Sharp Portrait Lens for Infant Photography

[basarab]

DOF = "total region of adequate focus" (according to Ansel Adams; btw: I strongly recommend reading "The Camera" by AA if you haven't already done so)

 

The ideea basicaly is that you only have one plane with real focus; as geometry will tell us, a plane has no depth at all, but rather only two dimmensions. However, there are two regions of space right before and behind the focus plane wich appear to be in focus to the human eye even if they are not really in focus. The combined space of these two regions is the DOF region.

 

Optics tells us also that if one is using a small apperture one will obtain a larger DOF region; therefore the aperture and size of DOF are inversely proportional. Which is why if one is going to use a lens stopped at f/1.8 or f/2.8 one will get half the DOF compared to f/4 or f/5.6 respectively.

 

Also if one doubles the subject distance one will increase the DOF four times since the DOF is proportional to the square of the subject distance.

 

If one reduces the focal length by half then one will obtain a DOF increased by a factor of four. Because the DOF is inversely proportional to the square of the focal length.

 

Therefore in your particular case, using the 70-300 at the 300 end will give you a DOF 36 times smaller than a 50mm lens would (same f stop considered).

Since your 70-300 has a maximum f stop at f/5.6 at 300mm .... you get the idea(even at f/1.8 with the 50mm prime you'd still have a DOF about 20 times bigger than with the telezoom).

Using the 18-70mm lens (compared to the 50mm) will pretty much give comparable results with respect to DOF at the same apperture and at 50mm focal length. The only 2 criteria here becoming the maximum aperture available (4 in the case of 18-70 compared to 1.8 for the 50mm prime); in wich case the 50mm lens will yield a smaller DOF(almost halved) and also the fact that the prime is the sharpest (personal opinion; I own all three of them).

 

Now, I want to appologize if the small physics presentation proved to be a bore and I want to recommend you buy the AF 50mm 1.8D and use only that one for portraiture. To ensure focus in case of small chidren close to you I reccommend using the AF-C setting on your D70.

Incidentaly Photodo.com rates the 50mm 1.8 as the sharpest lens in the Nikon arsenal along with the 85mm 1.8 and the 55mm f2.8 primes (report is here http://www.photodo.com/prod/lens/detail/NiAF50_18-444.shtml; Photodo accidentally has a photo of the 1.4 lens posted with that report).

 

I hope I've managed to help a little,

Take care

 

Cristi

[patricks]

Cristi, great write up!

 

I would only ad that - as much as I like the 50/1.8 - it is sharper when stopped down. A 50/1.4, IMO, is sharper from 1.8 - 2.8 (perhaps f/4) that the 50/1.8 with the added benefit of f/1.4 for low light/shallow DoF/isolation of subject in a crowd

[basarab]

Thank you Patrick. However I don't have personal experience with the 50mm 1.4 :( I don't consider the few dozen pictures I shot with it a real experience. So I only dared offer advice from personal extensive experience.

 

If I'd have to guess I'd say that the 1.4 is not too much better than the 1.8 to justify the price difference since the 1.8 is already almost top notch. But then again I didn't use the 1.4 so I'm not going to guess :)

 

In the end, the quality of a lens is given by the pictures one makes with that lens; and the most important factor in achieving that final photo is one's own skill, therefore... ;)

 

Cheers y'all

 

Cristi

[giggles]

Thanks so much Cristi & Patrick - You lost me for a little bit but in the end - I get it. I will be buying a 50mm and saving for the 70-200VR. I am anxious to place my order:-)

[patricks]

Emily - great choice IMO. The 50/1.8 is a no brainer at $90. The 50/1.4 would require a greater commitment to the focal length and a particular fondness to wide open shooting to motivate the price diff (both lenses are tragically plastic).

 

Save up for the 70-200 VR, rent or borrow it first (I�m sure there is a friendly Nikon soul here or on nikoncafe.com who lives around your area that would lend it to you), but do yourself a favor and don�t try out the D200 because then I�m sure that purchase will take priority! :-)

 

Lovely images in your folder btw!

[ShunCheung]

Emily, could you experiment shooting at a smaller aperture such as f5.6, f8, and f11 and see whether the deeper depth of field achieves the result you want? I am not even sure that you need to buy more lenses immediately. If you mainly shoot at those small apertures, the 18-70 DX is quite good. If you don't mind, could you share some new results with us first?

[giggles]

Shun - I have a shoot tomorrow afternoon so I will post some results by Friday. Just check this link again on Friday. I'll post one on here and the rest on my portfolio. I am anxious to play around a little more. I ordered some seamless white paper for tomorrow. I've never used that so that will be new too.

[vincenzo_maielli]

Hi dear friend,

the best option for image quality is the Nikkor AFD 85 mm f/ 1,4 (127,50 mm on D70/D200). The Nikkor AFD DC 105 mm f/ 2 is a fantastic lens, with wonderful image quality, but a bit more longer for portrait (157,50 mm on D70/D200). Another good option is the Nikkor AFS 28-70 mm f/ 2,8 or the Nikkor AFD 35-70 mm f/ 2,8 (respectively, 42-105 mm and 52,50-105 mm on D70/D200).

Ciao.

 

Vincenzo Maielli Bari Italy

[brettsimison]

<p>I recently picked up one of these from KEH for ~$130. It was rated as "Bargain"

quality, but it arrived in beautiful shape. Granted, on a D70 you lose metering, viewfinder

aperture information, and DOF preview, but if you're working with studio strobes and/or

figure your exposure with a handheld meter as I do, that's not much of a hindrance.</p>

 

<p>The images below were shot in the studio with this lens. If I remember correctly, the

aperture was f/8. Another drawback on this lens on the D70 is that the lens settings aren't

stored in the EXIF data. :-)</p>

 

<p><img src="http://clients.brettsimison.com/photonet/BJS-20060223_1548-02b.jpg"

border="0"><br>

<i>Amy in the studio</i></p>

 

<p><img src="http://clients.brettsimison.com/photonet/BJS-20060223_1548-02b-

detail.jpg" border="0"><br>

<i>100% Crop from above</i></p>

[raymond_petty1]

I used to use a 105/2.8 micro for that kind of stuff when I took B+W shots of other people's infants for fun. What I liked about having a micro was that I could get as close as I wanted (up to 1:1), depending on what kind of shot we were going for. Got some great pics.

 

I know the lens has a reputation for having bad bokeh, but in that situation you've planned everything out, so the backround is pretty benign. It was a lot of fun. Interesting how a simple B+W shot in natural light evokes emotion in people used to color Walgreen shots with the "deer in the headlights" flash look.

There are also plenty of older Micro Nikkor lenses available at bargain prices, depending on what your needs/finances are.

Just my .02.

[arthuryeo]

I'm not sure how easy it is to manipulate the 70-200VR in the studio. Would it be too longish physically for a studio setting? The 85mm/1.4 or 85mm/1.8 would be more suitable, IMHO, for studio.

 

Anyway, Shun is right, try increasing the DoF and see what you get.

[giggles]

Hi all - I promised Shun an update with my current lens and white seamless paper. Here is one of my favorites from my shoot on Friday. This was taken with my 18-70mm at about 60mm. What do you think? Will a 50mm or 85mm make it sharper?<div></div>

[titospna]

Hmmm� yes. Emily, just buy the 50mm (for about $100) and see if it works for you. It is so cheap that you cannot lose. The primes will be sharper. But this last photo is very nice and your client should be very happy with it.

 

Your original post spoke of trying to emulate the work found on imagesoflove. Perhaps the better focus would be to see if imagesoflove is using the same equipment as you are. Maybe its difficult to tweak the same level of sharpness from using a D70, compared to the camera, format, lens or sensor that those people are using. What do you think?

[ShunCheung]

This new one looks pretty good to me, but there is no way to judge real sharpness issues with a web image. Moreover, at least I don't necessarily want the absolutely sharpest image for people photography, anyway.

 

In this case the baby's face is more parallel to the plane of the sensor/film (as in the non-baby sample Brett Simison provides). And there is sufficient depth of field such that most of the clothing, headband, etc. are in focus.

 

Are you and your client happy with the result? That is the real question. You could get a 50mm/f1.8 and get "sharper" images, but if you are going to shoot at f8 for the depth of field anyway, why bother? Your images will be judged by the expression and moment you can capture rather than some small difference in sharpness.

 

The problem with primes is that you'll lack the flexability to crop in place. If you have active subjects (babies), you might find a prime pretty restrictive. Personally, I do not use any primes between 12 to 200mm except for macros. But a 50mm/f1.8 is only $100. There is not much down side to get one and see whether it works for you or not.

[dusty2004]

Hi Emily. A lot has been said. The only thing I can add is that a 80-100mm lens is the one that most closely reproduces the image as we see with our own eyes from a perspective point of view.

[nina_campbell]

<p>Hi Emily!<br>

I'm a newbie, and I know this post is rather old, but I've had the same problem with my 18-70 Nikon. Just wondering, after a few years of shooting, what was it that was going wrong? I'm sure it is something I am doing and it looks like the same exact thing I'm dealing with. I have a 70-200, but that is WAY to long for my lil' portrait area. I also have a 17-50 2.8 Tamron (that I love for wedding type stuff). Any suggestions?<br>

Thanks,<br>

Nina<br>

<a href="http://www.mysnapshotphoto.com">www.mysnapshotphoto.com</a></p>