Portrait Lens recommendations for multiple subjects

I'm looking for some recommendations for portrait lenses for use on my D200. In

particular I want one (or two) that are good for multiple subjects such as

engagement photos or weddings. I've read previous posts about the 50mm 1.4/1.8

and 85mm 1.4/1.8, but want to know if those are good for what I'm looking for. I

currently have the 18-200mm, which I'm not very happy with, and the 70-200mm

2.8, which I love!

 

Any ideas are much appreciated.

 

Thanks.

Find a focal length from the 18/200 and get something that has that range included.

 

You probably will like a 50 for digital format and two people.

 

The whole iss gets complictated because the focal length shortens on Nikons zooms as they are focused closer. So if you like 60 on the 18/70 at 6 feet, you probably want 50mm prime for direct match.

 

85 is to long for double portraits. That leaves the 60 micro, which will do a nice portrait, but perhaps a bit too long for doubles unless you back up to 8/10 feet.

 

18/70 is a good lens and i would not hesitate to use mine for double portraits. Set to about 50/60 you would get double headshots at 6 feet.

The Nikkor 17-55/2.8 would be a near perfect companion to the 70-200/2.8 you already appreciate so much. Obviously, f/1.4 primes are the next step for low light stuff.

My outdoor workhorse is my Nikon 28-70 2.8. The 70mm reach is essential for bride and groom shots. Great lens. Indoors where things get a bit cramped I switch to my Tamron 17-50 2.8. Not as good a lens but not bad. Someday I'll upgrade to the Nikon 17-55.

 

Toward the end of the evening I switch to my Tokina 12-24 for the bouquet and garter toss. Again, not as good as the Nikon but it does the job.

I have a Tamron 28-75 2.8 which I think for the considerable savings over Nikon is a great lens. However, I do not shoot portraits with it. FOr the money is has garnered some of the best 3rd party reviews and I have been very happy with it. I want an 18 to 200 vr lens and cant find one..wanna trade..lol?

Derek

 

I also have the 70-200 and would second Edward's suggestion of the 28-70. The 28-70

will give you a nice range for protrature on a D200 and the build quality is very solid (the

same standard as the 70-200, although an older design). The AFS of the 28-70 comes in

very handy when you want to take manual control of focus for portraits where your subject

doesn't fall on an AF focus selector.

 

The 28-70 is very sharp - the fact that it's getting a little old in the tooth shouldn't put

you off - you won't miss VR too much at this zoom range. The other bonus with the

28-70 is that good samples can be found secondhand - that's how I bought mine and it

was quite economical. The 85 mm primes you mention are undoubtdly great optics, but

with the 1.5 x crop factor of the D200 they're a little long for some portrait situations and

I find the zoom range on the 28-70 makes a great deal of difference for accurate

composition.

 

Remember to also think long-term and consider that now you have the 70 -200 and are

considering a mid range portrait lens - how do you ultimately see your collection of lenses

growing (how well will this portrait lens fit in with a future wide angle purchase - if that's

something you might consider in the future). If you think some day that you'll get a 12-24

DX then the 28-70 would complement the collection of focal lengths nicely.

 

All the best with the decision.

> If you think some day that you'll get a 12-24 DX then the <br>

> 28-70 would complement the collection of focal lengths nicely.

<br><br>

Avoiding focal length over lap isn't a good way to choose a lens, imo. I think the choice of a zoom range should be based on which focal lengths you use in a given situation. For instance, for general shooting, I like having an 18-50 range. It doesn't matter to me that I have a 12-24 and therefore have duplication in the 18-24 range. That range is a common one to me so I like having that available on my wide zoom, and on my normal zoom. Having a 28-70 would mean that it would often be not wide enough for me. And I can live with the gap between my 18-50 and 70-200. The 50-70 range isn't as crucial to me.

<br><br>

 

larsbc

I purposely selected lenses that have overlap to avoid so much changing of lenses.

Some portraits with the Nikon 28-70

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6146104

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6098687

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5857950

Maybe you should look for something like a 45mm F2.8 P lens. Its got that nice bokeh it would be about a 65mm lens view. Its got its own look like something an rf camera would give you sort of 3d and great contrast. Otherwise everyone else's posts would also work. Just that my choices you could carry in your pocket.

I have used the older Nikon 20-35mm f2.8 lens (30-53 approx on digital) for several years

with great results. Better still, these lens are available used in wonderful condition for approx

$750 to 850 in mint shape--they were new for over $1400+. Built for pro use they are heavy

and sturdy delivering sharp pics. Will AF with all digital Nikon bodies except D40. JOE

Head-and-shoulder portraits (close shots in general) are one of those few instances where the 55mm to 70mm gap is significant. I invariably use my 28-70/2.8 for portraits and, whenever possibly, formal groups.

The inexpensive 50mm f/1.8 is great. I suggest this as always something to have because is is a great performer and only about $100. It is small and light weight, and just all around fun to shoot with. Plus, it is buying me some time to save up for the 17-55 f/2.8. Even after I do get the 17-55, I will keep this little prime in my bag.

Thanks for all of the responses so far. I think I might rent the 17-55 as well as the 28-70 and see which one I like. I'm really looking for a lens that is as sharp as my 70-200, so hopefully one of those two will be what I'm looking for. Who knows, maybe I'll buy the 50mm f/1.8 in the mean time while I save up for one of the others.

 

Thanks again.