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

[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.

 

[PeteStewardson]

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!

 

[PeteStewardson]

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!

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 ), 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.