![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
|
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
Alpaca
|
Hello,
I'm sure this question has been asked before somewhere I just could not find it. I have a Nikon D100 and have been using it sparingly for the last couple of years as a hobbyist, and now I would like to get into taking personal family portraits. My question is what kind of lens do I need to buy for studio quality portraits ?? Thanks for your Help __________________
__________________
Members don't see this ad. Register your free account today and become a member on PhotoCamel - Your Friendly Photo Community, gaining access to posting privileges, contests, free plug-ins and other downloads, unlimited online storage for your photographs, reviews, free marketplace listings, and much more. |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 (permalink) |
|
Vicuna
|
I think it depends on how much flexibility you are looking for and the lighting you will have as well. I use a 85 f1.8 and 50 f1.8 but have used a 17-55mm f2.8 as well. I like the 17-55mm when shooting very young kids because you never know where they are going to go and if you need to back out on your zoom. The two primes are more for set-shots where I know where they will be sitting and how many there will be in the shot. If you are using a backdrop you will more thank likely want to keep your f-stop below 4 so you can frame the subject and not have to worry about wrinkles, creases and such in the backdrop. I have done some close up work with a 60mm micro as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#5 (permalink) |
|
Llama
|
I'll 2nd the 1.8 85, which to me is a lens with perfect optical performance. On my D200 I use it less often, as I feel it to be a bit long with cropped sensor size.
I have an MF 1.8 50 AIS and a 1.4 50 AF D lens as well. From the optics I'd rather recommend the 1.4 50, although my copy is sort of borderline in the centre sharpness. The 1.8 doesn't quite match with corner performance, which is not particularly important for portraits. Personally I prefer my MF non MC 1.2 55 lens for portraits though. To most people prime lenses (fix focals) are more suitable for formal portrait pictures. When kids come into the play, I guess a zoom lens could be a good idea. I think the Voigtlaender Nokton 58mm MF (with CPU) lens that just came out, could be very interesting here, to mention something exotic. Considering budget, I'd get a 50mm lens and spend more money on lighting and perhaps backdrops. Cheerio, Sean. |
|
__________________
This area is intentionally left blank. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 (permalink) |
|
Vicuna
|
The lens surely depends on your lights. If trying to use continuous hot lights, then a f/1.8 lens is probably pretty important, probably at ISO 400 to achieve a 1/60 second shutter. But if using decent flash units, like Alienbees, light is no problem, and you will be up around f/8 or f/11, and a f/1.8 lens is about the last thing you need. F/8 or f/11 also improves the inexpensive f/4 or f/5.6 zooms.
We hear of 85 to 105mm "portrait lenses" historically, but of course, that was for full frame 35 mm film, in the days before the 1.5x lens factors. For most of todays DSLR, that would be 50 to 70mm now, to be equivalent. Focal length depends a bit on how much space you have, but you do always want the camera to be at least 5 or 6 feet from subject for proper perspective, to prevent making noses look larger when up too close. So for the DSLR 1.5x lens factor, you want 50mm to 70mm to get proper framing for a portrait (at the same distance as the 85-105mm full frame lenses for film - at least 5 or 6 feet). You need 5 or 6 feet behind the subject too, in front of background, so we're talking a minimum of 15 or 16 feet for the total setup. With an 85mm lens today, you'll need quite a bit more space, to back away far enough from the subject. Which is fine if you have the space, but such space is a bit rare sometimes. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 (permalink) |
|
Llama
|
A bit of news! The Voigtlaender Nokton 1.4 58 has been reviewed on photozone! If you're interested in this lens, take a look here: Voigtlander Nokton 58mm f/1.4 SL II - Test Report / Review
Cheers, Sean |
|
__________________
This area is intentionally left blank. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 (permalink) | |
|
Alpaca
|
Quote:
If you're talking about outdoorsy kind of professional portraits, then then all bets are off. The Nikon 85mm f/1.8 is a great lens and can be yours for about $400 in the U.S.A. The Nikon 85mm f/1.4 is the king of the hill and costs that much. Rumor has it that Nikon is upgrading this gem with an AF-S motor this mid-summer. Good luck. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 (permalink) |
|
Llama
|
I think you're right. Just downloaded the full size images. Cheers, Sean.
__________________
__________________
Members don't see this ad. Register your free account today and become a member on PhotoCamel - Your Friendly Photo Community, gaining access to posting privileges, contests, free plug-ins and other downloads, unlimited online storage for your photographs, reviews, free marketplace listings, and much more. |
|
__________________
This area is intentionally left blank. |
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| « » |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Portrait lens | Photog4U | Portraits / People | 11 | 10-19-2007 04:12 PM |
| My other portrait lens | Uncle Frank | Portraits / People | 4 | 03-22-2007 08:01 AM |
| Full body Portrait lens | kg112660 | Nikon Forum | 9 | 02-14-2006 05:03 PM |
| New portrait lens test | Uncle Frank | Portraits / People | 5 | 12-10-2005 03:17 PM |
| What is the best portrait lens? | J Holmes | Four Thirds Forum | 12 | 09-20-2005 03:15 AM |