Nikon D60 with 18-200 VR lens for portrait photography?

<p>Hi All,<br>

After going through all the discussions in this forum I have decided to go for the Nikon D60 with 18-200 VR lens coz i like the idea of carrying only one lens around. however i wanted to know if this lens will be effective in Portrait and fashion photography or i would need another lens for indoor photography.<br>

Regards,<br>

BELL</p>

<p>That really comes down to two things:<br /><br />1) What will you be using for light? At the focal lengths where that lens starts to be more portrait-friendly, it also starts to get a little slower (f/4 and up towards f/5.6).<br /><br />2) How much do you like shallow depth of field shots? For the same reason as in (1), that lens can't produce that quite as well as a faster lens.<br /><br />It is indeed a good all-purpose lens, and if you have enough light to stop down some, it's quite sharp, considering all of the things you can use it for. But in a portrait situation, you might also want to consider another $100 on the 50/1.8... which yes, you'll have to focus manually on a D60, but it's a lot less expensive than the brand new 50/1.4 G that just came out.<br /><br />One thing the 18-200 is <em>perfect</em> for is its role in helping you figure out what focal lengths work best for your shooting circumstances, style, and subjects. The lens will continue to serve you in all sorts of roles, but will also be your guide to choosing your next, and more specific lens. Might be a 105mm prime, might be a cheap 50mm... you never know. But you'll find yourself using the 18-200 for all sorts of things, and may find that you shoot a lot of portraits right around 100-120mm, where it will serve you quite well. But do think about how you'll be lighting what you shoot. That the most important thing. </p>

<p>the problem that I've run into in several classes is that the 18-200 is at about f/5.x pretty quickly, while still at too-wide focal length for portraits. That means you may have more depth of field than you really want even when shooting essentially wide-open. It certainly doesn't take the lens out of consideration; just be aware of it and how much space is behind the model and any patterns on the backdrop.</p>

<p>What kind of portrait and fashion? Something that you expect to get paid a lot of money? If it is just for fun any lens will work as long as you know the limitation of the lens and camera. </p>

<p>I am not an expert like most folks on this forum, but having moved up from a 40X (which is basically the same as a 60) to a D80, the extra dial and support for older lenses makes it a far better choice to the 40X/60. In fact I regret not having bought this as my first SLR (instead of the 40X).</p>

<p>The only annoyance (compared to the 40X) is the position of the OK button away from the arrow keys. On the 40X the OK button is in the center of the arrow keys, whereas in the 80 it's not. (I assume the 60's OK button is similarly placed as the 40X).</p>

<p>You may potentially be referred some AF lenses (without the built in motor) and those won't auto-focus on the D60. The AF-S equivalents are 2-4 times as costly.</p>

<p>Thank you guys for your reply<br>

Well, am not very experienced yet, but yes am talking about some that i will expect to gat paid for, not just for fun.<br>

am talking about a fast lens can give enough depths in low light conditions maybe and using camera built-in flash or SB-400</p>

 

<p>you could buy a 50mm f1.8 for a little over a hundred bucks, but it will be manual focus. GREAT complement to an 18-200, and pretty decent (not ideal, but decent) for portraits. Everyone should have one (unless you have a 50mm f1.4). But, with a D60, I'd probably opt for either the new AF-S 50mm f1.4 or what some use, the 60mm micro AF-S so you can autofocus.</p>

<p>But... wait till you know EXACTLY what you want to move. And if you haven't bought yet, consider some of the deals on the D80 right now. It will autofocus with more lenses than the D60, reason enough, imho, to buy it despite it's "hot" metering.</p>

<p>Also, skip the SB400 and get the SB600 and a sto-fen omni-bounce. simple reason. You can NOT bounce vertical with the SB400.</p>

<p>The 18-200vr is a ok lens, sharp enof for many applications. </p>

<p>However because the f# is not so low, if you take photographs outside or even inside the background may be in focus so as a portrait picture, you may lose focus going away from the person. Because of that I would use a 2.8 zoom or a 1.8 or 1.4 prime non zoom lens. They also make the background out of blur more creamy than the harsh general zoom.</p>

<p>With the 1.4 1.2 you could get very close to the person and use it that way so the eyes are sharp but the face is a bit of a blur. Also good for pple pictures inside when it may be darker to handhold the camera.</p>

<p>Basically use the 18-200vr lens and see for yourself. Over time it would tell you what you want. If you do want some of those specialist stuff you may need to get away from the conveniene of just one lens.</p>

<p>Thanks alot guys for helping me,<br>

well, the new AF-S 50mm f1.4 is an ideal for portraits i guess, but unfortunately i cant afford it with the AF-S 18-200 they very expensive,<br>

would you advice to get the 50mm with a cheaper "walk-around" lens for outdoor photography, or shall i get the 18-200 better and postpone the 50m f1.4?<br>

Is the one comes in the bundle (18-55mm) good enough, or what?</p>

<p>I also have the D60 and 18-200 since April but recently purchased the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 (BIM - built in motor) primarily for portrait shooting. Although the 18-200 is a great lens, I find it a bit too slow for indoor portraits without flash. What you may want to consider doing is to try shooting portraits with the 18-200 for a while to see what you are not satisfied with before getting another lens to fill the gap.</p>

<p>A club member of mine who does children wedding photographs as a part time on top of her normal day job, is v good with pictures towards exhibitions or club competitions and even international representations. </p>

<p>She has a D300/70/80 and a Tamron 17-50/2.8 which is a digital lens and 85/1.8 and a 50/1.4 lens. I think she uses a lot of plugins to get that look.</p>

<p>18-200 isnt ideal for portraits, but you can do them with it, just dont expect the same results you would with a prime. if you're serious about portraits, forget the 18-200 and get the 50/1.4. with the money you make from your amazing shots, you can always buy the zoom later.</p>

<p>IMO, I would get another digital body that works with non AFS lenses. I would pick up a 50/1.8 and a 85/1.8 and a 180/2.8 and see how you go. Some would say with no hassle it beats a 70-200/2.8 AFS VR. But that is maybe more scientific cos photography isn't about technicalities...</p>

<p>If you are wanting to do cat walks etc... you may find that you may require a longer lens hence the 180mm. Never done real catwalks but junior festival kinda types :D</p>

<p>Portrait for me is a lot not all, really blow the back right out so the viewer isn't looking at what is behind the model but they actually look at the model and their features.</p>

<p>If you wanna get into portrait photography I would go with studio lights too so you get to sculpture your own lighting.</p>

<p>As you can see it is not cheap. The 18-200 to me is a good lens for travel .. all in one where you want to take lower quality and compromise over ideal picture. Becuase for travel much of it maybe you want all in focus anyway ... buildings, lakes, mountains. A 50mm is a good lens or a 85mm for travel if you go with family to get some nice portraits ...</p>

<p>When I look through my portraits, I find that I do most with 100mm (35mm equivalent) or even longer. The 75mm of the 50/1.8 I rarely use. You can either half the F-number or double the focus length to achieve the same blurriness in infinity. The latter, however, has more DOF for the subject. The optimum for me would be a 85mm at F2, but too expensive.</p>

<p>so should i get the 18-200 or wait and get one of these 18-55 or 55-200, what are they good for?<br>

and get beside one of these the 50m 1.4</p>

<p>Those 2 other lenses outputwise is pretty much the same as the 18-200mm. But the 18-200mm is a one lens unit which is more practical for travelling. AFAIK both the 18-55 and 55-200 has versions with and without VR too.</p>

<p>I have tested the 18-70 DX which is a bit more $$ than the 18-55mm and its the same to the 18-200mm at the 18mm and 70mm for what my eyes can tell zoomed to 100% view on software without getting into technical testing with advanced equipment.</p>

<p>Basically for portrait photography it is a non zoom lens with a wider aperture that is most important to me, you are able to do things uniquely that a zoom lens cannot. Ie... shoot at 1.4 or 1.8 and throw the background into blur or even put the person's chin in a bit of a dreamy blur.</p>

<p>I will add that if you don't need a all in one travel lens ... forgo the 18-200mm. Ignore the 50mm because it is so cheap if need be you can get it later. Just go out and get a used or new 85/1.8 with a dSLR camera that supports non AFS lenses. Don't get the 180mm yet .. as you can get later when you need it. The 85mm has a much better background blur than the 50mm and it looks more creamy. </p>

<p>For a family walk and about lens just pick up a very cheap 18-55 VR or non VR lens.</p>

<p>IMHO a D80 is a much better value in that you will have AF with a much larger selection of lenses. I suggest you look at f2.8 zooms or the Nikkor 85mm f1.8 for starters. You should look at a good flash like the SB-800 or SB-600.</p>

<p>I support Carl .. get a D80 or like that so you can access to all these exciting lenses that is useful to portrait photography. Because frankly speaking if you just want AFS lenses and it has to be Nikon, off my head you only have the 24-70/2.8 and the 105/2.8 Macro nothing else is AFS if you want 2.8 or faster. There is the 50/1.4 AFS but quite $$$.</p>

<p>I am in support with 85/1.8 and a cheap 18-55 lens or even replace that with a Tamron 17-50/2.8 zoom I think that is what it is. Its cheaper than 50% of the Nikon 17-55/2.8 DX I think. </p>

<p>thank you guys, i think i will take the advise i should go for the D80 for more value, and it will save more when buying lenses coz i can get AF only lenses with more variety and cheaper.</p>

<p>Yes Mohamed, if you want to take portrait for money I strongly suggest getting a better camera than the D60. You are very limited on what you can do with a D60. You choice of lens is also very limited. <br>

However if you are a beginning you should not look at buying too much equipment first. You need to practice your trade and perfect the technical aspect of photography before asking any one for money.<br>

A successful photographer has both exceptional hardware and exceptional talent. You cannot be a professional photographer over night.</p>

<p>The 18-200 is a great walk around lens but not ideal for portraits. If you don't mind being a little close to the model the 50/1.4 or 1.8 makes a superb (and insanely cheap in the case of the 1.8) portrait lens.</p><div></div>

<p>Here is what's so sucky about D40, d40x, and D60 being lack of drive shaft for non-afs lenses. If it did have it, then you could buy the 80-200mm f2.8 for little more than 18-200mm lens and get SOOOOO MUCH BETTER result. or better yet, buy a used 35-70mm f2.8 lens<--notice f2.8 lens. It's not that you would be shooting at f2.8 all the time but the lens elements are so much better in those hence resulting better saturation, contrast (grey scales) than cheaper ones.</p>