a new lens for portraits/macro? - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

12/04/2006 03:59:18 PM · #1

hello!
could someone please please recommend a lens for my Nikon d50? I am really into portraits recently and I would love to take very close ups but I only have 18-55 lens and only 6 Mpxls in my camera so I have to crop photos a lot to get close ups:( and it never works.

could you please recommend something? I will gladly read any links and tutorials for lens choice.
maybe I should get a better camera? will it help with more pixels or it's just something overrated?
I'm sorry for askig so many amateur questions:)

Svetlana

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

12/04/2006 04:02:32 PM · #2

I like this one 60mm. Librodo and Kiwiness rock the heck out of this lens. I own it and love it. It as you can see by the images, works for both portrait and macro.

Message edited by author 2006-12-04 16:02:37.

ShaneBlake

Nikon D7100

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM for Nikon

12/04/2006 04:02:57 PM · #3

Originally posted by silverfoxx:

the tamron 90mm macro is an excellent portrait lens...

proof:

Message edited by author 2006-12-04 16:04:10.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

12/04/2006 04:15:51 PM · #4

thank you so much Kudzu and Thegrandwazoo!

what is the difference between the 60 mm and the 90 mm lenses?

pawdrix

Nikon D700

12/04/2006 04:19:00 PM · #5

The Nikon 50mm 1.8D is super cheap and very sharp. It may be a great starting point to see where you want to go. There's also a more expensive version of the same lens and the f1.4D that are both a bit more money.

Some portrait people have stated that they like to achieve certain comfort distances from their models to keep things more relaxed and that's where a 60mm, 85mm might suit you best.

50mm 1.8 D

Message edited by author 2006-12-04 16:21:26.

Brad

Olympus OM-D E-M1

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

12/04/2006 04:20:12 PM · #6

Originally posted by silverfoxx:

what is the difference between the 60 mm and the 90 mm lenses?

30mm

Brad

Olympus OM-D E-M1

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

12/04/2006 04:21:56 PM · #7

... sorry - I just had to.

The Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II is also another possibility. At $80, it's an outstanding value and super sharp!

Edit to say that I'm a bonehead and linked the Canon version. Duh.
This one will fit your camera much better, though $20-40 more than Canon's:
Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

Note that neither are macros though.
The Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di would be outstanding for portraits and near-macro shots.
(yes, I did link the Nikon version this time.)

Message edited by author 2006-12-04 16:46:44.

Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera

12/04/2006 04:25:04 PM · #8

:))

thank you for your advice!
will a canon lens fit my nikon d50?

*off to find out what those mm mean and what 1.8d is...*

agenkin

Nikon MF Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 AIS

12/04/2006 04:32:28 PM · #9

Originally posted by silverfoxx:

what is the difference between the 60 mm and the 90 mm lenses?

Generally, the longer the lens, the more it magnifies (I am saying generally because many lenses shorten their focal length when focusing closely). So, to get the same level of macro magnification, you'd have a greater camera-to-subject distance with a 90mm lens, compared to a 60mm lens. This may be useful when shooting animate objects, who may have low tolerance to you sticking a lens right next to them.

Around 100mm is, probably, the most popular lens length for macro photography. If you want to start cheap, you may want to consider the Vivitar 100mm f/3.5 AF macro lens, which sells for around $100 brand new. The build quality is not very good, and the AF is pretty slow, but the lens is very light: it's easy to always carry it with you.

Here's a review of this lens (Phoenix is another brand under which this same lens is sometimes sold). //www.nikonians.org/html/resources/non-nikon_articles/phoenix/100f35-1.html

Sigma 30mm f/1.4 EX DC HSM for Nikon

12/04/2006 04:41:40 PM · #10

thank you so much Agenkin!
I've just been to the link you wrote.

I'm not quite sure I want to go cheap, because as far as I understand lenses don't get outdated fast, not as fast as cameras, am I right? so I would like to get a good one, not the most expensive, but a good one.

:) I haven't thought about "shooting" animals yet, but maybe some day. it's mostly about macro and portraits now.

may I ask you what Hasselblad H1D that you have is?

jdannels

Nikon D300s

12/04/2006 04:44:52 PM · #11

I used the 50 mm 1.8D all the time for all different kinds of shots here are some examples.

For the shot with the lighter I used macro filters all stacked on top of eachother. These I don't believe are really expensive and act just like a magnifying glass. This lens is so nice also because you can shoot with lower light because you can set the aperture all the way down to 1.8 With all that said if I was going to get a lens specifically for portrait and macro I would get the 60 mm 2.8.

ursula

Fujifilm X-T2

Fujifilm XF 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 R LM OIS

12/04/2006 04:51:46 PM · #12

Originally posted by jdannels:

I used the 50 mm 1.8D all the time for all different kinds of shots here are some examples.

For the shot with the lighter I used macro filters all stacked on top of eachother. These I don't believe are really expensive and act just like a magnifying glass. This lens is so nice also because you can shoot with lower light because you can set the aperture all the way down to 1.8 With all that said if I was going to get a lens specifically for portrait and macro I would get the 60 mm 2.8.

Yeah, the 50mm 1.8D is a sweet lens, and not expensive. I haven't used it that much, but am starting to use it more and more. It is very clear. It has beautiful bokeh. And it's light to carry, and it's not intimidating to people (like when you point a heavy long lens at them).

agenkin

Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera

Nikon MF Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 AIS

12/04/2006 05:09:30 PM · #13

Originally posted by silverfoxx:

I'm not quite sure I want to go cheap, because as far as I understand lenses don't get outdated fast, not as fast as cameras, am I right? so I would like to get a good one, not the most expensive, but a good one.

That's the point - optically the Vivitar 100/3.5 is pretty good. The Tamron 90/2.8, for instance, is definitely a better lens, but it's five times more expensive, and two times heavier than the Vivitar. :) With lenses, it's always about compromises.

Originally posted by silverfoxx:

:) I haven't thought about "shooting" animals yet, but maybe some day. it's mostly about macro and portraits now.

I meant insects, which are a common subject of macro photography.

Originally posted by silverfoxx:

may I ask you what Hasselblad H1D that you have is?

You don't want to know. ;^)

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 12-24mm f/4.0G IF-ED

12/04/2006 05:54:22 PM · #14

I've found hasselblad:) it's just the name sounds very norwegian:)

thank you so much Ursula, Agenkin and Jdannels for your replies!
I will check the prices and the reviews for the lenses you were talking about.
thank you!

jbsmithana

Nikon D300

12/04/2006 05:56:24 PM · #15

A decent in between lens would be the Nikon Telephoto AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D Autofocus Lens
it will focus down to as close as three feet but also give you some working distance when needed. It is light weight, small and a good low light lens at f1.8.

Right now is is $380 at B&H.

I might have missed the macro part of your request. If that is important then stick with a true 1:1 macro like the Tamron 90 or the Nikon 60 or 105 macros.

Message edited by author 2006-12-04 18:00:30.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

12/06/2006 07:05:54 AM · #16

60 mm: 60 mm lens
50 mm: 50 mm lens
but there are several 50 mm and 60 mm!! :(
105 is too much for a poor student:)
I haven't the 85 mm though..

is it this Tamron you were talking about:
Tamron lens
it looks great and great reviews:)

oh, I forgot to ask: will this lens fit any nikon camera?
if I already have one simple lens 18-55 lens is it important to have several different ones? is there really much difference?
thank you so much for your help!

Svetlana

Message edited by author 2006-12-06 07:13:12.

danielv

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

12/06/2006 07:48:30 AM · #17

on my side I have bought a few lenses over time, but use now mostly two: a sigma 18-50 2.8 for everyday/all purpose pictures, and the canon 85mm f/1.8 for portrait. I have a canon, but the reasoning should not be different for nikon:) (nikon has the same lenses)

I hesitated with a 50mm 1.8 but honestly the difference with the 18-50 is minimal. The same goes for you if you think of buying the 50mm or the 60mm - irrespective of the fact that they are great lenses. Why?
1/ you will get sharper images than with you 18-55. ok. but do no expect to see that jumping to your eyes. the difference exists but is limited, expecially if you do a smaller print-out.
2/ opening at 1.8 is great for low light situations or to create lot of bokeh (for example just the eyes are sharp and the rest is blurred. nice effect often used in portrait). But you will not use that as often as you think. If only because shooting portrait at 1.8 is damn hard. The slightest error in focus (if the person moves just a bit) and the whole picture is blurred - or at least not tack sharp. So you'll end up often shooting at 2.8, 4.0 or even 5.6.

With a slightly longer focal length (like the 85mm I chose), you get a nice additional lense that is not redundant with your exisintg zoom lense. You get nice bokeh even if you open less than 1.8 (because to put it simply, at the same aperture, the longer the focal length the more bokeh). And also longer focal length tend to "flatten" a bit the face, so usually more appealing portraits (less nose!). Fashion fotographer use up to 200mm!

I decided not to go for more than 85mm because you then run into another problem: distance. If you want to shoot day to day in house pictures, you will have a problem with longer focal length: the longer the focal length the more distance between you and your subject. With the 85mm I end up 2-5m away, which is still manageable.

Obviously this lense is not macro. If macro is important for you I would go with a 105mm 2.8 macro (you have such lenses from Nikon, Sigma, Tamron). Again, aperture is important for portrait, so I would buy one of those, they are not that expensive, rather than the vivitar that opens at 3.5.

Finally you should have a look at the following site: //www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

lots of lense comparison .

hope that helps!

Message edited by author 2006-12-06 08:57:54.

raish

Olympus C-2500L

12/06/2006 07:49:14 AM · #18

Here's a second-hand lense in Kristiansand.
I was a bit tempted myself (see Ursula's winning diagonal entry), but I should stop spending :(

12/06/2006 08:03:05 AM · #19

Originally posted by mouten:

Fashion fotographer use up to 200mm!

....
Finally you should have a look at the following site: //www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

lots of lense comparison .

hope that helps!

yes, it helps A LOT! thank you so much Nicolas!
they use up to 200mm! I thought it's only for taking photos of animals on the distant mountains:)

*off to read the reviews*
thank you!

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

12/06/2006 08:03:46 AM · #20

Originally posted by raish:

Here's a second-hand lense in Kristiansand.
I was a bit tempted myself (see Ursula's winning diagonal entry), but I should stop spending :(

aha! :) mayb I should call him now, if only you are not planning to do the same:)

raish

Olympus C-2500L

12/06/2006 08:08:01 AM · #21

No, you call him. Be a bit careful there, though (do I have to tell you that?) - he says in the advert 'forskudd anbefales' and I can assure you that neither I nor the administrators of the site (Foto.no) recommend paying in advance. Still, give him a ring and tell him you're closely related to the Russian mafia or something. I apologise if that's a bad joke.