portraits

hi, i have a nikon d200 and i would like to know what lens i need to get this effect?

i was thinking of getting a NIKON 14-24/2.8

85mm 1.4 or 1.8, even the cheap 50mm 1.8 AF will give you a very nice shallow DOF for portriats on a D200

PS,

a 14-24mm 2.8 for a D200 IMHO is a waste on money.. and is not the lens you need for that kind of pictures..

if anything (and if you don't have it already) get the 17-55mm 2.8 AF-S, AWESOME lens for DX.

I don't think that was shot with a particularly wide lens.

mostly ps then?

I agree with Juanjo

The 17-55 is an awesom elens on a D200. I

 

>>>what lens i need to get this effect

I'm assuming the effect you are asking about is the shallow depth of field?

 

You can achieve this with all sorts of differert lenses, including longer telephotos, normals and WA's

with open apertures.

In fact, many portrait photographers like to use longer telephoto lenses for portrait work for the compression and isolation of the model/subject to the background.

Best thing to do is shoot and experiment until you achieve the desire results

 

Good luck!

you just need a fast lens...

ever hear about DOF..!

 

f:2.5

http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc112/Juanjo_Viagran/for%20sale/Nikon%20105mm%2025%20PC%20AID/_DSC3493.jpg?t=1221074259

 

f:8

http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc112/Juanjo_Viagran/for%20sale/Nikon%20105mm%2025%20PC%20AID/_DSC3494.jpg?t=1221074288

 

f:22

http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc112/Juanjo_Viagran/for%20sale/Nikon%20105mm%2025%20PC%20AID/_DSC3495.jpg?t=1221074305

Michael, we're all assuming you're talking about the sharp eyes and out-of-focus shirt. Is that the "effect" you're asking about? If so, you just need a sharp, fast lens, shot at a wide (numerically small) aperture.

 

If it's something other that, please be more explicit!

yes mark

y si i have heard of dof

here are 3 portraits I just took with (IMO) one of Nikon's best portrait lenses ever, 105mm 2.5

the model is Niko.. ;)

<img src="http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc112/Juanjo_Viagran/BS/_DSC3579-1.jpg" alt="Photobucket Image Hosting">

<img src="http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc112/Juanjo_Viagran/BS/_DSC3581-1.jpg" alt="Photobucket Image Hosting">

<img src="http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc112/Juanjo_Viagran/BS/_DSC3587-1.jpg" alt="Photobucket Image Hosting">

 

if you don't mind MF lenses I highly recommend you this lens for portraits, it will work great on your D200 and in ANY Nikon camera..

Looks to me like a bit of wide angle lens was used. I don't think the DoF is that shallow either. The perspective makes her head a bit larger than her body but not much. IMHO its more about technique than a lens.

I think that shot would be easiest to get with a 50 1.8 or a 35 f/2... they are cheap and offer really great images.... the 17-55 is a great idea too, but expensive. the part of that picture that stands out most, to me, is the blue eyes, blue shirt and cool white balance.. its not hard to get a similar look, just hard to find a subject that looks as good in it.

You know, the striking thing to me about that photo is a detail that has nothing to do with the dof. I just love how her eyes

match her clothes. That is cool!

I would think 85/1.4 or something like that. The closer shoulder is sharper than the farther one and it doesn't seem

consistent with a regular lens so maybe PS or a tilt-shift 85mm lens.

But even purchasing a 85mm tilt-shift might not get the girl. ;-)

I love my Nikkor 105 f/2.5 which I use on Nikon film cameras as a portrait lens. I use it on my Canon 15x22mm sensor camera too, but it is honestly a little long on a "crop-body" camera for a portrait lens.

 

Given that Nikon has an inexpensive 50mm f/1.8 prime that translates to a nice portrait-length 75mm equivalent on a 200D, it's hard not to recommend that for portrait work. It will give nice background when used wide-open.

 

If that picture were taken with a "wide-angle" the nose would be a lot more obvious. It looks like a short tele to me (e.g., 40-75 on a crop-body)

I have gotten images such as this or even better with any of

 

50mm f1.8 - Great balance between cost and performance. Quite sharp

85mm f1.4 - Almost as good as 105mm micro.

105mm f2.8 Micro - Sharpest

80-200 f2.8 ED AF-D - Best control and working distance - very versatile, very sharp below 180mm.

 

Excellent lenses for portrait. Any of these will work. To do this 1. you need a prime, 2. must be fast (gives food DOF too) 3. must be sharp 4. lens that allows you to operate from a comfortable distance. The closer you get, the more conscious the subject becomes.

 

:-)

I have gotten images such as this or even better with any of

 

50mm f1.8 - Great balance between cost and performance. Quite sharp

 

85mm f1.4 - Almost as good as 105mm micro.

 

105mm f2.8 Micro - Sharpest

 

80-200 f2.8 ED AF-D - Best control and working distance - very versatile, very sharp below 180mm.

 

Excellent lenses for portrait. Any of these will work. To do this 1. you need a prime, 2. must be fast (gives food DOF

too) 3. must be sharp 4. lens that allows you to operate from a comfortable distance. The closer you get, the more

conscious the subject becomes.

 

:-)

that portrait has some photoshop happening too... that bleached-skin look looks cool, but I've never seen anyone that actually looks like that. I'll be the eyecolor and the shirt were color-matched in post as well. For that matter, the defocused shirt/body could have been done in photoshop pretty easily too. PS makes it easy to soften focus.

Her entire face and much of her hair is in focus. Her nose and forehead aren't much distorted. On a D200 it is easy to get this effect with an 85mm or longer at about f4. Of course, looking at her eyes, nose and background, I think there is one light camera left with a softbox, another camera right and a small hairlight for the background screen. The photographer overexposed about 1.5 stops for that high-key effect. And, while setting up the shot, she was chatting up the subject so her face is perfectly relaxed and composed.

Here is a portrait I took hand held with my Nikon 105mm f 2.8 D AF macro lens, not the VR version. This macro lens makes a great portrait lens. Camera was a D 200. Joe Smith<div></div>

another vote for the 50/1.8. for $120 new or even less, it's pretty much a no-brainer to start there, since you get nice sharpness even at wide apertures and shallow DOF. if you like those results, you can then try other 'portrait lenses' like the 85/1.4 or 85/1.8, the 105 DC, and the 135 DC. IMO getting an inexpensive but good lens and learning how to shoot with shallow DOF is better than dropping several hundred to thousands more on a pro lens right away.

If you visit my portfolio, nearly all of my current portraits are taken with a D200 (both in studio and location). My most common lens is the

24-70mm f2.8. If you want to know where my length clusters, let me know and I will spend a little bit of time trying to figure it out.

 

That is also true if you visit my model work at http://www.printroom.com/pro/e2photo although a few outside pictures are taken with the 70-

200mm f2.8 VR lens, but for the most part I turn the VR off.

Steven

Focal length would most likely be a 50mm and "effect" looks like a shallow depth of field. My vote's with a 50 f/1.4 or f/1.8. =)