i need help. i desperately want to invest in a new lens. currently, i am very much into food, glamour and portrait photography....would anyone have any suggestions with what lens would suit my needs?
i use a nikon d90. well, i figured that it would be a holiday gift for myself and considering the amount of crap i had to go through this year, i feel i need to splurge a bit. :)
For food, I'd say pick up a nice macro. Something like a Micro Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G. or Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Di. Both are sharp, but the Nikkor will focus a lot faster.
I know of people who use a macro for portraits, for the most part they work great. But I'd want something faster maybe a nikkor 85mm f/1.8 (f/1.4G if you can afford it) or Nikkor 105mm f/2.0 DC.
Because you mentioned food, I'm inclined to say a macro too. But few food shots, really, are macro shots.
So I'm going to go off on a tangent here and say you should get a zoom - that way you can get in close with a wider angle for interesting perspectives, or stand back with a longer focal length for compression, thus adding more variety to your shots. For portraiture and glamour you'll want a fast lens, and that's where primes win out. But, you can get nice, fast zooms that will do the job very well too. My suggestion would be the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8
Another vote for the Nikon 24-70. Ken Rockwell is sometimes a little crazy, but a good reference point :). I have Nikon 105 f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8, 80-200 f2.8, and Tokina 11-16 f/2.8. My next lens will be the 50 f/1.4 which is currently being covered by my Panasonic GF1 p&s and it's 20 f/1.7 lens. I'd say my 24-70 is on 80% of the time as I chase around my 3 year old son, but it is pretty versatile, sharp, and relatively fast.
@jinximages thanks for the tip! what about the 70-200 f/2.8? @lintbrush im actually considering that as well. :) the only thing is that it's pretty pricey.
hey guys, i need your expert advise...i was browsing though a site and found that the 80-200mm f/2.8 is considerable cheaper than the 24-70 and the 70-200. any thought why?
@lenceperfecto It doesn't have VR. Which if you read around enough, the missing VR honestly isn't that big of a deal. I have the 80-200mm, and it's a very nice, pro quality lens, and does great in low light, and even has nice bokeh for those who care about that stuff.
@hmgphotos based on the research i've done, that it the one reason why it's considerably cheaper. great to know you enjoy shooting with it. any downsides?
@hmgphotos do you notice a difference in battery life without the VR?
Laurence... 80-200 cropped on DSLR might be little long for glamour... it would be ok for food and portraits (still a touch long of portraits... but ok)
With glamour you often want to see the women head to toe and that is tough to do when you are well outside 'normal' (Normal being about a 50mm on 35mm film)
If you have a large area to shot it might pass but to get a 6 foot women (5'8" without the heels) into the frame you would need to be 22 feet back... if you include back drops... lighting... space to move you need easily a 30-40 foot room to shoot in... (there are loads of assumptions in there, but roughly) and that is at the tight end with now space over the models head....
@lenceperfecto I agree with Jordan's assessment - 70-200 is too long for what you want, with a crop-frame sensor. That said, the new 70-200 f/2.8 VR II is incredible. If you like that focal range, you couldn't get a better lens. Personally, I find VR (or IS as it is on my Canon) invaluable with that lens, and would never buy a non-VR/IS version. On the 24-70 it isn't needed, because you can shoot down to 1/60th anyway (handheld) without issue, and slower if you have a really steady hand and still subject. In regards to VR on a longer lens, it all depends what you are shooting I guess, and how much you can push your camera's ISO. I shoot a lot at night and dusk, so the IS is fairly essential to my work.
@lenceperfecto@jinximages@hmgphotos I agree with jinx on the VR. I got my 80-200 when just breaking back into photography and couldn't justify the VR version at the time. If I had to do it again I'd definitely go VR. My 80-200 doesn't focus as quickly as 70-200 VRII based on some time I've spent playing with a loaner. I also find that although it's a fast 2.8, I do have to ISO up a bit to shoot handheld. Still a great piece of glass, but if given the choice (and $'s are not a factor) definitely go VR. Oh, and remember that the the minimum focus distance on this lens is 5-6 feet. Something that I'm always fighting with.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I know of people who use a macro for portraits, for the most part they work great. But I'd want something faster maybe a nikkor 85mm f/1.8 (f/1.4G if you can afford it) or Nikkor 105mm f/2.0 DC.
There's lots of examples of these lenses on flickr. http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/60mmf28gmicro http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/tamron90mmf28 http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/85mmf18d http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/85mmf14d http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikkor/pool/tags/105mmf2ddc/
So I'm going to go off on a tangent here and say you should get a zoom - that way you can get in close with a wider angle for interesting perspectives, or stand back with a longer focal length for compression, thus adding more variety to your shots. For portraiture and glamour you'll want a fast lens, and that's where primes win out. But, you can get nice, fast zooms that will do the job very well too. My suggestion would be the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8
Here's a review: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/24-70mm.htm
Good luck and enjoy the new gear.
@lintbrush im actually considering that as well. :) the only thing is that it's pretty pricey.
hey guys, i need your expert advise...i was browsing though a site and found that the 80-200mm f/2.8 is considerable cheaper than the 24-70 and the 70-200. any thought why?
Laurence... 80-200 cropped on DSLR might be little long for glamour... it would be ok for food and portraits (still a touch long of portraits... but ok)
With glamour you often want to see the women head to toe and that is tough to do when you are well outside 'normal' (Normal being about a 50mm on 35mm film)
If you have a large area to shot it might pass but to get a 6 foot women (5'8" without the heels) into the frame you would need to be 22 feet back... if you include back drops... lighting... space to move you need easily a 30-40 foot room to shoot in... (there are loads of assumptions in there, but roughly) and that is at the tight end with now space over the models head....
just something to think about...