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

Blapto said:
All this talk about angular field of view...

I don't think people are taking into account that on a crop body you're going to stand further from the subject if you use the same lens.
Click to expand...

I am :)

Erm... but I really do rate the 58mm F1.4 voigtlander, even over the 70-200 2.8mm for portraits. Sorry if I helped derail this thread a bit :geek:
 
Blapto said:
All this talk about angular field of view...

I don't think people are taking into account that on a crop body you're going to stand further from the subject if you use the same lens.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I meant, if you are standing further away then the 'distortion' caused by the more restrictive FoV is irrelvant. Obviously a 20mm regardless of the body isn't going to be flattering, however the difference in the compensated FoV between 50 and 80 is so small that it couldn't be flatly dismissed as always 'unflattering'.

M2C
 
Shame it's a Nikon you need it for...(did I just say that!!)

Some say it's the Leica Noctilux-M 50 mm f/1.0.
leicaqm2.jpg


Others that it's the Canon 50mm f/0.95.
canon50mmf095ur7.jpg


But some say it's the Carl Zeiss 50mm f/0.7 ;)
tnmitchellgm5.jpg


Personally, I find the 100mm end of my 100-300mm f/4 is just about perfect :)
 
theory said:
Yes I fully understand this 'crop factor' and the reach advantage etc

My problem is that I don't see how the FOV can change without changing the distance from the subject. If I wanted to take a shot of a silhouetted person against a huge sun I could use the cropped sensor to my advantage and get the FOV of a 750mm lens by using a 500mm bit of glass, although it wouldn't behave like a 750mm in other respects.

Actually your post alludes to say the same as my understanding... hmm. I think I'll step aside on this one now :)
Click to expand...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/evnd/2678838187/
Even if the crop factor makes this lens into an 85mm, the distortion on the face will still be there. The further away you get with a longer lens, the more accurate the portrait, thus the reason 85mm or 105mm is commonly used on the Nikon platform for portraits.
 
Adam Rowney said:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/evnd/2678838187/
Even if the crop factor makes this lens into an 85mm, the distortion on the face will still be there. The further away you get with a longer lens, the more accurate the portrait, thus the reason 85mm or 105mm is commonly used on the Nikon platform for portraits.
Click to expand...

58mm with crop factor gets you about as far away as an 85mm lens would do on a 35mm sensor which makes for the same flattering perspective.

technically, as blapto pointed out you could use a 20mm lens providing you stand far enough away but you'd need to crop it to get a head and shoulder portrait. It would still flatter despite being a tiny crop and losing a fair bit of detail. :)
 
theory said:
58mm with crop factor gets you about as far away as an 85mm lens would do on a 35mm sensor which makes for the same flattering perspective.

technically, as blapto pointed out you could use a 20mm lens providing you stand far enough away but you'd need to crop it to get a head and shoulder portrait. It would still flatter despite being a tiny crop and losing a fair bit of detail. :)
Click to expand...

It wouldn't be ideal then!:bonk:
 
puddleduck said:
50mm is a really unflattering portrait length.
Click to expand...

Strange, Jane Bown made a living and her reputation a neknowned portrait photographer using just this lens on a 135 SLR.

There is no such thing as the best portrait lens. One person might want tight facial crops, another two-thirds shots and third might want a wide angle envirnmental portrait. To say that 20mm or 50mm will always create an unflattering portrait is rubbish, you just wouldn't wnat to us one too close to the subject. Step back and they can be brilliant lengths for portraiture.

The porblem is that people of become hung up ona certain focal length (eg 85mm) being the ideal for portraiture. It's not, there is no ideal. In the studio perhaprs 85mm gives the best perspective for a standard headshot but who says anyone has to be standard?

I've seen brilliant portraiture taken at all focal lengths and with both primes and zooms.
 
NorthernNikon said:
Strange, Jane Bown made a living and her reputation a neknowned portrait photographer using just this lens on a 135 SLR.

There is no such thing as the best portrait lens. One person might want tight facial crops, another two-thirds shots and third might want a wide angle envirnmental portrait. To say that 20mm or 50mm will always create an unflattering portrait is rubbish, you just wouldn't wnat to us one too close to the subject. Step back and they can be brilliant lengths for portraiture.

The porblem is that people of become hung up ona certain focal length (eg 85mm) being the ideal for portraiture. It's not, there is no ideal. In the studio perhaprs 85mm gives the best perspective for a standard headshot but who says anyone has to be standard?

I've seen brilliant portraiture taken at all focal lengths and with both primes and zooms.
Click to expand...


Thanks for that, i understand what your saying. I even use my 18-200 VR for full length shots when i dont want the background blurred. I guess i just wanted an upgrade from my 50. I still think it will come in handy quite alot but as im getting people paying me know i want the best quality lens (within price reason) for the stuff i do. I think ill go for the 85 1.4 soon and the 70-200 in a year or so. I think!:thinking:
 
There is a difference between a portrait and a picture with a person in it.

What we like to call environmental portraiture, or editorial portraiture for that matter, is arrely portraiture at all. It is putting someone in a scene to give more idea of the surroundings - that is a picture with a person in it, we call it portraiture, but stricly speaking it isn't.

Portraiture, true portraiture, is when the picture is made up entirely of the sitter, whether that be full length or tighter. Once you start to include other information and details you start to stray away from portraiture. Nice pictures though they are, they are not portraits in the true sense of the word.
 
lukewoodford said:
Thanks for that, i understand what your saying. I even use my 18-200 VR for full length shots when i dont want the background blurred. I guess i just wanted an upgrade from my 50. I still think it will come in handy quite alot but as im getting people paying me know i want the best quality lens (within price reason) for the stuff i do. I think ill go for the 85 1.4 soon and the 70-200 in a year or so. I think!:thinking:
Click to expand...

In that case I would wholeheartedly recommend the Sigma 50-150mm f:2.8. Its focal length is ideal for portriature and it's image quality is good enough for pro work. Its not that expensive and if you find that you're using one focal length far more than any other you can then get the relevent prime at a later date or if notm upgrade the Sigma to a 70/80-200mm f:2.8.
 
Lensflare said:
There is a difference between a portrait and a picture with a person in it.

What we like to call environmental portraiture, or editorial portraiture for that matter, is arrely portraiture at all. It is putting someone in a scene to give more idea of the surroundings - that is a picture with a person in it, we call it portraiture, but stricly speaking it isn't.

Portraiture, true portraiture, is when the picture is made up entirely of the sitter, whether that be full length or tighter. Once you start to include other information and details you start to stray away from portraiture. Nice pictures though they are, they are not portraits in the true sense of the word.
Click to expand...

Im glad i know, i havnt been to college or anything to learn so i dont know this kind of thing. :)
 
NorthernNikon said:
In that case I would wholeheartedly recommend the Sigma 50-150mm f:2.8. Its focal length is ideal for portriature and it's image quality is good enough for pro work. Its not that expensive and if you find that you're using one focal length far more than any other you can then get the relevent prime at a later date or if notm upgrade the Sigma to a 70/80-200mm f:2.8.
Click to expand...

Im just about getting my head round the Nikon range, let alone the other brands. Id like to know other peoples oppinions on this lens. The prices is appealing however i dont mind spending the extra money for the nikon 85 1.4 if the quality is better. I have no problem using Sigma/Tamron lenses if they are on par with nikon. Thanks alot for all the help guys and gurls!
 
Lensflare said:
There is a difference between a portrait and a picture with a person in it.
Click to expand...

True, but the only difference is that in a portrait the person/s is/are the subject.

What we like to call environmental portraiture, or editorial portraiture for that matter, is arrely portraiture at all. It is putting someone in a scene to give more idea of the surroundings - that is a picture with a person in it, we call it portraiture, but stricly speaking it isn't.
Click to expand...

I have to say that's aboslute rubbish. Of course environmental portaiture is portraiture, if it wasn't it wouldn't be called environmental portraiture. It's a portrait about a person and the environment tells us more about the person. I don't think any knowledable photograher would call putting a figure into a scene to add scale a portrait because it's obvisou that the figure isn't the subject.

Portraiture, true portraiture, is when the picture is made up entirely of the sitter, whether that be full length or tighter. Once you start to include other information and details you start to stray away from portraiture. Nice pictures though they are, they are not portraits in the true sense of the word.
Click to expand...

Again, that's rubbish. There is no such thing as 'true portraiture' other than the concept of a photograph where the subject is either a human or an animal. Tyring to elavate one form of portraiture over another by defining one type as 'true' is nothing but misconstrued elitism.
 
lukewoodford said:
Im just about getting my head round the Nikon range, let alone the other brands. Id like to know other peoples oppinions on this lens. The prices is appealing however i dont mind spending the extra money for the nikon 85 1.4 if the quality is better. I have no problem using Sigma/Tamron lenses if they are on par with nikon. Thanks alot for all the help guys and gurls!
Click to expand...

What do you want the extra quality for? How do you define quality? Is it image quality? Does the quality of image only refer to the sharpness at a given focal distance? First rule of photography, get the shot. Once you've got the shot then you worry about image quality. 50-150mm will give you far more flexibility and variety of shot than a 85mm prime.

IMVHO The Sigma will give you all the image quality 90% of the members here will need and of that other 10% I would say 90% of them were just obsessed pixel peepers.
 
lukewoodford said:
Im just about getting my head round the Nikon range, let alone the other brands. Id like to know other peoples oppinions on this lens. The prices is appealing however i dont mind spending the extra money for the nikon 85 1.4 if the quality is better. I have no problem using Sigma/Tamron lenses if they are on par with nikon. Thanks alot for all the help guys and gurls!
Click to expand...

Gets very good reviews on www.fredmiranda.com. Very tempting, actually!
 
NorthernNikon said:
What do you want the extra quality for? How do you define quality? Is it image quality? Does the quality of image only refer to the sharpness at a given focal distance? First rule of photography, get the shot. Once you've got the shot then you worry about image quality. 50-150mm will give you far more flexibility and variety of shot than a 85mm prime.

IMVHO The Sigma will give you all the image quality 90% of the members here will need and of that other 10% I would say 90% of them were just obsessed pixel peepers.
Click to expand...

Ive only been doing this 3 months so bare with me, I mean image quality, sharpness and bokeh. For example if i took the exact same shot on the sigma-70-200 or 50-150 and the nikon 70-200 which would produce the better image? Are the Sigma and Tamron lenses cheaper because they arent called canon or Nikon and they have to try and compete with less profit margin or are are the quality generally not as good?
 
I have to say I think there is a difference in quality, and not just sharpness but having used some zeiss and voigtlander lenses I see a far greater amount of 'character' (I know thats subjective, but I reckon most would agree) and again with other primes (generally) this is true also... You can take a picture of some really mundane things and yet some lenses make it look special somehow.

I do like the 70-200mm loads and would like to have another, but I do find it gets over-rated sometimes. It is brilliant but I doubt it's as good for people shots as the 85mm 1.4 or the zeiss/voigtlander alternatives out there...

Granted, I've never used a lot of lenses and I know there are some really special zooms out there (28-70mm canon L glass really took me by surprise) but I do think the use of primes should be promoted, because they're ace! :)

Check out Zeiss and Voigltander glass shots on flickr and see what I mean... also search for the cream machine. Wonderful stuff.
 
lukewoodford said:
Ive only been doing this 3 months so bare with me, I mean image quality, sharpness and bokeh. For example if i took the exact same shot on the sigma-70-200 or 50-150 and the nikon 70-200 which would produce the better image? Are the Sigma and Tamron lenses cheaper because they arent called canon or Nikon and they have to try and compete with less profit margin or are are the quality generally not as good?
Click to expand...


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. Think of all the famous photographs you can bring to mind. How many of them are memorable because of the sharpness and bokeh?

There are too many gear freaks on the web and not enough photographers IMVHO.
 
NorthernNikon said:
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. Think of all the famous photographs you can bring to mind. How many of them are memorable because of the sharpness and bokeh?

There are too many gear freaks on the web and not enough photographers IMVHO.
Click to expand...

I understand but trust me i am not a gear freak, i have been self employed for the last four years and had enought money in the bank to buy 7 D3's however i bought just a D300, camera bag and 18-200mmVR to start. All i have bought since then is the SB-800 and the 50mm 1.4. I think its a good lens but think most people reccomend it based on price whereas i have money for a better quality lens for portraits. I am happy with the quality and versitility the 18-200mm is giving me but want an upgrade from the 50mm 1.4 :)
 
lukewoodford said:
I am happy with the quality and versitility the 18-200mm is giving me but want an upgrade from the 50mm 1.4 :)
Click to expand...

That doesn't make sense though. There is no upgrade to the 50mm f:1.4 unless you look at the Sigma 50 HSM f:1.4 or one of the other exotic third party manufacturers. But then you say you're happy with the quality of the 18-200 which scrafices image quality for the versitility of the zoom range?

Being a gear freak isn't about spending money, there are plenty poor ones around. It's about worrying about technical factors which will have very little influence on your photography.
 
NorthernNikon said:
That doesn't make sense though. There is no upgrade to the 50mm f:1.4 unless you look at the Sigma 50 HSM f:1.4 or one of the other exotic third party manufacturers. But then you say you're happy with the quality of the 18-200 which scrafices image quality for the versitility of the zoom range?

Being a gear freak isn't about spending money, there are plenty poor ones around. It's about worrying about technical factors which will have very little influence on your photography.
Click to expand...

Ok, the shoot i did with Cayley who is on the main page of my website wearing black i was very happy with as i wanted everything in focus and it worked well. I use the 50 when i want a blurred background but it hasnt been giving me the sharpness of the subject i want (some of the time). Maybe this is down to me then but as i have stated and been told there are better lenses than the 50mm 1.4.
 
lukewoodford said:
Ok, the shoot i did with Cayley who is on the main page of my website wearing black i was very happy with as i wanted everything in focus and it worked well. I use the 50 when i want a blurred background but it hasnt been giving me the sharpness of the subject i want (some of the time). Maybe this is down to me then but as i have stated and been told there are better lenses than the 50mm 1.4.
Click to expand...

Hi Luke,

Don't worry about people arguing over semantics what you meant by the word 'upgrade', if you are new to the game then you can't always express what you want 'correctly' enough for some people.

From what I understand you seem to be happy with the focal length of the 50mm on your D300. The issue or limitation that you've hit as you've just explained is some softness creeping in some of the time. The Nikon 1.4 (and 1.8s) a known to be a tad soft wide-open. So the alternatives are either stop it down a bit (maybe 2.8-3.5) whilst still retaining a fairly shallow DoF, or purchase a lens that is sharper at larger apertures. To the best of my (limited) knowledge the new Sigma does seem to promise that, but at a higher cost.

Close?
 
lukewoodford said:
Ok, the shoot i did with Cayley who is on the main page of my website wearing black i was very happy with as i wanted everything in focus and it worked well. I use the 50 when i want a blurred background but it hasnt been giving me the sharpness of the subject i want (some of the time).
Click to expand...

If I'm reading this right it's not an issue with the lens per se, it's the limitation of juggling focal length, depth of field and distance from subject of both the camera and the background. From the sound of it, what you wanted to achieve with the Cayley shot would be pretty tricky to get with the right focal length and aperture but the key thing is that that focal length and aperture would only be right for a photo with the same ration of factors. Move to a different location and the distances change and therefore the requirements of the lens change too. One right lens for one situation won't necessarily be the right one for another, or the next one, or the one after that.

Maybe this is down to me then but as i have stated and been told there are better lenses than the 50mm 1.4.
Click to expand...

Okay, ask yourself some questions.

Why do you want this uber-sharpness?
What do people mean by 'better'?
Are these people in a position to talk from good experience or are they just repeating web forum myths?

The Nikkor 50mm f:1.4 is a brilliant portait lens.
Professional portrait photographers come in many different shapes and sizes and they use all kinds of different kit. The one thing they have in common is the ability to produce portraits which sell. I would recommend a fast (f:2.8) zoom for the two reasons I've stated previously 1) It's flexible 2) You get a variety of shots. Unless you have a very particular style and want to work with only a set focal length and certain parameters flexibility and variety are key.

I got a book on the business of photography as a christmas present last year. The only thing it taught me was how not to be a portrait photographer. The author, an american, was shooting medium format film in a studio. He used the same lighting set up time and time again, even to the extent of advocating having legnths of string so that you can measure the distance of the lights from the subject's nose. His photos are all, IMVHO, awful. Photography has moved on. Portraits are rarely static. They're taken in all kinds of locations, from all kinds of angles. These are the shots that sell, not just to magazines but in the lifestyle market too. If all your shots are taken at 85mm f:2.8 how many different shots will the buyer want? One? Maybe two if you're luck? What if they're taken at a variety of focal lengths, close up, environmental, full length. Now a number to choose from they're going to want more. This is what you want whether you selling them or not. Sure you can walk around with a prime, but all that walking around takes time, distracts the subject, you miss looks, reactions you could get by zooming in quickly.

Finally, the most important thing about portraiture is the ability of the photographer to capture something special about the subject and to translate that into the photograph. The only way that kit affects this is in a detrimental way, if the kit is intrusive say or awkward for the photographer to use.
 
EdinburghGary said:
Cheers mate, I just searched for the cream machine in Google Images, to see some sample shots, and lets just say - I won't be having my Lunch, especcially the yogurt :puke:

Gary.
Click to expand...

hahaha!!! :bonk: I meant on flicker but that gave me a good laugh :thumbs: I'm kinda tempted to do the same search (only I know better!!!)
 
kalibre said:
Hi Luke,

Don't worry about people arguing over semantics what you meant by the word 'upgrade', if you are new to the game then you can't always express what you want 'correctly' enough for some people.

From what I understand you seem to be happy with the focal length of the 50mm on your D300. The issue or limitation that you've hit as you've just explained is some softness creeping in some of the time. The Nikon 1.4 (and 1.8s) a known to be a tad soft wide-open. So the alternatives are either stop it down a bit (maybe 2.8-3.5) whilst still retaining a fairly shallow DoF, or purchase a lens that is sharper at larger apertures. To the best of my (limited) knowledge the new Sigma does seem to promise that, but at a higher cost.

Close?
Click to expand...

Thank you thanks exactly what i mean:)! Do you mean the sigma 50-150 or 50mm prime? Also when shooting outdoors in light i sometimes get a blue line round part of the subject. Is this due to lens flare?
 
lukewoodford said:
Thank you thanks exactly what i mean:)! Do you mean the sigma 50-150 or 50mm prime? Also when shooting outdoors in light i sometimes get a blue line round part of the subject. Is this due to lens flare?
Click to expand...

The new 50mm 1.4 EX HSM is the one I meant (£330). The blue you describe could be flare or just CA, both of which the Sigma is meant to tackle very well due to unique element arrangment and 'special' combination of coatings.
 
NorthernNikon said:
If I'm reading this right it's not an issue with the lens per se, it's the limitation of juggling focal length, depth of field and distance from subject of both the camera and the background. From the sound of it, what you wanted to achieve with the Cayley shot would be pretty tricky to get with the right focal length and aperture but the key thing is that that focal length and aperture would only be right for a photo with the same ration of factors. Move to a different location and the distances change and therefore the requirements of the lens change too. One right lens for one situation won't necessarily be the right one for another, or the next one, or the one after that.



Okay, ask yourself some questions.

Why do you want this uber-sharpness?
What do people mean by 'better'?
Are these people in a position to talk from good experience or are they just repeating web forum myths?

The Nikkor 50mm f:1.4 is a brilliant portait lens.
Professional portrait photographers come in many different shapes and sizes and they use all kinds of different kit. The one thing they have in common is the ability to produce portraits which sell. I would recommend a fast (f:2.8) zoom for the two reasons I've stated previously 1) It's flexible 2) You get a variety of shots. Unless you have a very particular style and want to work with only a set focal length and certain parameters flexibility and variety are key.

I got a book on the business of photography as a christmas present last year. The only thing it taught me was how not to be a portrait photographer. The author, an american, was shooting medium format film in a studio. He used the same lighting set up time and time again, even to the extent of advocating having legnths of string so that you can measure the distance of the lights from the subject's nose. His photos are all, IMVHO, awful. Photography has moved on. Portraits are rarely static. They're taken in all kinds of locations, from all kinds of angles. These are the shots that sell, not just to magazines but in the lifestyle market too. If all your shots are taken at 85mm f:2.8 how many different shots will the buyer want? One? Maybe two if you're luck? What if they're taken at a variety of focal lengths, close up, environmental, full length. Now a number to choose from they're going to want more. This is what you want whether you selling them or not. Sure you can walk around with a prime, but all that walking around takes time, distracts the subject, you miss looks, reactions you could get by zooming in quickly.

Finally, the most important thing about portraiture is the ability of the photographer to capture something special about the subject and to translate that into the photograph. The only way that kit affects this is in a detrimental way, if the kit is intrusive say or awkward for the photographer to use.
Click to expand...


On your first point thats not exactly what i meant, im probably not explaining very well. I was very happy with those shots of Cayley with the 18-200mm lens. Its when using the 50mm on different shoots it sometimes doesnt produce the quality i would like. If i could get nice blurred backgrounds with the 18-200mmVR then i would stick with that but i cant.

And on your second point check out my website. If i was to get an 85mm lens it does not mean all the shots will be taken from the same distance. You can see from my website i mostly shoot outdoors from different angles, distances and i try to be very creative. I am not agaist having a zoom but it does not mean by getting the 85mm 1.4 i cannot use my legs! :)
 
kalibre said:
The new 50mm 1.4 EX HSM is the one I meant (£330). The blue you describe could be flare or just CA, both of which the Sigma is meant to tackle very well due to unique element arrangment and 'special' combination of coatings.
Click to expand...

ok great, i must say i dont have a lens hood for that lens. What is CA by the way? thank you for the help :)
 
IMHO the look of the images out of the 85/1.4 is why so many people rave about it. I use a D3 with 24-70/2.8 and a D700 with 85/1.4 at weddings. Without looking at file names I can instantly tell which were taken with the 85mm even when looking at the small previews in aperture. It has that... something... for me. The images definitely have nicer colours straight out of the camera, and the bokeh is just so nice and smooth. I think all of my favourite wedding shots have been with the 85.

I think the 105DC and the 85/1.4 are Nikons best lenses for standard head shot style portraits due to focal length and the way they render the image.

Pete
 
lukewoodford said:
On your first point thats not exactly what i meant, im probably not explaining very well. I was very happy with those shots of Cayley with the 18-200mm lens. Its when using the 50mm on different shoots it sometimes doesnt produce the quality i would like. If i could get nice blurred backgrounds with the 18-200mmVR then i would stick with that but i cant.
Click to expand...

The you've lost me completely. Unless you've a faulty 50mm there's no way the 18-200 will match it for image shaprness or quality.
 
rdh said:
I think he means he'd like the shallow DOF of the nifty on his zoom lens. Hence he'd not need the fifty.

Edit: Ah, I see your perspective. My nifty is tack sharp, I must say.
Click to expand...

Yes thats what i mean. I am perfectly happy with that lens, if id known at the time portraits were going to be my focus i wouldnt have bought it but i do use it. Examples are on my site, the ones with cayley wearing black against the white background with pillars. And also the shot which is the background for my clients section. I do get good shots out of the 50 1.4 but i feel the quality (mainly sharpness of the subject) could be better with a more expensive lens? I understand money doesnt necessarily mean its better but this is why i asked the origional question. "If money was no object?" Because alot of people reccomend the 50mm because of the price, whereas if theres better options i can afford it. I dont find investing in better quality if it means my images are going to be better quality. And i dont mean its going to improve my photography as im happy with the way im progressing for only been doing it 3 months.
 
lukewoodford said:
I do get good shots out of the 50 1.4 but i feel the quality (mainly sharpness of the subject) could be better with a more expensive lens?
Click to expand...


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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top