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

Monkey said:
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.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the advice, ill keep an eye on my focusing problem. I dont actually have a studio, the baby pictures were done in my living room :)
 
Well done Luke, you've made 3 pages, 2 of them argument and probably only a handful of posts being helpful! Who'd of thought it would be so emotive.......lol

If you've only been in the game for 3 months then grasping some of the concepts that others have been flinging around isn't that easy, we are all on the same never ending learning curve here, just some are further along it than others. It doesn't mean that you 'don't have a scooby'.

Seriously, do you feel that you are closer to understanding the answer to your original question, which afterall is the most important thing?
 
kalibre said:
Well done Luke, you've made 3 pages, 2 of them argument and probably only a handful of posts being helpful! Who'd of thought it would be so emotive.......lol

If you've only been in the game for 3 months then grasping some of the concepts that others have been flinging around isn't that easy, we are all on the same never ending learning curve here, just some are further along it than others. It doesn't mean that you 'don't have a scooby'.

Seriously, do you feel that you are closer to understanding the answer to your original question, which afterall is the most important thing?
Click to expand...

lol ive forgotton what the origional question was! This thread did get alot deeper than was needed, maybe its because I put "Money No Object" but this was purely because I didnt want to be reccomended a lens base on value for money. Im going to stick with the 50mm 1.4 for now and stop it down a bit and see what happens. I do produce what i believe to be good images with it however at times I do have a few problems with it.

Out of curiosity what lens would you pick?
 
If you believe the hyp and the Nikon mount version is as good as the Canon, then I would probably opt for the new Sigma 50, however that's coming from someone with no 1.4 glass. How much difference you'd notice (other than the weight and size!) between that and your current Nikkor I don't know........

That is of course if you like 50mm.......cue arguement.........lol..........
 
kalibre said:
If you believe the hyp and the Nikon mount version is as good as the Canon, then I would probably opt for the new Sigma 50, however that's coming from someone with no 1.4 glass. How much difference you'd notice (other than the weight and size!) between that and your current Nikkor I don't know........

That is of course if you like 50mm.......cue arguement.........lol..........
Click to expand...

lol, ok heres a serious question for you. Is the price difference in the 1.4's to 1.8 just the extra stop or are 1.4 lenses better in other ways? I notice the build quality to be a bit better but its such a small difference in arpature for such a big price difference, especially in the 85mm. I have looked on review sites but still learing all the jargon.
 
in my opinion its no better, just the apeture.

some say the f1.8 actually has less distortion, and is sharper till you get to f/4. then they both are about equal.

i see no reason to go for the f/1.4, the DOF is way too narrow so you would never really use it wide open anyway.
 
lukewoodford said:
lol, ok heres a serious question for you. Is the price difference in the 1.4's to 1.8 just the extra stop or are 1.4 lenses better in other ways? I notice the build quality to be a bit better but its such a small difference in arpature for such a big price difference, especially in the 85mm. I have looked on review sites but still learing all the jargon.
Click to expand...

The 1.8 is a plastic build whereas the 1.4 is metal I believe, but I've never heard of anyone describing the 1.8 as flimsy. So in essence I think the difference is mainly aperture and the extra 'engineering' that goes into making a 1.4.

(Sorry just reread your post, the above is for the 50mm range, I confess I don't know a lot about the 85's.)
 
Monkey said:
in my opinion its no better, just the apeture.

some say the f1.8 actually has less distortion, and is sharper till you get to f/4. then they both are about equal.

i see no reason to go for the f/1.4, the DOF is way too narrow so you would never really use it wide open anyway.
Click to expand...

Thats also what ive been reading, its a good money maker! I have the 1.4 and the only thing i can see it being better for is for shooting gigs (which i dont think ill be doing much of anyway).
 
Think of the f/1.4 as a mechanism for extracting your cash for a trinket.

They wouldn't be made if there wasn't a big enough market for them. On the other hand, f/1.7 to f/2.something has been seen as the best design compromise for fast lenses. Going to f/1.4 entails further compromises that may be impossible to compensate for, maybe slight vignetting and soft corners.

Undeniably, you'd get the benefits/problems of the wider maximum aperture and should expect a better build quality. Whether the faster lens matches the cheaper one over the rest of the apertures is something you should check.

The last time I was thinking about a 50mm f/1.4 the consensus was that there was no point; obviously, using it wide open gives very narrow DOF but film grain needed to be taken into account. Soon after I got one with a body, but I've never used 50mm a great deal and haven't compared the f/1.4 with my f/1.7

Here's an oddball for you: http://www.adaptall-2.com/lenses/51A.html
 
photon said:
Think of the f/1.4 as a mechanism for extracting your cash for a trinket.

They wouldn't be made if there wasn't a big enough market for them. On the other hand, f/1.7 to f/2.something has been seen as the best design compromise for fast lenses. Going to f/1.4 entails further compromises that may be impossible to compensate for, maybe slight vignetting and soft corners.

Undeniably, you'd get the benefits/problems of the wider maximum aperture and should expect a better build quality. Whether the faster lens matches the cheaper one over the rest of the apertures is something you should check.

The last time I was thinking about a 50mm f/1.4 the consensus was that there was no point; obviously, using it wide open gives very narrow DOF but film grain needed to be taken into account. Soon after I got one with a body, but I've never used 50mm a great deal and haven't compared the f/1.4 with my f/1.7

Here's an oddball for you: http://www.adaptall-2.com/lenses/51A.html
Click to expand...


Great thanks for that, another lens to think about:thinking:! Someone needs to make a website comparing all lenses of the same focal ranges from all brands with the same photo taken from each to make it easy to see which one is the best!
 
Wow, thos thread got crazy :D

Nothing wrong with wanting the best and most expensive glass, if you can afford it, then who cares? If money trully is no object, get to the shops, buy them, and if you dont like, sell :D

I still maintain, the Canon 85mm F1.2 and the other two canon "portrait lens" are apparently flawless. Also gives you an excuse to expand your gear massivly. Definately the route I plan to take.

Gary.
 
EdinburghGary said:
Wow, thos thread got crazy :D

Nothing wrong with wanting the best and most expensive glass, if you can afford it, then who cares? If money trully is no object, get to the shops, buy them, and if you dont like, sell :D

I still maintain, the Canon 85mm F1.2 and the other two canon "portrait lens" are apparently flawless. Also gives you an excuse to expand your gear massivly. Definately the route I plan to take.

Gary.
Click to expand...

It did get very crazy:bonk: but again the only reason i put "MONEY NO OBJECT" is because i didnt want to be reccomended a lens that was "great value for money." I just wanted to see what people would use :)
 
hmm interesting thread here :D, have to say my pick would be the marvelous Canon 85mm f/1.2, hands down!
 
lukewoodford said:
It did get very crazy:bonk: but again the only reason i put "MONEY NO OBJECT" is because i didnt want to be reccomended a lens that was "great value for money." I just wanted to see what people would use :)
Click to expand...

Yer, I got that :D

85mm f1.2, you know you want to :D

G
 
EdinburghGary said:
Och I know, sorry. The 1D/s MKiiii cant be too far away ;)

Gary.
Click to expand...

Id only be complicating myself at the moment, well at least thats one option written off! I think im going to say with my 50mm 1.4 for the time being and experiment stopping it down more and see what i come up with, im in no rush to spend my money. :)
 
lukewoodford said:
Id only be complicating myself at the moment, well at least thats one option written off! I think im going to say with my 50mm 1.4 for the time being and experiment stopping it down more and see what i come up with, im in no rush to spend my money. :)
Click to expand...

I absolutely adore the 50mm, especcially when used at 1.4 on full frame, it throws the background into another dimension, never to be seen again. Its superb.

Gary.
 
Short answer to your question - the best Nikon fit lenses that I have used for portraiture are the 85mm f/1.4 and the 105mm f/1.8 - these are both Ai-S lenses so are manual focus but the optics and build quality are hard to beat.

Compared to the cost of modern AF glass these can be picked up relatively cheaply although they can be a bit of a pig to focus on modern bodies - the cameras of that era had the split prisms and matte areas on the screen to assist you and without these it can be very tricky to get it spot on especially if you are shooting with them wide open.

The 105mm, lovely bit of kit though it is may be a tad long on a crop sensor body as you would end up perhaps a bit too far away from the subject.
 
That reminds me, there's always the 50mm f/1.2 AI-S as well, iirc these will meter on the likes of a D300,but as Nicos says they are manual focus.......
 
Flash In The Pan said:
That reminds me, there's always the 50mm f/1.2 AI-S as well, iirc these will meter on the likes of a D300,but as Nicos says they are manual focus.......
Click to expand...

Flash go away your giving me way to many decisions!!;) At the moment though im sticking with my 50 1.4, i just ordered the lens hood for it and going to experiment stopping it down a bit. This is a great thread for future refference though.
Im suprised no one has mentioned the Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G ED, as people have mentioned the 70-200 VR. the 24-70 sounds ideal?
 
Its probably to do with needing to get closer to your subject that its not been mentioned I'd expect. Deffo a sweet lens though.

Did you check out photozone btw? what did you think? I really like their tests, I just wish they had more lenses
 
theory said:
Its probably to do with needing to get closer to your subject that its not been mentioned I'd expect. Deffo a sweet lens though.

Did you check out photozone btw? what did you think? I really like their tests, I just wish they had more lenses
Click to expand...

Yeah i checked it out, really good site, being new to this however its quite hard to understand all the tests, especially when you had a whole day debating on TP!:LOL: One thing that i didn't get was when they do thier final 5 star rating sometimes the 5th star is in white and not black. I wondered if this meant it was 41/2 or 5? check out the nikon 85 1.4 verdict to see what i mean. Idealy I want to find a website that compares photos of the different brands lenses of the same focal range. e.g the canan, nikon, sigma 50mm 1.4.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Yes, in general I'd say that was the reason. I wonder how many people get sucked in by the hype and buy one, only for it to lie unused in their camera bag?
Click to expand...

Lord help me...........I find myself agreeing with you again......:puke:
 
Yeah, think i`ll go and get some fresh air.
 
lukewoodford said:
Flash go away your giving me way to many decisions!!;) At the moment though im sticking with my 50 1.4, i just ordered the lens hood for it and going to experiment stopping it down a bit. This is a great thread for future refference though.
Im suprised no one has mentioned the Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G ED, as people have mentioned the 70-200 VR. the 24-70 sounds ideal?
Click to expand...


fd35_1.JPG


:naughty::LOL:
 
lukewoodford said:
Yeah i checked it out, really good site, being new to this however its quite hard to understand all the tests, especially when you had a whole day debating on TP!:LOL: One thing that i didn't get was when they do thier final 5 star rating sometimes the 5th star is in white and not black. I wondered if this meant it was 41/2 or 5? check out the nikon 85 1.4 verdict to see what i mean. Idealy I want to find a website that compares photos of the different brands lenses of the same focal range. e.g the canan, nikon, sigma 50mm 1.4.
Click to expand...

yeah thats a 'half star'...

Did you get your head around the MTF charts? I thought given you wanted sharpness that this would be useful to you. And you can check the canon section for their reviews, just look out for their differing charts as usually nikon lenses are capped at 2250 where as the Canon ones get capped at 2150...

If the sigma 1.4 isnt in the nikon section it'll often be worth looking in the canon section for it... 3rd party lenses arent usually reviewed twice on that site. also its worth noting that some things that are special about lenses aren't measurable by these tests (bokeh is an easy example) and thats where fredmiranda, this place and the flickr/pbase type sites come in handy.
 
theory said:
yeah thats a 'half star'...

Did you get your head around the MTF charts? I thought given you wanted sharpness that this would be useful to you. And you can check the canon section for their reviews, just look out for their differing charts as usually nikon lenses are capped at 2250 where as the Canon ones get capped at 2150...

If the sigma 1.4 isnt in the nikon section it'll often be worth looking in the canon section for it... 3rd party lenses arent usually reviewed twice on that site.
Click to expand...


Its that first big grid chart i couldnt get my head around, but ill look with a fresh head today. All that debating yesterday made my eyes go funny.
 
lukewoodford said:
Its that first big grid chart i couldnt get my head around, but ill look with a fresh head today. All that debating yesterday made my eyes go funny.
Click to expand...

Ah thats distortion... so if you were taking technical shots, or pictures of architecture then it might matter (but those grids can help you fix it in PP anyway)
 
Enjoyed this thread!

Luke: I wish I could answer your simple question with an answer, i.e. "yes grab the XXmm f/Y.Z as it's tack sharp and is perfect for portraiture", but I can't. No-one can, because different people have different styles, suited best to different lenses.

It does seem that you've been getting some unfair stick as to spending money / getting the best, perhaps some comments have been based on a misunderstanding that you wanted to spend for the sake of spending.

I do agree with NorthernNikon & Flash. As long as you know how to get the best out of your lenses, you're only ever limited by your own abilities.

Grab the 85/1.8, use it, and see if you really need 1.4. I very much doubt you will, because your skill as a tog will sell your photo's (which you seem to be doing), not the lower f-stop which is pretty much pointless anyway.

Just for the record, I'm getting the 85mm/1.8 for portraiture, along with the 50mm 1.8. The money I save from not getting 1.4's will go towards getting the next body up instead :)
 
Interesting thread which I must admit I have just skimmed through as my head hurts this morning. :beer: :D Luke, as you have said you want the best portrait lens I really cannot see the point of going for something like the 85mm f/1.4 as you would very rarely (if ever) use it at that aperture for portraits, I would stick with the f/1.8 if I were you and put the rest of the money towards other kit. I speak from experience with this one as I have the 50mm f/1.4 which I bought when suffering an attack of lens lust and I have hardly ever used it at that aperture, I have since also tried the f/1.8 version and cannot tell the difference between the two. I am almost certain this will apply to the 85mm version as well and whilst I would like the f/1.4 it's just too damned expensive for what I want it for so will probably go for the f/1.8 eventually. I was with MooMike recently and he was using the 85mm f/1.8 in a low light situation (equestrian shoot) and the IQ cannot be faulted.

For my portrait shoots I use the 70-200mm VR and this serves my purpose as well as being more versatile for other uses. I think what you have got to ask yourself is will your customers 'pixel peep' as much as you? No, of course they won't, they will not be looking at the image thinking "Nice shot, but the bokeh could be better/I wonder if this was taken with the cream machine/he should have used the f/1.4 version of this lens instead of the f/1.8", they will be looking for an emotional response from the image (as should you) which will make them go "Wow, great picture!"

My final point in this rambling post is why you really want portrait pictures to be so pin sharp. Many portraits are ruined by being over sharp IMO and with a digital camera you will only ever get a certain amount of sharpness due to the anti-aliasing filter, any picture you take will require sharpening in post production.

Hope this helps!
 
Thanks for the above posts, ive been going back through my raw files and looking at the images im not 100% with and ive noticed that nearly all of them were shot at 1.4. And the ones I think are good enough are 2.8. Im going to stop it down more and have a play in my next shoots. Thanks for the help and advice:)
 
lukewoodford said:
Flash go away your giving me way to many decisions!!;) At the moment though im sticking with my 50 1.4, i just ordered the lens hood for it and going to experiment stopping it down a bit. This is a great thread for future refference though.
Im suprised no one has mentioned the Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G ED, as people have mentioned the 70-200 VR. the 24-70 sounds ideal?
Click to expand...


I would have suggested the 24-70 AF-S G ED you talk about, which I do have and love it so much more than words can say; but it is just not long enough for portraits, even on a DX body. It's a wonderful "all round" lens, which is on my camera most of the time ... but up to 55mm it's still too short for portrait. Unless you're shooting in a studio made for the Smurfs :thinking:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top