sigma 30mm 1.4 vs nikkor 50mm 1.8 with the d80

hello everyone, i'm new to photo net and although i've seen some threads about this subject posted, am going to

venture to post a question related to other threads bc i've not seen my particular question answered. I have a nikon

d80 which i love, i also have a nikkor 50mm 1.8, but for my birthday my husband bought me a sigma 30mm 1.4

lens. he was told it was a good portrait lens to have, ( i always thought a portrait should be at 70 to 100mm) . i

tried out the sigma which was my first third party lens and liked it a lot, i also compared some of the same shots i

took with the sigma, with my nikkor 50mm, and didnt' see much of a difference, of course the 30 mm is a little bit

wider. my question is this: what really is the difference between the sigma and the nikkor aside from the fact that

one is 30mm at 1.4 and one is 50mm at 1.8? the difference bw the 1.4 and the 1.8 is not very big to me at least

when it comes to usage, the bokeh i get with either is acceptable. if i keep both lenses, am i in fact keeping lenses

that do basiclaly the same thing?

I've owned and used 5 just about every 30-50mm lens out there with Nikon D2X (and back to D100).

 

Now, bear in mind that there are as many ideas of what's the "right" focal length for a portrait as there are photographers making portraits. So, this is what works for me...

 

I find both the 30mm and 50mm focal lengths not well suited to portraits. At portrait distances (which I usually figure as around 10 feet to keep midwest American's looking comfortable and casual) a 30mm covers an area 5' by 8', which is just right for a full length standing portrait, and great for the upper torsos of a group of about 6 people, but all in all, not that useful.

 

(It's wonderful for reclining nudes, and has fashion uses).

 

The 50mm is down to 3'x5', but that's still a bit much for torsos, and a bit not enough for full length, and really doesn't fit anywhere into what feels "right" to me.

 

The Nikon 85mm f1.8 costs about the same as a Sigma 30mm f1.4, and if it's possible to return the 30mm f1.4 without offending your significant other, that might be something to do. On the other hand, just the fact that it was a gift from your love may cast such a strong aura on that lens that you will get remarkable results from it. (I have a masters degree in Engineering, and I still understand that there is such thing as "magic" in this world).

 

But magic aside, the 85mm covers an area of 2'x3' at a portrait distance of 10 feet, and that's dang near perfect.

My 2 cents, The difference are in the distant between you and to the your subjects. It has effects on the communication between you and the subject. It also effect the prepective view of (ie. how facial features look) and how the backgrounds are render. Compare to the 50/1.8 Nikkor, the Sigma allow you to shoot in an darker environemnt without flash.

 

If these doesn't matter to you, get rid of one. If hubbie feeling doesn't matter get rid of the Sigma or him :-)

The main difference is just that the Sigma is a "normal" lens (45mm in 35mm format) versus the Nikon which is a fairly short telephoto (75mm in 35mm format). Between the two you will see a slight difference in perspective (the longer lens will shorten the apparent difference in position in images in the FOV and will show less depth of field, requiring a smaller aperture to keep things in focus.

 

I love normal lenses, but some people don't. They're called normal because the perspective most closely resembles that of the human eye, so for me there is a naturalness to the perspective that I enjoy. Now there isn't a heck of a lot of difference between that and your 50mm Nikkor, but I have both a 35mm and a 50mm and use them both, so for my money it's certainly worthwhile to keep both.

In practical use, the most important difference is the focal length. For a head shot, the 30mm is too wide, and by the time you're close enough, it will produce an unflattering view of a typical face. Think it through: when you're 20 feet from someone, the difference in distance between their nose and their ears - relative to the camera - is negligable. Now, imagine you're two feet from the subject's face. The nose is now a significant percentage of that distance close to the camera than the ears are. And the result is a distortion of the apparent size of the nose (it looks bigger, because it's substantially closer). This is why longer lenses are usually used for portraiture. But there are times (or poses) where a wider lens is really important.

<br><Br>

Take a full-length, head-to-toe shot, for example. With the 50/1.8, you and your D80 have to get at least 15 feet away from the subject in order to fit them into a vertically oriented frame. With that 30/1.4, you can work at closer to half that distance. In some spaces and circumstances, that's a make-or-break issue, right there. And what about a shot that needs to include a person and some set piece or prop? That wider field of view can be really handy.

<Br><br>

Now... leaving those focal length issues aside for the moment: there's the issue of how each lens handles its out-of-focus areas. When you use either lens wide open (at f/1.8 or f/1.4 respectively), your usable depth of field is shallow indeed. That can be a very helpful creative element, and can make a big difference in isolating the subject from a busy background (or a wrinkled muslin backdrop!). But these two lenses have substantially different "looks" to their out of focus areas (warning: we're now talking about "bokeh" - just start searching on that term, but get a cup of coffee first). Just to cut to the chase: the Sigma has a much more pleasant (to me, anyway) bokeh quality. When you force parts of the image out of focus by using that lens wide open, the out of focus areas are much silkier, and show fewer iris artifacts than does the 50/1.8.

<br><br>

Another thing that differentiates them: the Sigma uses a built-in autofocus motor. The 50/1.8 relies on the camera's mechanical screw-drive motor. As you know, the 50 is noticeably louder. It can be a distraction under some circumstances. That means more to some people than to others (I shoot a lot of canine subjects, so it really matters to me - and it probably would with some children, too... and in a quiet church at a wedding, etc).

<br><br>

Personally, I also find the Sigma's larger physical build to be more pleasnt to handle - it balances the camera body better. Very subjective issue, there.

<br><Br>

I'm comfortable saying these things because I have and regularly use both lenses on a camera with the same size sensor as yours. I like the 50/1.8 for certain things, but have tended to reach for the 30/1.4 much more often, or jump right past the 50 for a much longer lens, otherwise. When I really want the "flattening" effects of a longer lens, I'm often working well past 100mm, anyway.

<br><br>

Hope this helps, a bit.

I loved the Sigma on a D200, but it is purely a matter of personal choice. With respect to field of view, I'm surprised you don't see much of a difference, between the 45mm to 75mm (effective) difference. Most people would consider this huge. There is no "better" choice, keep them both or keep the one you feel gives you the result you're most pleased with.

How about an example. <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/7812273"><b>Right here</b></a> is a shot taken with the Sigma 30/1.4, used wide open. Notice the very soft, creamy out-of-focus behavior. It provides a dreamy, easy-on-the-eye way to deal with a background like the one you see there. In this case, I was focused on the dog's eyes. Notice how rapidly the rest of the critter is out of focus. Notice also how the size othe head is enhanced, relative to the "far away" rest of the body. In this case, that's an important part of the mood of the shot. But it may not lend itself to a flattering portrayal under other circumstances.

Of course having said there is a huge difference, you certainly can take a portrait with a variety of lenses...

<P>

<a href="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/85/232272666_15a204f510_o.jpg">Portrait with a 28mm lens</a>

<P>

<a href="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1167/1411827018_61ac8695ab_o.jpg">Portrait with a 35mm lens</a>

<P>

<a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3058/2993264080_bb64a6a7f6_o.jpg">Portrait with a 50mm lens</a>

<P>

<a href="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3042/2691551686_a7e29942cc_o.jpg">Portrait with an 85mm lens</a>

<P>

(only the 50mm is my image)

I have both the Sigma 30mm 1.4 and the Sigma 50mm 1.4 for my D200.

 

The 50mm is a great portrait lens for casual portraits where you want to get reasonably close to your subject, or for flash

photography where you don't want to be too far away. For head shots in a formal studio setting, something around a

100mm would be better, so your camera can be back on a tripod out of the lights and you aren't hovering too close to

your subject.

 

The 30mm is a normal lens. It isn't necessarily a "portrait" lens. It's more of an all around focal length for shooting

groups of people or landscapes that aren't too broad. For close portraits, it wouldn't be so great, but for full figure poses,

it would be great.

 

Rather than primes, you might prefer a zoom covering the normal portrait range of 24 to 120 or so.

Alejandra, good question with a variety of answers. I tend to agree with Sp & Matt and I do shoot a lot of

portraits both group, couples, kids, solo, etc. I have a 35mm/2; 50mm/1.4; 85mm/1.8 all Nikon. I use them all

depending on what the application or situation demands.

 

I would keep them both for reasons mentioned above as you will find the lenses will give two distinct results.

When funds are available, per my experience, I would add an 85mm lens.

 

I have a family portrait tomorrow on site and will bring all three of the mentioned lenses in addition my

assistant will be using a Nikon 17-55mm/2.8 for candids and I will also pack a Sigma 10-20mm for sharp angle

shots of the kids.

 

Call me a glass (lens) addict, but again, the situation usually is the indicator of what lens to use rather than

specifying a lens without taking into account the context in which it is to be used.

 

Something you can do is a lens test: put your camera on a tripod about 10 feet from a well lit object. Shoot

the same object at the same f stops and shutter speeds and see how each lens "reacts." That way you can make a

decision that best fits your situation.

 

Just thoughts for you to consider.

I personally think you don't need to return the 30mm, especially if you don't have any lenses wider than 30mm. It's a very good lens to have, you can do portrait, but not portrait in a sense of head&shoulder type of portrait (I don't think your husband likes that many of his full face closeups anyway), but you can quite easily use it for full body/half body kind of portrait, and the good thing with 30mm is, you will also include a bit of the environment if you want to.

 

So that means you can take his picture while I don't know, cooking a barbeque, fixing the fence or whatnot. I say keep it. If you buy 85mm just for the sake of portraits, then you are talking about very specialised type of portraits. You might as well get a long macro if you want to get a 85mm, since some macro lenses can double as excellent portrait lenses as well.

If you are into fancy pretty bokeh, the lens (and one of the most affordable) that you should get is Tamron 90mm f/2.8 DiMacro. Yes it's a macro lens, but it has killer bokeh, excellent for portrait - although it sometimes can be too sharp because you will reveal every imperfection on the skin - even at wide open.

(The 30mm Sigma is)...<I>"can do portrait, but not portrait in a sense of head&shoulder type of portrait."</I>

<P>

Not sure what you mean by that?

<P>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3072/2992596503_54e2f1db6c.jpg?v=0">

just to add to what matt said, the most obvious difference besides the focal length, is that the sigma has MUCH

better bokeh than the 50 (which tends to render OOF elements in a way that can be harsh and/or distracting)

 

it's not really a 'portrait' lens, but it is very useful. it's good for shots when you want some background in addition to

your central subject, and, of course, for low-light, look-ma-no-flash stuff.

 

i tend to use it more than the 50 because it's wider. the problem with the 50 is that you need a lot of room to use it

indoors, which is where you want to use it to take advantage of the max aperture. witht he 30 this is not so much of

a problem.

 

i've also found that it's pretty good stopped down for landscape stuff, which i didn't expect (i bought it for concerts

and live stuff). i suspect that were you to trade it for the 85, you'd find the 85 is very long on a DX sensor--really at the

far end of the 'portrait range'--and far less applicable for 'everyday' shooting.

 

ps--if you're shooting with the 30 wide open, spot metering can prevent some of the front-focus issues (related to

narrow DoF) some have complained about.<div></div>

here's a 'bokeh' pic...<div></div>

I would encourage Alejandra to study her photographs from each lens to see which one she prefers, one can easily

use any focal length lens for a portrait lens, it all depends on how you personally prefer to frame your subject,

and compose your imagery. Even for the seemingly worse lens that I think I own, I can often find surprises if I

use the lens.

SP: What's so difficult to understand? That means if you do a full head-only or head&abit of shoulder type of portrait, you don't have to stick your lens to your subject's face as close as 30mm (if you have longer lens).

After taking thousands of head and shoulder portraits in a studio environment I came to the conclusion that 65mm was the best...My photo staff were directed to shoot only at 65...Of the 4 examples above the 85 stands out...When using a 30 for HS you could get some unfavorable distortion...

Well Albert, nothing difficult to understand, now that you typed what you actually meant.

"Portraits" can mean a lot of things. I believe the more formal, studio head and shoulder portraits are best done with longer lenses. However, the more informal, casual or enviromental type portrait can be done with whatever lens fits the situation. Here's my examples of informal portraits shot with a 28, 35, 50 and 105 all on a D70 or D80.<div></div>

here's the 35mm<div></div>

here's the 50mm portrait<div></div>

and the 105mm<div></div>

and here's one done with a 28mm lens on film (Nikon F)<div></div>

Can anyone post photos which use the same subject and background with the different lenses? The exmaples we've seen here are nice, but an "apples-to-oranges" type of thing that doesn't clearly depict the differences in the lens propersties.

 

Matt, I enjoyed that you used a dog portrait to show what the Sigma 30 will do for portraits. I happened upon an old Vivitar 28mm f/2.8 (I have a very small budget!), and while in a getting-to-know-my-lens mode, decided that lenses of this focal length - on an aps-c sensor - can be very nice for pet portraits. I think the bokeh is quite acceptable also, in that my very busy and very messy living room is not very distracting in the background.<div></div>