Fashion & Portraiture lenses for D90

<p>I have posted in the Nikon forum but also felt I should post in this forum as its exactly what I am trying to get into.<br>

I have a D90 and love it so won't be upgrading for a while yet, I bought the twin lense kit which are both good but not great. Thats the thing I want one lense that will cover me for low end fashion and portraiture work, basically I am starting out but definitely have the foot in the door in Perth's fashion world with some good model and photographer contacts.<br>

I basically didn't want to spend more than I paid for the camera but have recently seen 2 lenses that are VERY nice plus one thats more reasonably priced.<br>

Nikkor Lens - AF Zoom 24-85mm f/2.8-4D IF @ $800 aussie dollars<br>

Nikkor Lens - AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8G ED @ $2150 aussie dollars<br>

Nikkor Lens - AF-S DX Zoom 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED (3.2x) @ $2000 aussie dollars<br>

Realistically would rather spend $800 obviously, wouldn't we all...how much better quality are the other 2 more expensive lenses, would I notice it and what would you use out of these 3 lenses in my situation.</p>

 

<p>Ever thought about a 50mm prime? On a D90 it makes a great portrait lens.</p>

<p>got one, not always the best to use...depending on location shoots but yes its a dman fine lense...trying to get one for everything and including a little photo journalism</p>

<p>I only have 24-70mm out of three, so I do not know who they compare, but this one is the best one I have. I like it better than 50/1.8 and use it for portraits and everything else except sports.</p>

<p>I think the answer to this question lies solely within the end product. I don't like using 50mm lenses on cameras equipped with small CCD's or CMOS sensors (for studio portraiture) as they do not replicate perspective nor angle of view of a 105mm lens mounted to a traditional 35mm film plane.<br>

Issues I have are:</p>

<ol>

<li>Angle of view is too wide and may/can/will include too much background.</li>

<li>See above, as it also causes you to control the light over a greater area (the background).</li>

<li>I don't believe the a 50mm is a great portrait lens regardless of film plane size as it doesn't have that mild telephoto look in the end product.</li>

</ol>

<p>However, and having said the above, I've used 50mm lenses on many occasions (80mm on the Hassy) when making environmental and man on the street portraits (film slr's).<br>

I think your best bet is to find an moderately telephoto "DX" lens with acceptable sharpness and contrast and make this your portrait lens.<br>

Rant: I cannot stand the DX format as I don't own DX lenes and (good) DX lenes are not availbe in the desired lenghts (200f2, 300f2.8 and 400f2.8). I now have to shoot a 200mm lens from the same distance as a 300mm mounted on my F3's. The agnle of view on the 200 is wider (undesireable), less pleasing bokeh and an unwanted increase in depth of field at identical shutter/apperture settings. I'll contue to shoot film and use my CCD bodies, but I'm saving my money for a D3X.</p>

<p>Cheers!<br>

Ken</p>

 

<p>I think a 50mm on a DX body actually makes a great (and very inexpensive) portrait lens. Compare a 50mm 1.4 to a 85mm 1.4 on an FX body; a huge cost difference making the 50mm a bargain! And while I agree that dedicated DX lenses are not always the best, there is no reason to limit yourself to DX lenses. Some FF glass works great on a DX body - some actually work better.</p><div></div>

<p>You might give the 16-85 DX a look. I have it in addition to a 50 1.4 and the 17-55 2.8 DX and I love it. I have no idea what it would be in Aussie dollars but in US dollars it is $525.00-$550.00.</p>

<p>-Owen</p>

<p>I have bought a 80-200 f/2.8 and am buying the 16-85 VR to compliment my my 50 f/1.8 (best lense ever) and eventually get eithyer a 105 micro VR or 85 f/1.4 in the future..........maybe the 24-70 f/2.8</p>