Nikon 17-55mm for portraits?

P

purplepaul

Messages
358
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi i have a smal mobile portrait buisness and up to now i have been using a sigma 24-70mm f2.8. Which was fine at first but i noticed during my last shoot that the lens was very soft. I have binned the lens and im looking to upgrade. I would love to replace it with the Nikon 24-70mm but the wife just saw how much they cost lol. So that leaves me with either the 17-55mm or the 28-70mm if i can find one at the right price in time.

The next few job i have are all full length stuff so the 17-55mm should be ok for that but im woried about losing that little extra reach and getting some distortion with the 17-55.

Any help on the matter would be great

Paul
 
What kind of focal length did you find you were using with the Sigma? You could always send the lens back to Sigma for calibration.
 
without going through my pics i would guess around 35-50 mark.

I tested the sigma on focus charts etc and not only was it well out it was far softer on one side and the image looked warped on that side. I have the funds for a nice upgrade just dont want to buy the wrong glass. my other problem is that the 17-55 is DX and i can see my self upgrading with in the next 18 months to full frame.
 
17-55mm is great for portraits - here's just a couple of mine:
AW1_4631.jpg


AW4_2415.jpg


lots more if you need convincing!
 
Why not go for a prime instead? If most of your work is posed then the limitation of a fixed focal length won't be limiting and you can get a faster lens for less money. Have a look at the new sigma and nikon 50mm f/1.4's or maybe even an 85mm f/1.4
 
I have the Nikon 17-55 and it really is sharp, but often wish I had gone for a 24 or 28-70, which would give a bit more breathing space for the subject and probably help with background separation on candids.
 
whitey was selling a Tokina 16-50mm I sold him, IMO it's as sharp as the nikkor, if I hadn't have gone full frame I wouldn't have sold the Tokina it was that good , he was looking for £350 for it WHE price is £600 and it's mint

This pic is a quick snap straight out of the camera @ f/2.8

DSCF0010.jpg
 
For what it's going to be used for I'd definitely go for a prime myself... a step or two forwards or backwards to frame properly doesn't matter and the quality will be a step up from a zoom plus the larger aperture of the prime for shallow DOF if you want it...
 
purplepaul said:
my other problem is that the 17-55 is DX and i can see my self upgrading with in the next 18 months to full frame.
Click to expand...


Just my tuppenyworth...

Why spend on a lens that'll probably be upgraded within the next 18 months? IMO, buy a FF compatible lens that covers the lengths you want on both DX and FX sensors. If you go for the DX lens, it'll drop 25% or more of its value as soon as you place the order.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top