Portraits with Nikon 18-200mm VR

[Rene11664880918]

Rafal.... "---------- again same thing ...paint brush or the painter makes great paintings ?????"

 

The painter!

 

Photography is a different field! I used to think it was ONLY the man behind the camera but now I'm sure that money and equipment has a lot to do with it. My own experience is that I've been taking better pictures now with a D300 and an AF-S300 f4 than what I used to with a D80 and the older AF-300 f4. I haven't even get to learn all that my D300 can do. I also took better pictures with an 80-200 f2.8 than with the 18-200 which means is not just the man behind the camera but what he hast to do the job.

 

KEVIN.... Ken Rockwell is not a professional photographer? So why is everyone always talking about his reports and stuff? i thought he was! Well, every single Nikon lens I have bought so far I always ask here first and after YOUR recommendations I go to the store. So far I have never been disappointed with what YOU guys had recommended me! Sorry for that!

 

LEX... You should had said that long ago! I had 1 for a month, I only used it 1 afternoon and I gave it away. I gave it away coz I got it for free on the first place! I would had never bought it to start with.

 

Rene'

[rarmstrong]

Sergio,

 

The 18-200 VR can be a very effective portrait lens. Here are two of the first images that I shot with this lens on my D300....<div></div>

[rarmstrong]

Here is the second image....<div></div>

[sergio_leal]

Thanks for your answers guys. Wow..!!!

Did any of you guys (Tom, Matt, Bruce, Antoine, Richard) do any post processing

(sharpening) in PS before posting your images?

[sergio_leal]

BTW, is the Nikkor 105mm/2.8 micro a good lens for portrait and/or candids?

I know it's not designed for this purpose but what can I expect in this specific situation?

[tsypkin]

Sergio,

Here is a photograph taken with Nikon D50, Nikkor 18-200 mm, VR on, 1/25 sec at f5.3,

95 mm, no flash, indoors, handheld, ISO 1600. Its not terribly sharp, but not out of focus

either. Of course, D50 is much lighter than D300, but this is a personal judgement -- I

used to dream about D300, but after holding it in my hands realized that it's too heavy for

me. Perhaps something is wrong with your lens.<div></div>

[tsypkin]

P.S. No sharpening, no post-processing beyond converting from NEF into jpg

[sergio_leal]

Mikhail, I don't know about the focus but she is a gorgeous young lady!

[bruce_margolis]

Tom, the animal is a three-toed sloth, from a trip to Costa Rica a couple months ago. It is not a tree stump. :-)

 

But you brought up a good point. If I had the time to really set up the shot, I would have preferred spot metering. For that matter, I would have loved to whip out a 70-200VR, too.

 

My point, sometimes photo ops happen very quickly, especially when traveling. I had seconds to get this shot or miss it entirely. I went with what I had and hoped I could fix in later in PS.

 

And a comment about Richard's images.......

 

Yes, the lens can be a decent for portraits but as his shots show, they are toward the wider end or middle. If you can stay down around 100mm or less, the quality is pretty good as long as there is sufficient light. At 200mm, it is much more difficult for portrait work.

[tsypkin]

Sergio,

Thanks. She is not my child or grandchild though...

[rarmstrong]

Sergio,

I imported these as JPEGs into iPhoto because it was all I had when I first got the camera. I adjusted the contrast and highlights slightly, no sharpening was required.

[rarmstrong]

Sergio,

 

Here is a "portrait" of a bird at 200mm, f6.3, iso 200, 1/250 sec with VR on handheld. This was slightly sharpened in Aperture 2.<div></div>

[Matt Laur]

Sergio: Any time I reduce the number of pixels in an image (as I would when reducing them to sizes that are suitable for display here, of course I do a little bit of sharpening. Gently.

<Br><br>

I shoot in RAW, so any time that I produce a JPG from one of those NEF files, I always do some sharpening. Just as your camera, if you have it producing JPGs directly as you shoot, is also doing.

[sergio_leal]

Nice capture Richard. It is reasonably sharp in my opinion.

[sergio_leal]

I do the same Matt, except that I find it easier to shot in Hi resolution JPEG right from the

start (it saves me time).

[dave wyman]

Sergio - to me, your examples make me think there was too much camera movement.

 

I love my 18-200 lens for portraits, particularly the kind I like to make, which are informal images of "found" subjects.

 

When I can see individual hairs on someone's head in my photograph, I know the image is sharp enough for me. Here is a photograph of an old woman who posed for me in front of the house where author John Steinbeck lived as a child, in Salias, Caifornia.<div></div>

[vic_.]

85mm f1.4, there is no substitute.<div></div>

[rarmstrong]

Dave,

 

Great example! You sure can't beat this lens for being versatile as a "walk around" lens. I'm happy I chose it and have used it extensively at home and on vacation.

[bruce_margolis]

Seeing the really nice shots here, this is an example of why I say using 200mm for portraits is a stretch unless you have real good light.

 

This was shot inside a small church in Greece. The only light sources were candles way to her left and an open doorway with harsh sunlight on her right. Closing the doorway and using fill flash would have been ideal.

 

Unfortunately, the rule was no flash inside the church. And, I wasn't allowed to get too close to her because she was a widow in mourning.

 

Bottom line, the composition was what I wanted but the photo came out a bit soft, unlike the others I see here that were shot around 100mm or less where you have more room to play with your exposure.<div></div>

[sergio_leal]

Dave, maybe you're right (I hope so...).

It's a brand new lens and I took only a few shots, so I'm not yet familiar with it.

I'll try some new combinations and expect less from VR 'cause it sure does no miracle.

[wj_lee]

If you want a longish telephoto try a 135mm f2.8. It's manual focus but very cheap, small, sharp, contrasty. Picked one up for about 35GPD on ebay which was about $70, it's an unbelievable value for money.

[sergio_leal]

What do you say about the old manual 105mm/2.5.

Is it still considered a good portrait lens?

[wj_lee]

There are Lots of discussion between 105 and 135. I personally haven't used 105, but it is still regarded as great. It really comes down to your preference on focal lengths, I wanted little bit longer and settle on 135, also it tended to be cheaper.

[dave wyman]

>I'll try some new combinations and expect less from VR 'cause it sure does no miracle.<

 

Sergio, the more a lens magnifies something, whether it is magnified with a telephoto or a macro lens, or even something like a close-focusing 35mm lens, the more difficult it is hold the camera steady enough to eliminate blur and create a sharp photograph. A shot at 1/30 sec. at 200mm is asking too much of even the 18-200mm VR, unless the photographer has very, very steady hands and some luck.

 

Keep experimenting with technique. Unless there's something wrong with your lens - like the VR not working - you should be able to make the kinds of photographs you want with your lens. I'm not saying there aren't "better" lenses from Nikon or the other lens makers, because there are. The one you have, though, should be more than good enough to make very satisfying images.

[dave wyman]

One more, this time made at 200mm, 1/250 sec. at f/5, ISO 200.

 

I don't think good portraits are limited to a particular range of focal lengths, including with the 18-200mm VR.<div></div>