Ok... which pro lens?

Rosiebud

Rosiebud

Suspended / Banned
Messages
96
Name
Ellie
Edit My Images
Yes
As a newbie to photography I have lots to learn obviously but my main aim eventually is to do pet/portrait work.

To that end I need a couple of decent lenses. My head is spinning on all the research and reviews I've read on various lenses. I'd rather save up to buy one or two pro lenses - but which ones?

I'd really appreciate any advice :)

I currently have a Nikon AF-S 35mm f/1.8G and a Tamron SP 17-50mm f/2.8 VC Di II
 
Lots of pet shots involve movement.

I would suggest you should also consider a 70-200 f2.8.
Out of the 2 you mention I would pick the zoom as for static portraits/headshots, you cannot reframe with the 35mm unless you move. This can distract the dog/ cat etc. and then it moves, cue vicious circle. The zoom allows you to reframe whilst not moving.
 
Portrait lenses tend to be things like an 85mm f1.4/f1.8 or the 105mm macro.

I have been taking photos of my two puppies a lot recently, in the hope of grabbing a few shots worthy of a canvas print. I am using a 70-200 f2.8, just so I can get a bit of distance between us as they like to investigate my camera if I use the 35mm f1.8.

The Tamron is a good, sharp lens if you have the right focal length for the subject. A good flash is something that has made my shots better when taking photos of the dogs indoors.
 
Thanks Petersmart, I've had my camera for a while now and have gotten to know it pretty well I think

I already have the 2 lenses I listed and also have a Nikon Speedlight SB-900
 
Portrait lenses can be anything you want, it just depends what you need to get the shot.

I regularly use a 300mm telephoto for running dogs.

As you already have those lenses I would definitely say the 70-200 2.8 is what you want.

Whether Sigma or Nikon is up to you and your budget. As is new or used.

Some examples all on 70 200


willow_flight.jpg


Mischa.jpg


snoop1.jpg
 
Greats shots and beautiful subjects Mark

The 70-200mm f2.8 does appeal to me as I have 3 dogs of my own :)
I've got a wish list of lenses - haven't a lot of us! - but would rather go for quality over quantity. Does that make sense?
 
Yes and you would not regret owning the 70-200, it is just so versatile, from head shots to action shots.
 
The 70-200 is my vote too.

I use the Sigma 70-200 HSM Macro for my dog shots. The little extra working distance can really help, as the dog can just go about its business without having a lens right in its face.
Mine also has the beauty of pretty close focusing, so I can if needed move right in close and still get focus.

Some examples from my lens.


Sebbe by TCR4x4, on Flickr


DSC_9558-2 by TCR4x4, on Flickr


DSC_9474.jpg by TCR4x4, on Flickr


DSC_9501.jpg by TCR4x4, on Flickr


Sebbe by TCR4x4, on Flickr
 
slightly cheaper, sigma do a 50-150 f2.8 which is not stabilised I think great on a cropped sensor. I sold my canon one and really wish I hadn't needed to now.
lighter and more easily used than the huge OS/VR/IS variants I think
 
Just to clarify, my Sigma 70-200 is the non OS version. I paid £350 for it. The OS version comes in more like £600+
 
Lovely set of shots Tom!

I'm going to have a look around at the second hand market - no way I can go for new at the moment unfortunately

Nikon & Sigma both have good reviews but is it worth looking at the older Nikon 70-200 f2.8 D???
 
Rosiebud said:
Lovely set of shots Tom!

I'm going to have a look around at the second hand market - no way I can go for new at the moment unfortunately

Nikon & Sigma both have good reviews but is it worth looking at the older Nikon 70-200 f2.8 D???
Click to expand...

The older Nikon 80-200 2.8 AF-D's came in two versions. I think it's generally the newer of the two that is most highly regarded, mainly for its improved focussing speed, though both offer optics as good as anything else avaialble even today. I've no idea how to identify newer from older but I'm sure somebody else can.

There is also a fairly rare Nikon 80-200 2.8 AF-S which is meant to be the bee's knees but used values are so close to a 70-200 VR1, I can't quite see the point in it nowadays.

Sigma have offered quite a big range of 70-200 2.8's. I think that generally speaking the best regarded, probably in this order are 70-200 2.8 HSM OS, 70-200 2.8 HSM II and 70-200 HSM, the OS being the best and most expensive accordingly.

For what it's worth I absolutely agree that a 70-200 (or 80-200) would suit you down to the ground, at a price of course.

My own experience is with first, a Sigma 70-200 HSM II and now a Nikon 70-200 VR1. The Sigma was a superb lens, fast focusing, sharp and surprisingly compact. I bought the Nikon on a whim as it came up at a great price. The Nikon is better in my opinion, sharpness is similar but VR is helpful and I think the Nikon offer noticeably better contrast. On the downside, it cost me twice the price of the Sigma, is so much bigger that I had to buy a new bag and it also weighs more. I love it but I do sometimes question whether I'd have been better keeping the Sigma and a pocket full of change.
 
Nice Chris, very nice

I guess the best thing to do is keep my eyes peeled for one, either a Nikon or a Sigma :)

Thanks for all your help guys
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top