Nikon D3300

I got my new nikon d3300 dslr, i'm very pleased with it how ever, my question how can i get like those results below with yongnuo 50mm f1.8 lens

 

 

https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2017/05/DSC00068-Edit-800x534.jpg

 

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1494/26628490566_257a0f7907_b.jpg

 

(those are just examples for what i want out of my new dslr)

I don't think that's going to be possible with a 50/1.8. Those photos look like they were taken with a faster, longer lens. The "circle of confusion" (a measure of how blurred the background is) in those photos is larger than a 50/1.8 will give at the subject distance needed for the framing in those pictures.

You're going to have to learn how to use lighting to achieve the type of results like you see in the attached pictures. A good reflector can help as can a remote flash. I encourage you to get the book "Light, Science & Magic" which will significantly help you achieve a variety of lighting effects for portrait work as well as others.

I don't think that's going to be possible with a 50/1.8. Those photos look like they were taken with a faster, longer lens. The "circle of confusion" (a measure of how blurred the background is) in those photos is larger than a 50/1.8 will give at the subject distance needed for the framing in those pictures.

 

alright, so what Nikon lens do you recommend for me to acheive such results? thank you.

 

You're going to have to learn how to use lighting to achieve the type of results like you see in the attached pictures. A good reflector can help as can a remote flash. I encourage you to get the book "Light, Science & Magic" which will significantly help you achieve a variety of lighting effects for portrait work as well as others.

 

i will look for that, thank you.

alright, so what Nikon lens do you recommend for me to acheive such results? thank you.

The AF-S 85mm f/1.8G would be a great, yet affordable (about $350 used) starting point.

The fundamental issue - If I buy a saxophone, can I play like Stan Getz? Well, maybe, eventually (In my case, I doubt it!). Does it matter if I buy a cheap instrument instead of an expensive one? Yes, to an extent. Not much different with cameras. Better cameras / lenses do have advantages in terms of capabilities, though certainly very good work can be done with modest equipment. Whatever the equipment, study, effort and practice will be necessary in order to achieve success. The individual, work, talent, dedication as well as the individual's definition of success come into play. It is likely to be a long road, but an interesting journey - I'm still on the same road. Few overnight successes! Best of luck to the traveller!

As I mentioned in your other conversation:

> the first sample image was made with a Sigma 135 F/1.8 ART, at F/1.8; mounted on a Sony a7RII

> the second sample image was made with Canon EF135 F/2L, at F/2; mounted on an EOS 5D MkI

 

The closest approximation using a Nikon APS-C camera (D3300) would be for you to use a fast 85mm Prime Lens.

 

As I spelt out, previously, there will be still be limitations, but an 85mm lens will get you closer to those results than if you used a 50mm lens.

 

WW

 

REF: LINK

alright, so what Nikon lens do you recommend for me to acheive such results? thank you.

The AF-S 85mm f/1.8G would be a great, yet affordable (about $350 used) starting point.

 

Actually, the Samyang 85mm f/1.4 would be even better as a budget portrait lens. The f/1.4 aperture will give you background blur similar to an f/1.8 or f/2 lens on FX.

The Samyang 85/1.4 might be a better budget choice. I've used quite a few Samyang Lenses and found them quite suitable: but, on the point of Background Blur -

 

1. The DoF 'difference' or 'equivalence' between APS-C and 135 Format is about 1 and 1/3 stops: so 1.4 of DX will give about similar DoF (all else being equal) to F/2.2 on FX.

 

2. Apropos 'Background Blur' - the main component is the ratio between Camera to Subject Distance :: Subject to Background Distance.

 

I believe that there is more than one Samyang 85/1.4 and one has a Focus Confirmation Chip for Nikon Cameras - but it is still a Manual Focus Lens, there might be an Auto Focus option, I don't know; perhaps 'chulkim' might enunciate exactly which the Samyang 85mm Lens is being recommended.

 

WW

1. The DoF 'difference' or 'equivalence' between APS-C and 135 Format is about 1 and 1/3 stops: so 1.4 of DX will give about similar DoF (all else being equal) to F/2.2 on FX.

I stand corrected.

 

I believe that there is more than one Samyang 85/1.4 and one has a Focus Confirmation Chip for Nikon Cameras - but it is still a Manual Focus Lens, there might be an Auto Focus option, I don't know; perhaps 'chulkim' might enunciate exactly which the Samyang 85mm Lens is being recommended.

Well, only the one with the chip is fully compatible with a D3300, so...that one. There is no AF version for Nikon mount.

All the Nikon-mount Samyang 85mm f/1.4 lenses I can find photos of appear to have aperture rings.

 

Unfortunately, on the recent D3x00 an D5x00(including the D3300) that means no metering whatsoever-that is assuming they work like genuine Nikon lenses.

. . . Well, only the one with the chip is fully compatible with a D3300, so...that one. There is no AF version for Nikon mount.

 

Thanks for the details about the Samyang 85mm Lens - I asked for the benefit of the OP.

 

In this case the OP should consider whether lack of Auto Focus will be be an hindrance.

 

The OP should be aware that the method of and ease of Manual Focus Confirmation the D3300 employs, will be relevant in this consideration.

 

I stand corrected. . .

For clarity, the commentary wasn't about (pedantic) minor correction of the F/Stop 'equivalence', and it was not picking nits with your comments generally:

 

Considering the OP's original post (in the Beginner Forum) and also considering that s/he has twice referenced the same two images which display extremely shallow DoF (and it has been explained why same photos are not possible with an APS-C Camera Body) - any minor DoF difference may be/will be relevant to the OP.

 

Moreover, the main reason for the comment was to differentiate Background Blur and Depth of Field, (your reference here, "The f/1.4 aperture will give you background blur similar to an f/1.8 or f/2 lens on FX.")

 

This was mentioned in order to give the OP a practical method of addressing Background Blur, whatever lens s/he chooses.

 

WW

All the Nikon-mount Samyang 85mm f/1.4 lenses I can find photos of appear to have aperture rings.

 

Unfortunately, on the recent D3x00 an D5x00(including the D3300) that means no metering whatsoever-that is assuming they work like genuine Nikon lenses.

 

I assume you don't mean to imply that these cameras won't meter when an AF Nikkor with an aperture ring is mounted. You must be saying something that does not imply that.

I assume you don't mean to imply that these cameras won't meter when an AF Nikkor with an aperture ring is mounted. You must be saying something that does not imply that.

 

That is exactly what I mean.

 

Nikon has no longer puts a minimum aperture switch on these bodies, and consequently NO lenses with aperture rings are able to meter or provide auto exposure regardless of whether or not they have a CPU.

 

I was skeptical when I first read that, but tested it on a D3300 with a 14mm f/2.8D and AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8 at the local camera store(the only aperture ring lenses we could come up with easily). Even though the camera would focus with the 17-35 and would give focus confirmation with the 14mm, it would only fire if set to "M" and gave no metering whatsoever.

 

EDIT:

 

SORRY, please disregard the above. It IS true of the D3400, but not the D3300...the D3300 will meter with all CPU lenses.

Edited October 15, 2018 by ben_hutcherson

EDIT:

 

SORRY, please disregard the above. It IS true of the D3400, but not the D3300...the D3300 will meter with all CPU lenses.

 

Oh, I wasn't aware that the last iteration left out the minimum aperture feeler! That means for the purposes of my challenge, you are right. :)

Watch YouTube, you'll learn about what lens to use and how to apply techniques to get the results you want.

If you're really wanting shallow DoF and background blur, you could do worse than a 2nd hand D600..... and an 85mm 1.4 or 1.8.... MF or AF.

 

It's also much easier to MF with an FX pentaprism VF, than on the 'tunnel vision' 3000 or 5000 pentamirror series DSLRs.

I would not worry about the difference in getting shallow DOF between an f/1.8 and an f/1.4 lens. The current Nikon 85mm f/1.8g is an excellent lens which will autofocus and meter with your D3300. Below is a photo shot with a Nikon 85mm f/1.8D at f/2.2 on a Nikon D50 (a DX camera) at a conference social event using no light modifiers. This is an earlier lens, with sharpness and bokeh inferior to the "g" version. The "D" version is not suitable for the D3300, which will not autofocus with it. If you have enough separation between your subject and the background, you can get the background out of focus. Edited October 15, 2018 by Hector Javkin

alright thanks guys, im going to buy Lensbaby Velvet 85mm f/1.8 Lens

 

Lensbaby Velvet 85mm f/1.8 Lens for Nikon F LBV85N B&H Photo

 

hopefully it will give me what i'm looking for.

The example images I can find for that lens show what a lot of folks like to call a "glowing effect" at large apertures. I like to call it "rampant uncorrected spherical abberation."

 

That's a big chunk of money for a lens that-to my eyes-is not very good optically.

 

If it were me, I'd spend the same money on an AF-S Nikkor f/1.8G

 

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G Lens 2201 B&H Photo Video

 

And then look into some soft focus filters for it. There are plenty of DIY options for soft focus-pantyhose stretched over the lens or a cheap clear filter with vaseline smeared on it are classic options.

 

The key is, though, that without the filter you have a tack-sharp Nikkor lens, and starting with that you can(reversibly) make it unsharp to your heart's content.

Agreed - like other Lensbaby products, it makes use of what would generally be considered optical aberrations to produce what can sometimes be a desirable effect. As Ben suggests, it is extremely easy to add "glow" like this to an image in Photoshop (or GIMP, if you prefer a free option); it is much harder to create a sharp image of the subject. The Velvet is interesting, and I've wondered about acquiring one... but to complement my other lenses, not replace them. (Similarly I have a Petzval lens, which has "swirly bokeh" - it's a very interesting effect, but I wouldn't dream of using it for general photography.)

 

I'd also strongly consider the 85mm f/1.8 AF-S. The only hesitation I have with it (and the reason I got rid of mine) is that it does have quite visible LoCA - sharp highlights that are out of focus tend to get colour fringes. This is common for a lot of lenses; it's not much of an issue in many shots, especially shooting outside (where a bit of a green rim around a tree just complements the leaves). I believe you can do a bit better with the Tamron 85mm f/1.8 VC - but it's twice the price of the Nikkor, and won't gain you that much. (I'd buy the Nikkor and see whether it bothers you first.) For better again, there's the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art, which is (at least in tests) arguably one of the sharpest lenses currently available, and also has very nice background blur (and a lot of it). But it's twice the price of the Tamron, so you pays your money and takes your choice.

 

TL;DR: Start with the 85mm f/1.8 AF-S. It'll give you plenty of separation between the subject and background, it's a good focal length for portraits, and it's reasonably affordable.

Same 85mm f/1.8G recommended in the OP's other thread: Looking for entry level DSLR for portraits

 

Lensbaby products are great fun, but as speciality lenses to get particular effects. They're not really alternatives to lenses from the more traditional manufacterers like Tamron, Sigma or Nikon.

That lensbaby 85mm lens is manual focus only, and probably doesn't have the coupling to even meter on the D3300.

 

The OP has been given expert advice on which lens(es) to buy, which will fully work with their camera. However, they then choose to ignore that advice and buy an overpriced and overhyped item that in all probability is incompatible with their camera.

 

Not just astonishing, but exasperating!

The LensBaby business model is brilliantly cunning in its way: I wish I'd thought of it first! It correctly assumes most younger (and a shocking number of older) photographers either don't know or have completely forgotten that dirt cheap older lenses will deliver similar (if not identical) "glow" effects. Why on earth would anyone would pay $449 for the 85mm or 56mm Velvets when there are thousands of 50mm f/1.4 Nikkor-S pre-AI lenses floating around selling for roughly the sales tax amount on the LensBay? Lock the Nikkor-S at f/1.4 and it will glow like Kryptonite: buy one for $40, have its aperture ring AI'd for $25, and you're good to go. Many many of these Nikkors now have deteriorated front coatings with multiple cleaning marks, which enhances the glow at wider apertures: these can be had for less than $30, esp if found attached to a Nikkormat FTn SLR.

 

For a more unique type of glow, look for the ancient 5.8cm f/1.4 Nikkor-S: the majority of these suffer from a very specific type of separation issue in their rear element group. This manifests as a clear center area with concentric spokes of "shattered" balsam. A 5.8cm Nikkor with this defect produces a dramatic dreamy glow at f/1.4 and f2.0, which gradually diminishes until at f/5.6 or f/8 it resolves almost normally. These defective pre-AI lenses can be had for approx $70 if you shop patiently.

 

If you have the $449 LensBaby price burning a hole in your pocket, more interesting Nikkor "glow" lenses with high resale value are available. The older super-fast 55mm f/1.2 single-coated Nikkor-S can be had for $275, somewhat more if you need an AI modification. It has glow galore, shallow DOF, and vignetting at f/1.2, which moderates at smaller apertures. The very interesting 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor in AI or AIS guise can be found under $400, has show-stopping glow at f/1.4, yet is also the sharpest MF lens Nikon ever made between f/4 and f/5.6. Different combinations of aperture and distance yield various combinations of glow, resolution and bokeh, plus you get the different perspective of 35mm focal length.

 

And these are just a few Nikon-made F-mount lenses: those with Canon or Sony bodies have an endless choice of cheap "glowy" lenses that can be used via mount adapters. The LensBaby options indeed produce a nice glow, but they're expensive one-trick ponies. Older lenses can be far more cost-effective, and if you tire of the "glow" game they can usually be resold at little $ loss.

Edited October 15, 2018 by orsetto

@utmanesb I recommend going slow. Don't buy (handling wise ultra) nasty speciality stuff like the Lensbaby head over heels!

You are after a special look; fine. But where is gear, that will maybe achieve it, with a 15% hit rate, on a good day, going to get you?

I'm surely no world class photographer, but I've been around the block for over 3 decades. I 'd say the odds for me to nail a great portrait with a manually focused wide open lens are close to zero. To clarify: I am not yet even talking fast telephoto lenses. A simple headshot with a 135mm at f2.8 is already too tough. and I am usually shooting my 90mm at about f4. Wide open full body shots might be doable but still a risky (in the meaning of spray & pray demanding / hit &miss) attempt.

 

IDK what kind of people you are planning to shoot. - Models with professional allures? - You might be lucky and those will cooperate. Average folks like friends and family barely give the chance to have an AF lens lock focus. That aside: Everybody cooperating with you for a shooting will expect results. So you better be able to provide those. - By results I mean: At least the front eye clearly in focus + one of the subjects more attractive facial expressions captured. For that reason it would be wise to do the money shots at a sane aperture and try the artsy stuff later. - While it is possible to add or enhance background blur, glow and softening in past it is not possible to post process a shot into focus.

 

Get hold of your first AF lens. Warm up with it and in a next step try manually focusing it. A 85/1.8 will be almost twice as demanding as a 50/1.8. Practice on a mannequin or dummy and think hard if you feel confident to do the same with a living moving person that you'll have to direct while struggling with your focusing before you spend money

 

Don't get on the highway to reputation hell: "He sunk tons of $$ in gear but won't get anything out."

 

Personally I'd rather take my portraits at f8, sure they'll be in focus than go through an endless chain of focus and recompose attempts to realize that I did not catch the expression I was after during a long and tough portrait session. - YMMV. Yes there are professionals and similar taking great full body shots with a 85mm at f1.2 but I guess they went through an AF micro adjustment hell to get there, have a gazillion of AF spots to select (to avoid the risks coming with focus & recompose) and still sweat over things working out or not.

 

Don't overload your plate with problems while you are starting out.