What portrait lens for NIKON

clicktheshutter

clicktheshutter

Suspended / Banned
Messages
306
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi recently I brought a NIKON D300 and I have a Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 that I have used for portraits.

One thing I had trouble with was the reach, I had to keep it about 70 to 55 and I was forever walking backwards and forwards.

Now I'm looking for some advice on what lens I could look at getting for portrait work. Does it need a low F number? Is vr OS a good idea or not?

Any thing I have missed?
 
Hi Chris,

I also have the D300 and use a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens for portraits which, like yourself, find a little short on reach. I've had some great results using the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 too but it's a heavy lens.

At a recent workshop I attended the tutor was extolling the virtues of the Nikon 24-120mm f/4 for portraits and I must say when I tried his lens I was pleasantly surprised how much more convenient it was to use. Needless to say, it produces lovely crisp, sharp images at f/8-13 - the aperture range I tend to use most for portraits.

Might be worth a look :)
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the advice, how will that lens work when on a crop sensor will I notice much difference in focal length at all?

Yesterday I went to a portrait photography course, the tutor their said anything from 70-110 would be a good area to start in for portraits. Also how fast is the auto focus on that lens?

Thanks again

Chris
 
i would totally agree with Steve that the 24-70 and the 70-200 are great for portraits. the 28-70 f/2.8 would be worth a look at as well ? have you had a look at prime lenses ? the 70-200 is great for most sorts of photography but it is a bit on the heavy side and its quite large. i have a Nikon 24-120 f/3.5-5.6, its a decent lens and rather cheap, i have never tried the f/4 version.
 
The 24-120 looks really good, is the auto focus fast?

Would you guys ever consider using the 55-200 mm vr?
 
clicktheshutter said:
The 24-120 looks really good, is the auto focus fast?

Would you guys ever consider using the 55-200 mm vr?
Click to expand...

The autofocus on the 24-120 f4 is very fast.
I use it on both the D300 & D700.
 
the auto focus on the 24-120 f/3.5-5.6 isn't that fast. i wouldn't consider the 55-200 but the 70-300, is a good option.
 
I'm not sure a prime is for you if you don't like walking backwards and forwards...

+1 for the 55-200mm for me. Cracking lens, Sharp as any (even wide open), light, fast AF and the VR works fantastically.

The only thing you would compromise on is maximum aperture. It's sharper at every aperture than the 24-120mm and is not to be dismissed out of the game.

For studio work you have lights and for outside you have ISO and VR so I'd bear it in mind particularly as it's £600 less than the above lens :)

Here's a comaprison between the 55-200mm and the 70-200mm.

In my opinion...if you're happy with the maximum aperture, there isn't that much between them (and I mean that as in paying an extra £1400).

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2
 
think my heart is sold on a Nikon 24-120mm f/4 but my bank balance is'nt lol, maybe the second-hand market might be the best place to look for one, any ideas on prices second hand guys?

I have a 50mm F1.8 which is to short though i have used it for a couple of portraits but i would say its range of work in that field to be very limited.

85mm might be an option as well but then again im worried about its lack of reach


Thanks for everyones advice so far, its helping alot
 
Phil Young said:
I'm not sure a prime is for you if you don't like walking backwards and forwards...

+1 for the 55-200mm for me. Cracking lens, Sharp as any (even wide open), light, fast AF and the VR works fantastically.

The only thing you would compromise on is maximum aperture. It's sharper at every aperture than the 24-120mm and is not to be dismissed out of the game.

For studio work you have lights and for outside you have ISO and VR so I'd bear it in mind particularly as it's £600 less than the above lens :)

Here's a comaprison between the 55-200mm and the 70-200mm.

In my opinion...if you're happy with the maximum aperture, there isn't that much between them (and I mean that as in paying an extra £1400).

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/...meraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=2
Click to expand...

wow what a cool website thanks for linking me to it mate:)

I just brought a 55-200 from eBay for 100 and used it for a couple of shots of the mother in law and its very sharp
 
clicktheshutter said:
I just brought a 55-200 from eBay for 100 and used it for a couple of shots of the mother in law and its very sharp
Click to expand...

That line can be taken sooo many ways!:lol::shrug:

If you find you're hovering around the 85mm mark for your portraits with this lens then I echo the comments above regarding the 85mm 1.8:thumbs:. It's the one I use for portrait stuff.
 
What about the 105mm Macro, good reach for portraits (possibly a little long on a crop body 105x1.5=157mm effective) and a superb macro lens to boot!

In fact, seeing as you have a D300, the 50mm F1.8 is probably a good place to start, giving you an effective 75mm reach, the classic portrait lens is 85mm on full frame, so pretty close to your 50. If you find that this focal length suits you then consider upgrading to a 50 F1.4 as it produces far nicer bokeh.

Regards
Aled
 
Wookee said:
That line can be taken sooo many ways!:lol::shrug:

If you find you're hovering around the 85mm mark for your portraits with this lens then I echo the comments above regarding the 85mm 1.8:thumbs:. It's the one I use for portrait stuff.
Click to expand...

Lol I see what you mean, just had to reread it haha,

Yeah the 85 does look like a good lens, I'm torn between that and the 24-120mm if I can afford one
 
I use all sorts of lengths, it depends what sort of portrait and where I'm taking it.
Close ups of the kids sleeping, it's normally 35mm 1.8.

Around out and about it's 55-200 (non VR) which IMO takes great pics for the price (it's not a fast lens at all). Dont buy this version though as the VR is something silly a fiver more these days. It's not good low light though, as always you can say most things are good - IF the light is good - that 'small' caveat :)

If I am honest with you, I could spend > £1000 and a 70-200 and see maybe a 5% increase in my 'satisfaction rate' from the 55-200 - that's me personally, it IS a different league, but I am trying to say it's all what you are happy with - a lot of people spend a lot of money for mediocre pics IMVO.

Low f number for OOF backgrounds and lower light.

Don't think there is anyone one lens for so called portraits tbh, all depends on subject and environment and ultimately what 'you' like (assuming someone isnt paying you :) ). All subjective. You might be in a studio (?) though and the answers will be slightly different - controlled lighting, easier working environments - adults following instructions as opposed to young kids/babies :) ...who knows (?)

Also, VR for me isn't very imprortant - I am reasonable at handheld at low shutters and my kids always move anyway, so it's no deal breaker for me either way. Think people get to carried away with all that stuff (end up with a technically good photo that is boring as hell - normally on a white background)

My next lens willl probably be a Nikkor 85mm or 105 (or if I never get round to saving a Tamron 90 or something like that) as I'm developing a background interest in Macro, and will also double this up to be quite a nice 'portrait' lens.....ie. just trying to think ahead a bit and 'compromise' with gear - it's all compromise.....
 
If it's a controlled environment then primes would be my choice. Moving about doesn't bother me and it can sometimes open up new ideas for creativity.

For the quality that primes can give for the price, it means you can perhaps go for two or three, which gives you a redundancy factor in case one breaks on a shoot. Even the lower spec primes can be excellent.
 
What type of portraits? Narrow depth of field? Natural light? Lit? The rule of thumb is the longest lens you can comfortably use because that will produce the least distortion and nobody looks good with an extended nose.
 
The23rdman said:
What type of portraits? Narrow depth of field? Natural light? Lit? The rule of thumb is the longest lens you can comfortably use because that will produce the least distortion and nobody looks good with an extended nose.
Click to expand...

Is that why an 85mm is always better than a 50mm prime for portraits?
 
samems said:
Is that why an 85mm is always better than a 50mm prime for portraits?
Click to expand...

Yes. A 300mm is even better, but I'd consider a 50mm on a crop to be okay for 3/4 length.
 
A pleasure. It is all dependent on available space, however.
 
All comes down to the space you have to work in, used 24-70, 50mm, 85mm, 70-200mm and all are excellent, but the 70-200 is useless in someones lounge for example!!
 
Also, your subject will feel more comfortable with an adequate amount of space between you both.

Imagine someone coming up to you with their 50mm lens standing 1 meter away for a head shot...personal space and all that :)
 
Rufus T Firefly said:
85mm f1.8 might suit.
Click to expand...

Just bought this lens specifically for portraits on my D90 and am really delighted with the results. Allows me to use a fast shutter speed as my 16 month old doesnt stay still for long...
 
DoctorJ said:
Just bought this lens specifically for portraits on my D90 and am really delighted with the results. Allows me to use a fast shutter speed as my 16 month old doesnt stay still for long...
Click to expand...

Lol I second that mate I have a 15 month old at home and she's whizzing off here and there none stop.

Really interested in the 85mm, how do you find it on the crop D90? Makes it about 127mm ish don't it?
 
Thanks for everyone's advice so far, it has been very helpful.

I'm torn between the 24-120 F4 and the 80 F1.8. Second hand market here I come haha.
 
Don't discount the 80-200 f2.8. You can pick up one of these in some form or another for about 300 quid. I love mine and it's my most used portrait lens.
 
clicktheshutter said:
Lol I second that mate I have a 15 month old at home and she's whizzing off here and there none stop.

Really interested in the 85mm, how do you find it on the crop D90? Makes it about 127mm ish don't it?
Click to expand...

Yes it does equate to about that but works a treat on my crop sensor. I was using a 50mm 1.8G before but this is much better. If I get too close to her she tries to grab the camera and gets distracted so it gives me a bit of distance, also used it at a christening at the weekend, it worked perfectly in the church without flash and back at the house afterwards for a few candid shots as I was far enough away indoors not to bother anyone. Bit pricey maybe (£470 ish) but a keeper even if I go FF in the future.
 
To me 85mm would be far to long taking into consideration the crop factor but then again i have never used one!
 
samems said:
Is that why an 85mm is always better than a 50mm prime for portraits?
Click to expand...

Yes, the longer focal length will always be better, especially when you tighten up to head and shoulders portraits.

Remember, it's only the field of view that changes with a crop not perspective, so a 50mm on crop has the same perspective as on FF, and not entirely flattering to facial features in a tight shot, the FOV might look 80mm but the perspective is still 50mm, no matter sensor size.

I've probably ballsed my explanation totally, but at least I know what I mean ;).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top