Which lens for studio children's photography on D50

[belinda_cowan]

Hi,

 

I've recently started a home-based studio photography (Bowens lighting set-up)

business specialising in newborn and children.

 

I'm currently using a Nikon D50 with the kit lens (AF-S Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-

5.5G ED)

 

I also own AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D, but find that my studio isn't big enough to

be able to use it as I can't get far enough back to full length portraits and

with kids there isn't really enough time to be changing lens partway through.

 

I thought about upgrading my camera body, but think it may be a better

investment to improve my lens.

 

What would anyone suggest? My 18-55mm is great in terms of variety of shots,

but I'd like to see more shots really sharp.

 

Thanks,

Belinda

[jim_orr]

try the Sigma 18-50f2.8 macro. I use in studio and sharpness is great.

[ronald_moravec1]

See if a prime 35 is ok by setting your kit to 35. What ever works for the zoom will work for a prime lens.

 

Nikon makes primes in 20/24/28/35/50/60/.

 

The kit zoom shortens focal length as you focus closer so to really see what a 35 will be like at 3/6 feet, set the zoom to 38/40.

[michael_darnton1]

Can you post an example of a "not really sharp" image? The kit lens, though not fancy, isn't a bad lens. I wonder if there's something else going on.

[Peter_in_PA]

Wow,

 

you don't have enough room for the 50? I think you need a bigger studio.

 

As you get shorter, lenses capture people's faces and expressions in a manner that is often

unflattering and not really indicative of what they look like.

 

Is there ANY way to make it so you have more space?

[lex_jenkins]

Belinda, while it's difficult to tell much from small JPEGs, the photos in your web gallery look very good. You're certainly good enough for a better lens if you want one.

 

If you perceive something wanting in sharpness it may be a matter of editing rather than the lens. Digital sharpening is an arcane art unto itself. Stopped to down f/8-f/16 you should be getting satisfactory sharpness from almost any lens.

 

Stopping down is the great equalizer, and your style of portraiture doesn't call for high sharpness and shallow depth of field, so a lens that is sharp wide open won't necessarily be an advantage.

 

If studio space is cramped, the 17-55/2.8 DX Nikkor may help. A bit pricey but definitely a step up from your existing zoom.

 

A lower priced lens that is one of my favorites for film and digital is the 35-70/2.8D AF Nikkor, which works out to a "normal" lens focal length at 35mm. This was long a favorite among pros doing portraiture. I've used it extensively for photographing babies in my family. Even in cramped hospital rooms the 35mm focal length has been adequate for photographing baby, mom and dad together. It also offers full coverage for the FX Nikon bodies like the D3, which will likely be only the first of many to come (altho' I doubt they'll discontinue the DX bodies anytime soon).

 

Ideally, a portrait photographer should have adequate studio space to use a selection of prime lenses. But since you're making do with a home studio for the time being, and may also be faced with location portraiture in the future (in hospitals, other homes, etc.), a zoom offers far more flexibility. And when dealing with children working quickly while appearing relaxed is critical.

[sjmurray]

Tha lack of sharpness could be you just have a bad sample of that lens. You could try another lens in the camera shop for comparison. On the space issue; the shots on your website are very nice, so what focal lengths were you using for those shots? They don't look too distorted from using extremely shot focal lengths. There are many good suggestions for different zooms here. It depends on your budget.

[belinda_cowan]

Here are some answers ... thanks to everyone so far who has put forward some suggestions.

 

* My studio is about 3.4 metres square

* Close-up shots of faces are typically taken at 55mm zoom and family shots & full-length shots around 32mm (based on the EXIF info from a couple of bookings)

* When printing at 5x7" (my proof size) I don't have too many issues but as I start to go bigger it becomes more noticeable ... maybe just the quality of the lens

* Overall, I want to reduce the number of throw-a-way shots. I'm shooting in manual at f/10 and 1/160 so that I don't need to change f-stops between shots.

[dcraton]

In tight, I shoot with a 35mm/2 or the aforementioned 17-55mm. Both perform really well.

 

Keep your 50mm. Your studio may grow. Mine did.

 

Another option I have found to really like is the Sigma 24-60/2.8. I am not a fan of third party lenses, but at 200.00 at Cameta, it works very well if you do not have the money to get a faster lens.

 

Good luck.

[lex_jenkins]

Belinda, perhaps you could attach a full resolution *crop* from one of the photos that you believe could be sharper. Not a full sized photo, just a full resolution portion. 600x600 or so would be large enough. JPEG format is fine too, just use very little compression.

 

Also, can you tell whether it's an overall sharpness issue or a focus problem? What's your typical focusing technique?

 

Your EXIF data seems to show that the 35-70/2.8 Nikkor might be wide enough for full length photos, but could be pushing it a bit. A wider zoom might be better.

[carl_becker2]

Is there a difference in sharpness between the prime 50mm and the kit zoom at 50mm, both f10?

[belinda_cowan]

I've cropped a portion of a shot that just didn't have the sharpness I would like. Maybe it is a combination of sharpness & focussing. I tend to half-press the shutter to focus, and then fire when the kid smiles or looks etc.

 

I'm using Autofocus (AF-A) although I did read in another forum the other day that maybe I should be using AF-C.

 

I haven't really played with the 50mm enough to say if there is a difference in sharpness as it just frustrated me that I couldn't get back far enough ... it takes beautiful shots in the lounge room with f2/8 though.<div></div>

[lex_jenkins]

Belinda, offhand it does appear that you might benefit from a sharper lens. Unless there's some minor motion blur (can't tell for certain, possible at 1/160 second, tho' unlikely with flash) it appears to be in focus and f/10 should be adequate DOF.

 

You should compare the zoom and 50mm prime under identical conditions (not during a portrait shoot). That's the best way to determine whether the zoom isn't performing up to your needs.

 

Anyway, you're doing good enough work to benefit from the best equipment you can squeeze into the budget.

[carl_becker2]

Just a guess but it looks like the focus is behind the eyes (looking at the hair strands). You might be better off with continious focus and or closest subject. I guess you are so close that even f10 does not give enough depth of field for good overall sharpness. I think you should test your lenses to make sure the zoom is good but I really think its focus technique that will solve your sharpness issues.