taybay Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 Being new to photography, I have a LOT to learn. Can anyone shed some light on whether a Nikkor 35-80mm f/1.4-5.6D zoom lens would be a great lens for my new D200. I'm looking for a gr8 indoor portrait lens but want some versatility. Salesmen seem to try to sell me every lens they have in stock and i don't feel I'm getting the right info. What do the pro's think?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stwrtertbsratbs5 Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 I'm not a pro, but an inexpensive 50mm f/1.8 lens is very good for portraits on a D200. It's inexpensive, sharp, and it's equivalent to 75mm on a full-frame sensor. Or you could go with an 85mm lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcofrancardi Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 yes, if you don't have "mobility" problems, get a fast, prime lens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 I'm not a pro, but try this on for size. You're new to photography. AWESOME! That probably means you will want/need a versatile lens. 35-80 on a DSLR is not versatile. There is NO wide angle view with such a lens, since 35 is equivalent to the field of view of a standard lens, not a wide angle. You might be best served by an 18-70 as a first "kit" lens (or an 18-200 if you can afford it since--if you don't like it you can sell it for basically what you bought it for--at least for now), BUT... since you know you want to do indoor portraits, I'd also get a 50mm/1.8, which is a GREAT lens, one of Nikon's very best optically, and it's only gonna be about 100 bucks. Now... with those two lenses, you haven't spent a lot of money, and you can learn more about your camera and how it works... but more importantly, you will learn about what you want to shoot. THEN... you can get the appropriate fast primes or high-end zooms if you can afford them. Pay attention to the focal lengths you're using much of the time. For me, for instance, since I switched to digital for my personal photography, I found that 24mm is one of my favorite lengths on digital, so now I'm thinking about getting a 24mm prime. If I had a 35-80, I'd just be frustrated all the time. I hope that helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cappoldt Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 I'm seeing a lot of great stuff with the 105mm VR (or the one it replaced, sans VR). I often use the 60mm Micro, as well as the 70-200 VR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aaron l Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 You would be better off with the famous 18-70mm. It covers more range than a 35-80mm does and is quite good, plus faster. f5.6 at that short a focal length is crud. Then get the 50mm 1.8. You can't beat the price for performance and it's a great medium portrait lens on a digital. You'll have huge flexibility for the price. Can't get cheaper (for new) than the 50mm f1.8 and the sharpness is unmatched. Then, once you're vaguely happy with that, you have to decide to go with the 28-70 f2.8 or the 85mm f1.4 or longer. I chose the 85mm f1.4 because I can also use it for semi-close sports shooting in nearly dark places. Plus the shallow DOF and ridiculously bright image are awesome. If you want more versatility, get the 28-70 f2.8. If I do more headshots & portrait sittings, that will be my lens of choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leicaglow Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 It depends on the type of portraiture. I use my 50 f/1.8, and 60 Micro Nikkor a lot for fashion, but I prefer the more selective focus of the 85mm f/1.8 or f/1.4 for a lot of what I'm doing. I'm thinking that a 105 might even be better, like the f/2 DC. I have the old 105 f/2.5 AIS and need to work with it more to see what I think, but the 85mm is the one I like the best so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_in_PA Posted October 10, 2006 Share Posted October 10, 2006 Check out Bjorn's review of the AFS 105 VR. He doesn't like it very much. http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_spec.html#AFS105MicroVR Ken Rockwell didn't like it at all, although his review isn't as balanced, I think, as Bjorn's. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/105vr.htm Thom Hogan disagreed, but still seemed to indicate that the Tamron 90 was very much worth looking into instead. http://www.bythom.com/105AFSlens.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taybay Posted October 10, 2006 Author Share Posted October 10, 2006 thank u all so much for ur gr8 info. The more I read the more I learn. I like the sound of the 50mm f/1.8 or the 85mm f/1.4. Next photographic genre is INSECTS- up real close. I currently have a vivitar 100mm f/3.5 and have been getting very nice close ups but notice the DOF is very very shallow. I like to get up close and personal with these little critters, capturing the hexagonal shapes in their eyes and so on but its hard to get the whole head in focas. What can u wonderful people suggest now. Oh and I have the 18-200 vr lens (it came with the D200), but not really good indoors for portraits. better outdoors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now