Best Nikon Lense for Makeup/Portrait Photography

<p>Hi all,<br>

<br />I'm a makeup artist who just picked up a D3300 Nikon bundle with the standard 18-55mm and 55-200 mm included. <br>

What are your recommendations for other lenses to purchase that work well with portrait photography, and close ups on faces, like eyes, lips, etc? I have noticed picking up pigments can be sort of difficult with my standard lens. I'm guessing I need something more macro?</p>

<p>Thanks!!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>A 105mm macro lens would be the best choice for extreme facial closeups. You will need to stop down for better depth of field, and any subject (or camera) movement will degrade the sharpness. To counter this and get enough light, you will need to use electronic flash of some sort. A ring light (around the lens) is shadowless, but you get better modeling with off-camera units.</p>

<p>Agree with the previous post. There's two Micro Nikkors in 105mm: the f/4 and the f/2.8.</p>

<p>Believe it or not, the 55-200 is not a bad lens with proper lighting for portraits. The attached shot was done at 55mm (because we shot in his living room and there wasn't enough space for a longer focal length). Then processed with Lightroom and Portrait Pro Studio. I used two softboxes.<br /> If you set the 55-200 to 105, you'll have the equivalent of a 157.5mm. If you set it to 70mm, it'll be like using a 105mm lens. This is a good way to find out what focal length you really want. Now I use my 70-200mm Nikon at around 105mm with good results. I also get excellent results with my Sigma 70mm prime for macro shots. I use a D7100 Nikon, which has the same crop factor as your D3300.</p><div></div>

<p>The 60mm/f2.8 AF-S Macro lens maybe a good choice for portrait + close up: https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-micro-nikkor-60mm-f%252f2.8g-ed.html<br>

It is not exactly inexpensive, though.</p>

<p>If you want some real close up for just the eye, for example, you need a longer macro lens such as the 105mm suggested above, but the cost goes up even higher. There are some Tamron 90mm macro that could be an option.</p>

<p>The 105mm is a bit long for portraits on a DX body by conventional thinking (not that this has stopped me using a 200mm lens for portraits). However, it depends a bit what you're trying to do, and if you're after extreme close-ups it depends rather whether you want the perspective distortion that you'd get from that range. For what it's worth, the 90mm Tamron (version before the current one) is appreciably cheaper than the Nikon, but is still a very good macro lens - you save some money partly because it doesn't have VR; the other biggest issue is that the front of the lens overhangs quite a lot, so you don't have the working distance you might expect for getting lights in the right place. But it's still a bargain if you're on a budget. Or you could look at a close-up lens/filter/diopter (whatever you want to call them) if you prefer to get closer with your current lens, at some loss of quality. If you want a more conventional "portrait" angle of view, something like a 60mm Tamron macro is generally quite a good option - and, at f/2, will also let you isolate detail more than your current lenses.<br />

<br />

When you say "picking up pigments", is the problem with the colour, or are you after detail of the material? If the issue is colour, I'd suggest playing with the lighting and camera settings - and possibly shooting in raw and processing the result in software - is more important than the lens. At close range, don't underestimate what you can do cheap with LED torches, especially coloured ones - and a few coloured sweet wrappers and some baking tins can substitute for quite an expensive filter/reflector set. A flash gun is much more powerful, but harder to aim accurately (but would avoid the pinhole pupils you might get if you're shining an LED straight in your model's eyes, because it's not on the whole time). If you just want to enhance the natural colours, have a look in the picture controls menu on the camera and see about boosting saturation or changing the colour temperature, and possibly look at some software (Photoshop is expensive but not ridiculous with the monthly options; GIMP is free and good, and there are many options in between including what comes with the camera) which would make it easier to control your changes when you've got a bigger screen to look at.<br />

<br />

If you're after the detail of the pigment, light will help, and would also help to freeze any motion blur that might soften things (especially flash). Putting the camera on a tripod can also help, although you stilll have to worry about your model moving. Good luck, and I hope this helps.</p>

<p>Thank you all for the really great suggestions! Looking into the 105mms - yup, they sure are pricey! I guess you get what you pay for, right?<br /><br />Andrew Garrard - In regards to the pigments comment, I mean picking up the actual detail. There are moments where I might need to photograph makeup itself to capture the amount of finely used pigments in it (little shards of glitter or color) and they aren't as closely defined as I would hope.</p>

 

<p>Other options include the Tamron 60mm f/2 Macro, Nikon 85mm f/3.5VR Macro, Sigma 70mm f/2.8 Macro. Choice isn't the issue here - plenty good macro lenses available. And I think Andrew is right that a good flash should also be considered.<br /> Use your 55-200VR (which I also think is quite good), gain more experience. If this is your first DSLR, it may also be that you need to get used to shallow depth of field, and that's something a lens won't fix. You have pretty good lenses - get to know them better first, get to understand whether your issue is really close-focussing, or not having enough depth of field, or not having good quality light, and get to know which focal length you like most. That will make the potential shopping list a lot shorter, and the choice a lot easier.</p>

<p>[ edit] I see your reply now; but seriously, flash remains a point. Good light also helps revealing details, it's not only about the lens. You could get a fabulous lens (like the Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro, which makes the other options look cheap), and without good light, you still would not have those small details captured very well.</p>

<p>Commentary deleted. The meaning of "<em>picking up pigments can be sort of difficult with my standard lens'</em> was clarified.</p>

<p>Thanks for clarifying, Dee. (And sorry I crossed over with Shun and replicated what he said a bit.)<br />

<br />

If you're trying to capture glitter (and things that look like it), it's worth bearing in mind how glitter works: it directly reflects what bounces off it, whereas most more diffuse surfaces pick up colour from their whole surroundings. This means that the fraction of the glitter which is facing in the right direction to bounce a bright light towards you will look very bright, and the rest, which are reflecting a darker bit of background, will look correspondingly darker. With a uniformly-lit background (like a light tend or a white room lit by light bouncing off the walls), every bit of the background looks like every other, and glitter will look pretty similar to a diffuse surface. If you want to make the glitter stand out, have a darker background and smaller sources of light that only "light up" the sparkle on some of the glitter. Somewhere between a bare flash and some Christmas tree lights should get you some sparkle.<br />

<br />

Disclaimer: I've never actually done this, and the above theory is based only on the way you go about trying to get a nice shot of tinsel or jewelry (especially diamonds and opals - note that jewellers tend to have spotlights in their stores rather than fluorescent tubes, for a reason). Do bear in mind that while a bright spotlight from an oblique angle might make the glitter sparkle, it'll also show up every uneven defect in the skin of your subject (or their make-up) - which may or may not be what you want here. Notice how you can see the craters on the moon best where the sun is striking it at an angle. But it's probably that or cheat and paint on some sparkle in photo editing software! You might also find it useful to use a very small aperture (if you have enough light) so that any very bright reflections produce starbusts of diffraction spikes. You can buy filters to screw onto your lens that can do the same thing while still giving you some choice of aperture.<br />

<br />

Good luck. If you're keen/brave enough to post a shot that you think you're unhappy with, we might be able to suggest more ideas.</p>

<p>Has anyone mentioned the excellent budget alternative? Tamron 90mm</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There's two Micro Nikkors in 105mm: the f/4 and the f/2.8.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The only 105mm f/4 Micro Nikkors were manual focus and have not been made for decades. They're still available used, but they're not comparable in use to any of the other lenses being discussed here which are all autofocus.</p>

 

<p>IN case it's not clear to the original poster, only the newer AFS version of the 105/2.8 lens will autofocus with a D3300. The older AF-D version, despite being auto focus, has no internal motor and will not auto focus with that camera. The meter will work. Manual lenses will fit, but work only in manual mode, and the camera's meter will not function at all.</p>

<p>I agree that it's not necessary to get a Nikon lens, Tamron, Sigma and even Tokina make very good lenses. The lighting is a key element.</p>

<p>My vote for 85 1.4. Gorgeous bokeh, I reach for 135 of FF and on crop, this is approx equivalent. Awesome lens on FF for 3/4 length. </p>

<p>Hello, I am a makeup artist too and I picked this camera to take my makeup pictures but I have just de 18-55 lens and I have no money to buy a new one. I have not been able to use my camera succesfully because all photos have a yellow-orange subtone that I hate. Some of you know how Can I to fix this? Which are the rigth setting to take this makeup photos in this camera? Thanks</p>

<p>It sounds as if the white balance is off for whatever light is used. If you're not sure what is best, I'd try shooting in Raw mode, then opening the image in View NX2 or Capture NX-D which allows you to tune white balance. Find out what looks best and then you might be able to duplicate it in the camera. You can choose different presets in the camera and also a custom setting.</p>

<p>I'm not sure whether it's changed with the D3300, but for the D3200, the printed manual is incomplete. The full manual is available only in PDF form on the accompanying CD, along with View NX2. There are still some gaps, but it's much more complete than the printed one. Nikon shold be ashamed, not only for being so cheap, but for not making this fact clear. </p>

<p>In each of the picture controls (color sets such as normal, vivid, portrait, etc. ) you can also use the camera's menu to alter a number of settings for a given color control. But I'd start with white balance. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"What are your recommendations for other lenses to purchase that work well with portrait photography, and close ups on faces, like eyes, lips, etc?"<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 105mm f/2.8 Nikon micro lens is my first choice and the 55mm f/3.5 is my second choice. Both are older manual focus lenses.</p>

<p>If you can focus manually (and for portraits, I wouldn't trust AF to find the eyes 100% of the time) there is nothing whatsoever wrong with the Series E 100mm. A good 100mm lens is so easy to make that even the Series E is as sharp as a tack. It will obviously be longer on a DX body, but that's no bad thing; pros often use 300mm lenses for face shots.</p>