Zoom Lens - Landsacpe and Portraiture

<p>Hi,<br>

I would like to ask about which Zoom Lens is good for Landscape, Art Galleries and Portraiture!<br>

What do you think about this:<br>

Nikon 70-300 mm F/4.5-5.6G ED IF AF-S VR Nikkor <br /><br>

... ?<br /><br>

I like also Street Photography ...<br /><br>

I need a good blurry background out of any Zoom lens.<br>

Thank you,<br /><br>

<br />Luke</p>

<p>Well, it all depends on what you want out of it. The three things you list would be better served with lenses designed for that type of use. </p>

<p>For instance, most often in portraiture, the photographer wants to get the eyes in focus and the stuff behind the subject mush more out of focus. That sort of shallow depth of field requires a faster lens ( f1.8 to maybe f2.8 ). You can get out of focus stuff with the longer end of the lens but you need to be far away and have the stuff behind the subject not too close to them either. </p>

<p>For Landscape, most often people use a wider angle lens than 70mm. If you are using a camera that is less than a full frame sensor, that is even more noticeable. ( The 70mm end may have the same view as a 105 mm lens on a 35mm camera ) </p>

<p>Art galleries are often well lit, but they sometimes have limits on the camera gear. A large zoom may stand out too much and you will have to be further away from the wall. </p>

 

<p>The 70-300 VR lens is not best for landscape and portraits.</p>

<p>It is a light weight lens for outdoors, but too slow to provide good out of focus backgroud.<br>

Your out of focus distant subjects could look like a double or multiple exposure blur.</p>

<p>Perhaps outdoor portraits will be OK, depending what zoom position you use, if the background is far away behind the person.</p>

<p>I would say this lens, as any good Nikkor lens, could be used for anything, when in experienced hands, but there are many Nikkor lenses better suitable for both portraits,and landscpe.</p>

<p>John and Frank are quite right. I suspect you're after more than one lens here:</p>

<ul>

<li>Landscapes often (but don't always) benefit from wide angles, but don't often need fast apertures. A kit lens (e.g. 18-55) is actually not bad at this, though you may want wider, like a 10-24.</li>

<li>Art galleries (I assume pictures <i>of</i>, not to go in...) need aperture to deal with potentially poor lighting, which suggests something like the 35 f/1.8 DX (I assume you don't have an FX camera) - but you might want a macro so you can get close, have a flat plane and minimize distortions - such as the 40mm or 60mm micro-Nikkors; these are awkwardly short for a lot of macro work, however. If you have a little more time to set things up, the ideal option might be a mid-length PC-E lens, but they're very expensive.</li>

<li>Portraiture conventionally (and you can take a quirky portrait with anything) uses a medium-long telephoto with a reasonably fast aperture so that you can isolate the subject from the background. The 70-300 is long enough, but doesn't have the aperture; a 60 f/2 or 85 f/1.8 would be a good start - the 50 f/1.8 AF-S isn't bad, but may be a little short.</li>

<li>Street photography generally suggests something unobtrusive; the 70-300 is quite big (relatively) and may be longer than you need - perhaps a 16-85 would be a better choice?</li>

<li>To get a blurry background from a zoom, you need aperture - which is where we start talking f/2.8 lenses and a lot more money. Prime lenses can do the same much more cheaply and more effectively. Are you sure you need a zoom for this?</li>

</ul>

<p>All the above suggestions are open to debate - there are alternatives for each, and I was just picking a starting point suggestion. However, the take-home message is that there are different lenses for each category. Even a super-zoom like the 18-200, which is often a "do everything" lens, is a bad choice here - it's not that wide for landscapes, it's got distortion and is slow for galleries, it doesn't have the aperture for portraits. Sadly, there's no 12-135mm f/2.8 macro lens - and if there was, it would weigh a ton and cost a fortune.<br />

<br />

The 70-300 is a decent budget lens for sports and wildlife (in that you have to pay a lot to get more reach than this), but probably not for the uses you mention... unless you have in mind some unconventional takes on those subjects.<br />

<br />

Good luck with whatever you choose.</p>

<p>What camera are you using?</p>

<p>Well, I already have the Nikon D3100 with 18-55 mm 14 Megapixel DX!</p>

<p>I simply suggest that you brush up on your post processing skills where a far greater degree of blurr can usually be introduced than any fast or long lens. Camera and editor are complimentary tools.</p>

Irvin, I am going to offer some advice that contrasts what some others have suggested. This does not mean that their

advice is incorrect, but rather that there is more than one way to approach a situation. Obviously, budget is always a

consideration. Some of the suggestions above would cost a lot of money. I'm going to suggest how you can do what you

need to do without spending quite as much.

 

The 70-300 AF-S VR is a very good lens, and it will work well for both landscapes and portraits. Of course it only offers

telephoto focal lengths, but you already have the wide and normal ranges coved with your 18-55. If you hear arguments

that telephoto lenses are not appropriate for landscape shooting, consider that for every wide vista, you can find a

complimentary composition that zooms in on the details within that view. For example, Grand Canyon and Bryce Canyon

both look terrific when viewed through a telephoto lens.

 

Blur can be increased by positioning the subject near to the camera and the background much farther away. Lenses with

wider apertures will enable you to capture even moree blur, but this positioning technique increases blur regardless of the

aperture used. No digital tricks are required, and you don't need an f/2.8 aperture. It helps, but you can get the ehot

without it.

 

With regard to art galleries and other indoor shooting situations, that might be challenging if you are shooting in available

light. This is a slower lens, meaning that the aperture doesn't open wide enough to let in a lot of light. A faster lens will

provide more possibilities. However, if you shoot with flash or if you plan to shoot non-moving subjects from a tripod, the

lens should work just fine. If you need to shoot small objects in the gallery up close to shoot fine detail, you would be well

served by a macro lens.

 

The 70-300 AF-S VR will work fine for street photography unless you're one of those shooters who insists on sneaking up

on people. I have used a white Canon 70-200 f/4 for street photography, and you can see that lens a block away.

 

Good luck with your projects!

<p>I would recommend a 35mm 1.8 afs , seems more suitable for landscape and art gallery, not too bad waist to head, and full length body shot , and of course street .<br>

50mm prime for better Portraiture.</p>

<p>70-300mm is too long and slow for art galleries and"landscape" . not to mention you need at least 5 feet of focal distancing , you be bumping into other exhibits. (trust me I know! did once with the 55-300mm)</p>

 

<p>The traditional portrait lens is a short telephoto in the 85-100mm range. So the 70-300 is fine for that.</p>

<p>Art galleries rooms vary in size from a small room to banquet hall size. You will need a wide angle zoom in the 18-70mm range for them if you want a shot of the entire room. For close ups of the artwork the 70-300 at the 70mm setting should work. However art galleries almost always ban flashes and tripods unless you are shooting for the artist or gallery owner. So everything has to be hand held often under a very low available light level. You will get less lens shake with a wide angle lens and more dof with a wide aperture.</p>

<p>Landscapes use either a moderate wide angle in the 20-35mm range or a short telephoto in the 50-100mm range and stitching. Anything wider than 20mm (depending on your sensor size) and that mountain becomes a molehill in the photograph. I love stitching as it enables you to capture both the width of the landscape and the size of the landscape. Mountains look mountain size and not molehill size.</p>

<p>There is one situation where a long telephoto works for landscapes. The best advice I ever got for shooting landscapes is "get closer and simplify". The problem is in many cases, getting closers means walking off the edge of a cliff. That is when the long telephoto comes out. It enables me to get closer. The compression of a long telephoto is good for simplifying a composition. By blurring the background, you can make a specific landscape feature, such as a majestic tree, really stand out.</p>

<p>Considering all you want to shoot, you need to supplement the 70-300mm with a wide angle zoom.</p>

<p>Danny Low</p>

 

<p>Thank you very much for your inputs ... I am grateful ...</p>