well as how long/how many sessions you do in a day with that set-up. As someone who regularly hand-holds a pro model DSLR and 70-200 all day (read 10-12 hours) at sports and events jobs a 40-60 minute portrait session makes no dent. Add another 15 years to my age and I may well revise that statement.

But as I said the 135mm is a cracker and if it works for you then it is both shorter, lighter and cheaper than a 70-200mm. I sold mine with my VRI to fund the 70-200mm VRII. If they ever release a new version I'd consider it, but I don't need with with the coverage I have and I'm not in the business of having lenses to put in glass cabinets.
 
Phil Young said:
You need the sharpness for hair, eyes and lips.

If you want softness for whatever reason, adjust it in camera or post.
Click to expand...

Yes..... but, really REALLY sharp? Which is what the Micro gives and some of that 'enhanced' from the contrast of that lens.

I agree you need sharpness but so much post wok gets tedious.

Adjust it in camera
Click to expand...

Isn't that what the DC does? Interestingly Nikon don't list the Micro in their 'lens selector' when it comes to portraits (but there again, they are running a business)

As for using the Micro for portraits, I'm just offering my experience with it - that's all! Even that's based around my subjective opinion.
 
Last edited:
Blimey - have people had a bad week or something? There was a time when you could post stuff on here a bit tongue in cheek .... ah well!
 
chuckles said:
Yes..... but, really REALLY sharp? Which is what the Micro gives and some of that 'enhanced' from the contrast of that lens.

I agree you need sharpness but so much post wok gets tedious.

Adjust it in camera

Isn't that what the DC does? Interestingly Nikon don't list the Micro in their 'lens selector' when it comes to portraits (but there again, they are running a business)

As for using the Micro for portraits, I'm just offering my experience with it - that's all! Even that's based around my subjective opinion.
Click to expand...
When I say adjust in camera, I mean for the image output - not focusing. I.e - bring down the sharpness.

Better to have a sharp lens and not use it to it's potential than want a more detailed one because currebt doesn't satisfy.

Like many here, I've used most focal length primes for portraits, including macros and zooms.

IMO, you can't go wrong with a sharp zoom lens such as a 70-200mm but my best portraits have probably been taken with an 85/1.4
 
Last edited:
The 70-200mm F4 is a cracking portrait lens. Totally useable at f4 and very capable of defocusing the background. I had a play with one the other day and liked the results very much. I'd say it is a far better option for your needs than the 24-120 F/4. Although I'm sure the 2.8 version is a tad better, I wouldn't spend the money on it until I'd tried the f4.

134/2 DC is lovely too but not nearly as versatile.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top