Sharp Portrait Lens for Infant Photography

[giggles]

Sorry for redundacy but I have been searching previous posts and

haven't not found that piece of advice that would make me confident

so I am posting another "help me buy a lens quesiton".

I am a newbie children's portrait photographer that uses a D70

(hoping to upgrade to D200 soon). I have the kit lens and a 70-300

telephoto lens. I am looking to purchase a prime lens that produces

sharp/crisp results especially in high key situations. I plan to use

it for head shots or upper body shots of the children against white

backdrops. I get close to my subject and never use a tripod. An idea

of what I am striving for can be found at www.imagesoflove.com - her

style is my ultimate goal. Which lens would you recommend? The 50,

85, or 105? Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

[mawz]

I'd recommend 2 lenses. The 50 f1.8 for working up close and the 85 if you've got a little room.

 

The 105's are good, but the sharpest of them won't meter on your D70 (the 2.5 AI-S) and they're a bit long for indoors on a DSLR.

[seanmalyon]

I've just completed a shoot of kids for a gardening magazine and took everything with a Nikkor AFD 35mm F2.0 on a D2X. This did allow some slightly wider crops but you can also get in close as this lens focuses down to about 15cm. If you don't want to scare the kids so much you could use the Nikkor AFD 50mm F1.4 for some tighter crops, although you can't focus as close as with the 35mm lens. I've found both these lenses to be very sharp on the D2X so would expect similar results on the D70. You can pick up these lenses very cheaply at the moment, at least in the UK.

[james_lai]

For the tight close-ups, you might consider the 60 Micro. Otherwise, I would think the 50 or maybe the 85. I suspect the 105 would be too long for what you want to do. What focal lengths do you mostly use on the 70-300? That should give you a good idea of what focal length you'd want to look for.

[giggles]

Thanks Sean & Adam - I do have room but I tend to get close up - within 5 feet or so of the children. So would you still recommend the 50mm. What is the difference in the 1.4 to 1.8? Is the 1.4 worth the price difference? Would I notice the difference in children shoots?

[giggles]

James - I tend to use my 18-70 lens in my studio a majority of the time on my tight shots I zoom all the way in and rarely shoot wide. I can get close enough with that lens but it is the sharpness that I am lacking. I am dealing with constantly moving subjects most of the time:-)

[titospna]

I vote for the 85 if your studio can accommodate it (w/the crop factor), but in looking at that web site, I wouldn't be surprised if they are using a medium format kit. Difficult to replicate that sharpness using a 35mm kit. No?

[james_lai]

Lack of sharpness is not necessarily a lens problem. It could be due to any number of factors such as subject movement, not holding the camera steady, poor focus or a bad lens. From what you say, it seems to me that in your case the problem is subject movement. If so, you might try increasing the lighting/using a faster lens/increasing the ISO setting to get faster shutter speeds.

[ShunCheung]

The 18-70 DX is a sharp lens itself, and when you photograph people, you don't necessarily want the sharpest lens in the first place.

 

In any case, I wonder whether your "lack of sharpness" is the result of subject motion. The 18-70 is on the slow side at 70mm. If you get a 50mm/f1.8, you can use a faster shutter speed.

 

Could you post a couple of your images for us to view? Did you use a flash to freeze subject motion? You can also try a higher ISO such as 800 or 1600 with a faster shutter speed and see whether that would stop subject motion or not. If that is the problem, the simple solution would be a faster lens and/or using flash. But as we discuss recently, I would bounce off the ceiling or use a soft dome to reduce any direct flash on babies.

[StuartMoxham]

The 50mm 1.8 AF is quite a good place to start, cheap as chips, fast and sharp. I use one on my D70 and it is great.

[leicaglow]

I think Adam's recommendation would be mine as well. The 50mm f/1.8 produces this wonderful skin quality that's hard to explain. It has to do with soft colors, but the lens is sharp. Another option between the 50mm and 85mm is the 60mm Micro. But for the price of the 50mm f/1.8 (I paid about $100 for my new AF-D version recently), it's hard to beat.

[lee hamiel]

May want to consider the 105 f/2 DC lens.

 

Having a little more distance can help minimize the distractions of a child looking straight in at the lens like a deer in headlights.

 

My suggestions would be: 105 f/2 DC - 85 f/1.4 - 50 f/1.4 or 1.8

 

Good Luck

[paul_wilson2]

I also recommend getting a 50 1.4 or 1.8. I've used it a lot for pics of my daughter.<div></div>

[paul_wilson2]

also, Lee has a good point but I'd consider the new 105VR Micro. When they get older, having AFS and VR will be useful. When they get even older than that, the 70-200VR would be perfect for chasing them.

[gluteal cleft]

If you're trying to get the same effects as her, it sounds like you'll be using strobes. With strobes, you don't need to worry about the fact that you don't have a tripod, the flash duration is short enough that shake is nullified.

 

Also, because strobes give you plenty of light, you don't need to shoot wide-open. (You *can*, for DOF, but you'll have to greatly reduce the power of your strobes, and she doesn't seem to have shallow-DOF photos, so I assume that's not what you're looking for.) When you've stopped down a bit, most lenses become reasonably sharp.

 

Between getting rid of the effects of camera shake and the benefits of stopping down, shooting under a strobe can give you some very sharp images indeed, with even relatively modest lenses.

 

However, that's not to say that you should buy just any lens. With extra-cheap lenses, you can run into things like internal reflections or flare under certain situations. It may only happen rarely, but when it does, you'll be upset. :-) For that reason, buying a decen lens makes sense even for reasons other than shapness, such as as improved coatings, decreased chromatic aberration, contrast, color, etc..

 

Also, if you *did* want shallow-DOF pictures, the quality of the bokeh would come into question as well. Even though this is the Nikon forum, I'll admit to owning Canon gear - and sometimes while shooting with strobes, I pull out my 70-200 f/2.8L, because it gives me a bit more convenience in focal lengths, gives amazingly sharp images, has amazing color and contrast, and has never given me any flare or reflections under my shooting conditions. However, while it can give me a pretty shallow depth-of-field, the out-of focus quality is less pleasant than from certain other lenses which are geared more toward portraiture than sports/nature photography.

 

steve

[giggles]

Wow - thanks everyone for you helpful responses. I am leaning towrds the 50mm or 85mm now. Does the 1.4 vs 1.8 matter?

 

I should also give you a little more background information on me. I do have a studio that specializes in children's photography and am currently using a three strobe light set-up - two softboxes and one backlight. My images by no means are blurry and my clients are always happy but they aren't as crisp as I want them yet. I am hoping just the change of lens will help this. My PN portfolio has a sample of my current style. I'll attach a few on this link and try to find a few that I have the crispness I am talking about. Am I nuts? Just bear with me...<div></div>

[giggles]

Here is an example of my goal - just a tad crisper. Would it be the lens or something else?

[giggles]

Another one of my shots....<div></div>

[paul_wilson2]

Emily, could you talk a little bit about how you have your lighting set up? In particular, the positioning and the rations? Thanks.

[ShunCheung]

At least based on the first image you are providing here, it looks more like a focusing and depth of field issue. The baby's left eye (to our right) seems to be in focus but the right eye isn't. There may either be movement or out of focus issue in the chin area.

 

Did you use strobes for this shot? Do you have any focal length, aperture and shutter speed info for this shot?

 

If you are using strobes in a studio, subject movement shouldn't be an issue and I see no reason why you cannot stop down to f5.6 or f8 for deeper depth of field.

 

I am not entirely sure that you need to upgrade your lens. I would figure out exactly what the problem is first, and I think the f1.8 versions of those lenses should be fine should you want to upgrade.

[giggles]

I have my main light 45 degrees to the right of the child with a large octagon softbox and then a fill light 45 degrees to the left with a smaller rectangular softbox. I try to only capture the octagon softbox as a catchlight. I usually have them pretty low and aimed slightly down on the child. I usually shoot a high ISO and f-stop to compensate for the brightness of the lights. I just use my histogram for judging the exposure and my eye. What else should I be doing?

[frank uhlig]

I think all the lenses you now use are plenty sharp.

 

You have to increase DOF, though, or be persnickety to line up both eyes exactly at the same distance from the camera (if you shoot as wide open as you do). Maybe within 1/4 inch for your wide open lens. A 1.4 lens would give you maybe 4 mm DOF: pretty useless for your kind of work.

 

So, for best results use f/1.8, or bven f/2.8 lenses at f/5.6 - f/11 and forgo the 1.4. It is for experts at f/1.4 and makes for a lot of hit and miss in sharpness ...

[giggles]

Thanks Frank - that helps me and explains what I need to know. So you think playing with the DOF would also help me get sharper pictures. How do I do that? A lower f-stop with a high shutter speed?

[paul_wilson2]

Since you're using strobes, shutter speed shouldn't matter too much but staying at your X sync would be a good idea.

 

I was mostly asking because I want to take similar portraits of my daughter.

[patricks]

The 50/1.8 is a nice and affordable place to start, very crisp when stopped down sufficiently, however, i don't believe it will get you the nice tight head-shots you want, especially without coming up too close to the babies (it is one thing if it is your own children, but we are talking about total strangers here).

 

The AF 85/1.4 D is wonderfully sharp and has a fantastic bokeh, very nice if you broaden out to available light/outdoor shots as well.

 

I think the new 105 VR Micro holds a lot of promise your your applications, perhaps even the 70-200 VR, which happens to be a main portrait studio lens for many pros. The 60/2.8 Micro is wonderfully sharp as well (I have it) but it may be a bit 'short' for your purposes.

 

My suggestion would be to rent or borrow a 85/1.4 or 105 micro and try them out. The 50/1.8 is only $90 so that one is a no brainer in your arsenal anyhow! :-)

 

Please share more photos!

 

Cheers,