Nikkor 180mm

Can Anyone recommend this lens for Portrait and sports, would want ot

use it on my D2x/D200

for most types of portrait a 180mm (270mm fov on digital) will be too long, although some people do like the flat, compressed and boring images it gives. Oops.

 

For sports, I think most people use a 70/80-200, and primes only for the really long lenses (300mm and up).

 

That said, nobody is forcing you to be "most people". A 180mm is certainly not standard for portraits/sports (I would get a 70-200 if I wanted to do both and couldn't afford the longer fast primes, or just an 85 or 105 for portraits) but if you have specific reasons for wanting to use that lens, it's an option...

I forgot to mention two things... all Nikons 180mm lenses are superb performers, and secondly, since it's about sports I assumed you were talking about the AF(D) version, the manual focus version will be cheaper but a lot harder to use especially for action-type shots.

For outdoor portraits on DX sensor camera the 180/2.8 Nikkor is perfect lens. Excellent bokeh, and resolution, perfect color. Portraits taken with 180 lens are noticeably better than from other lenses. Due to longer focal length and relatively wide aperture you get good separation between the person and the background, that is also possible with 85/1.4 lens, or lenses with f=2.0.

 

For in door portraits the 85/1.4 lens is the best choice, some also use 50/1.4 for full figure or half figure portraits. The 180 Nikkor is much sharper than the 70-200 VR lens. Especially when you need to crop a lot or do huge size prints, nothing beats 85/1.4 or 180/2.8 Nikkors. For photographing older persons these too lanes may be too sharp, so any softer lens could be adequate, like the 70-200 VR, or even a 28-200 G, ED, IF lens.

 

For outdoor portrait, I even use the 300mm lens for tight head shots, that everybody admires the quality of. The stunning perspective compression gives more imact to your photos, and no need to worry about portraits being flat.

I use the 180 on my new D200 but not for head/head&shoulders portraits.

 

This lens' angle of view (crop factor) makes it too long for head shots

for my taste. It's also an unforgiving lens in that it's exceptionally

sharp&contrasty and can be unkind to women and to older people of both sexes. Let's just say it really shows "character".

 

For portraits with this camera I use the 50&85/1.4 wide open,

or nearly so, for reduced contrast.

These shots also usually tend to be upper torso and

face. And sometimes with this camera, with MF at these wide apertures,

the results are softer. All to the good, as these lenses also

yield sharp results.

 

For H&S shots nowadays with the D200 I use the 24-120 zoom.

Mine is a very good lens at f8. I shoot it wide open or a stop less

than wide open which lessens its contrast and to some

extent its resolution. It's sharp enough, forgiving enough, and

I'm not looking for "forensic lab" results. All in all, a good compromise

for me, my taste.

 

Ther are various "soft filters" and perhaps other photo doo-dads which

one might empoy to soften the look of a lens. I've heard of pics

taken through a stretched nylon stocking and the fellow I worked for

100 years ago in Boston would put a light coat

of vaseline on his lens (medium format) for some portraits sometimes.

I guess that did the trick for him.

 

Good Luck.

incredible resolution, color, bokeh, sharpness. Brings a very 3D pop to images. I haven't found the portraits I've shot with it on DX to be boring, in fact if the subject has larger facial features the distance can be quite flattering.

 

That said, if there's budget for it I'd go for the 70-200. If not you can pick these up used for $300 and you'll never want to part with it.

I've used my manual focus 180/2.8 Nikkor for sports. It's useful even indoors for basketball, volleyball, etc. With outdoor sports it'll depend on access. If you can get close enough, sometimes 180mm will be long enough. (Of course, pros will say nothing less than a 300/2.8 will suffice for outdoor sports but that's a whole 'nuther level of sports photography.)

 

Some folks say the AF Nikkor version of this lens autofocuses too slowly to be useful. I can't agree. In most cases it'll autofocus at least as quickly as most photographers can manually focus. I have a D2H, which has the same autofocus mechanism as the D2X. It'll autofocus quickly enough.

 

The main challenge will be finding an autofocus mode/option that's ideal for your preferences and circumstances. In some cases, such as picking out a specific player among a group of basketballers, I find the simple, single sensor type AF (same thing as my old N6006) to work better than any of the "group this" or "dynamic that" modes. In other cases, such as panning with a group, sure, the dynamic-whatever modes work very well.

 

In portraiture there may be a couple of problems using a 180mm focal length with any of the currently available Nikon dSLRs. You may need more camera-to-subject working room than you would with a 35mm film SLR.

 

And that additional working distance can sometimes make it difficult to communicate with the subject. For example, you may prefer to use subtle hand gestures and speak softly to your subjects. In that case, a shorter focal length may be better - which would be true in any case, including with a 35mm film SLR.

<I>For in door portraits the 85/1.4 lens is the best choice</I><P>yeah it is a fine lens but unless you need that extra 1/2 stop, the 85mm f/1.8 is just as good optically and a lot cheaper -- as is the 50mm f/1.8 instead of the 50mm f/1.4 <P>I don't know what kind of sports you are asking about but a 70-200mm f/2.8 would be a more versatile choice -the downsides are: it is abig heavy lens and it is much more expensive.<P>al ot of fashion and celebrity ortrait photogrpahers liekthe 180mm focal length (even on a D2X/D200) for portrait work. the long focal length and greater subject to camera distance can produce a more flattering visual effect and gives you more room for lighting. the downside is: you need more subject to camera distance and this can be hard in a small studio set up!

I love my 180 on my F100, but on a D2X it may be tough to handhold and get critical sharpness unless you can keep your shutter speeds over 1/250 sec.

Ellis: the 85 f1.8, while a superb lens, is certainly not as good optically as the f1.4 (unlike the 50's, where the 1.8 is arguably better and the AI f2 is probably the best) The 85 f1.4 has superior colour rendition, bokeh and resolution over the 85 f1.8. The 1.8 is a very good performer, just not up to the performance of the justly legendary 1.4.

"yeah it is a fine lens but unless you need that extra 1/2 stop, the 85mm f/1.8 is just as good optically"

 

it's 2/3 stop, and thought the 1.8 is a fine lens, the 1.4 is demonstrably better in several ways. we've had that thread too many times to count.

I just put this lens up for sale today. AF non-D version , any serious offer considered.

Andrea.

Head shots, sports, candids...it can hold its own. There are tradeoffs compared to the big zooms, but for what it is, it can't be beat.

I had the AIS 200mm f/2 and shot college soccer and it was plenty fast under the lights, but useless for high school baseball. It all depends on the quality of the light. Indoors f/2.8 is laughable where I'm located and 180mm would be too long.

 

Indoor sports... 85mm f/1.4 and 50mm f/1.4

 

Portraits... the 200 was too much for my taste, but the focal length I most like is the 85 or the 50. The past few weddings I've shot the 135 f/2 was my go to lense.

 

It all just depends. The 135mm f/2 might be a reasonable choice as well.

Obviously it's one of Nikon's finest lenses in terms of optical quality. For sports you may want the 70-200 instead because of AF-S. However, at f/2.8 and 180 mm the prime gives much sharper images.

 

I use the 180 a lot because of it's great colors, sharpness, contrast and much smaller size and weight over the 70-200, which I also have. I pair the 180 with the 105/2 DC most often.

 

I would still first get the 70-200 unless you specifically want a smaller lens. That's the primary disadvantage of the zoom.

Thanks, some good advise here.

 

I suppose the option is a 70-200. Would love the Nikkor VR version, but I will probably be going the Sigma route because of price.

 

That said, depends on how I could use the 180mm, already have the AFS28-70 and 85 1.8, so I am still wondering....

 

I'm lured by the Optics of the 180mm

the optics are incredible on this lens. actually, all primes over and including the 85 are great. i have the 105 in both mf and af and same with the 135, just incredible.

 

(send me a few hundred $$$ and find out just how great the 180 is...:D )