portrait (f/2.8) zoom choices

[jonsjons]

<p>i've got my landscape needs covered with a tokina 11-16 f/2.8 and a nikon 16-85vr, and i enjoy using my 50 f/1.8 for shallow DOF portraits, but i've found i get tired of zooming with my feet....so i'm looking for a fast (2.8) midrange zoom to supplement my current lineup. the nikon 24-70 f/2.8 is way out of my price range.<br>

i've heard good things about the tamron 28-75 f/2.8. i am also considering the sigma 28-70, tokina 28-80, and nikon 35-70 f/2.8, but leaning away from that last one because of the narrower range. anybody have insight on how these choices compare? thanks.</p>

 

[acbeddoe]

<p>Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 HSM or a used Nikon 28-70mm f/2.8 AF-S.<br>

What camera body? What price limit?</p>

[ronald_moravec1]

<p>Nikon 35/70 is a very good zoom. I will not buy third party lenses.</p>

<p>The bane of Dx is there are no good portrait lenses made for it. I have used a 60 2.8, 55/200 cheapie, 70/300.<br>

I seriously recommend the 55/200 Vr. or the 60 2.8 . 85 1.8 is a bit long but workable. This is one major reason I went Fx. </p>

[mike_bisom]

<p>Another lens to consider is the Nikon 24-85 f/2.8-4.0. I actually find it to be a solid lens for the money. <br>

Mike</p>

[epp_b]

<p >As long as you can get far enough a way, the 55-200 VR is great for portraits. Even between f/4 and f/5.6 at the longer focal lengths, the depth of field control and subject/background separation is quite good. As far as bokeh goes, I'd deem it acceptable.</p>

<p ><br /></p>

<p >The even cheaper 70-300 f/4-5.6G has no aspherical element, which can cause a soft focus glow when used wide open at the long end. The bokeh is reportedly very nice, too.<br /></p>

[squiggs77]

<p>You could also consider the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8. It's a perfect portrait lens (In my opinion) for a DX camera.</p>

[seanbreadsell]

<p>I have been through all these same questions myself and had lots of advice from lots of people, everyone seems to have their own style which is what we like about photography. I use a D90 and for most of my portraits in a controlled environment I use my 50mm f1.8D, it's as sharp as a razor and works well. I have a model portfolio shoot to do on Friday and I will be using the 50mm soley, I have just bought a 80-200mm f2.8 which will arrive next week unfortunately. <br>

Like a few people above have mentioned the 18-55 and 55-200 are quite good, but myself am swapping them out for a 16-85 I think it will be a little more handy for well lit portraits. <br>

If I had more money i think I would by the 60mm VR micro and the 85mm f1.4...would have everything covered then....no, to do more portraits thats my next goal</p>

[errol young]

<p>The 105 2.8 VR sounds great. Hope to get one soon.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>hi jonathan, i have the tamron 28-75. it's pretty sharp and contrasty as they say, with above-average bokeh -- much less harsh than 50/1.8. i find it very capable and very good all-around. the only real downside is that 28mm isnt very wide on DX, but you have that well-covered with your other lenses. i wouldn't bother with an el cheapo 55-200 for portraits, and unless you're looking to step up to another prime lens like the 85 1.8 and 1.4s, or serious glass like the 80-200 or 70-200 VR, the price is right.<br>

with your current lenses, i'd also consider the sigma 50-150/2.8, which is seriously underrated as a portrait lens, but has better bokeh than the tamron and covers the entire portrait range. with that, there would be less overlap in focal ranges, and you'd get a bit of tele range to boot. it's also handholdable, which makes up for the lack of VR IMO. i've heard good things about the tamron 70-200 too (except for Af speed) but if you're not shooting sports and dont mind using a tripod, it's supposed to be good for portraits, landscapes, and has much better close-focusing range than the 50-150.</p>

<div></div>

[lightsmith1]

<p>Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 is an excellent lens and a great value for the money. For portraits this lens provides film equivalent FOV of 85mm and 105mm lenses which are great focal lengths for general use providing adequate distance between lens and subject and a flattering perspective for people.</p>

[jannekaakinen]

<p>I also have the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and I completely agree with Eric here above. For portraits I mostly use the lens in question and it has given me very good results. I also had the Nikon 55-200, (and still have couple of those in my workplace) but got rid of that a short while after I got my Tamron 28-75. You probably won't go wrong with any f/2.8 lens recommended here, but as I said, I have only good things to say about the Tamron 28-75 (which has become also my most used all-around lens).</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>might i add that the tamron 28-75 balances great on the D300. its focal length somehow is just right for concert/live photography. and, it's a FF lens, so if you ever get an FX body, that's a plus.</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>here's a more portrait-style pic of some models who happened to be next to the photo pit:)<br>

(all of these pics are jpegs straight out of the camera, minor cropping but that's it.)</p><div></div>

[mike_bisom]

<p>I still say the Nikon 24-85 is one heck of a lens for the money. We have a Sigma 50-150 and it's a good lens but the 24-85 beats it in color and sharpness. We have the Nikon 105 VR lens which we like but at 105mm for portraits the only lens to get is the 105mm DC f/2.0. That is a very sweet lens. But now you are climbing the $$ ladder: Sigma 50-105 > Nikon 105 VR > and the most expensive being the Nikon 105mm DC lens. <br>

Mike</p>

[paul heskes]

<p>The Nikon Nikkor 28-70mm f2.8 does it for me and can be picked up 'used' very reasonably since the intro of the 24-70mm. My 85mm and 50mm primes have been pretty much redundant since I picked it up and I find it on my camera most of the time these days.<br>

Good luck</p><div></div>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>35 - 70 is cheap and GREAT for portraits on DX.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>mike, you say, "We have a Sigma 50-150 and it's a good lens but the 24-85 beats it in color and sharpness." which version of the 24-85 are you referring to, the AF-D or the AF-S version? if you have any examples you can post showing comparisons at f/2.8, 4, 5.6, and 8, i'd love to see them. would also like to see the tamron 28-75 directly compared to both nikkor 24-85s...</p>

<p>IMO constant aperture, which is important to the OP if you read his initial post, is a huge plus... the OP also specifically stated he wanted a portrait zoom, which the 105DC is not, besides the fact that it's extremely long on DX with an equivalent focal range of 157.5mm, which is well outside the classic portrait range. with the 50-150, you have the option of head-and-shoulders or a tight zoom on the eyes; similarly, the 28-75 range gives you some wiggle room in composition which doesnt require "sneaker zooming." for $350 new, i honestly dont think it can be beat in terms of price/performance ratio.</p>

<p>also, FWIW, the sigma 50-150 has been compared to the 85/1.8 and 50/1.8 at f/5.6 and actually matches or edges these primes. and while the 50-150 is definitely softer at 2.8 than at f/4 or 5.6, for portraits of women that's not always a bad thing.</p><div></div>

[jonsjons]

<p>thanks guys, and thanks to eric and paul for some nice shots. yeah, a constant f/2.8 is definitely what i'm after. the nikon 28-70 would probably be great, but even used it's more than i can spend right now. the sigma 50-150 would be nice to have around, but it's also a bit much....and it's a purchase that's hard to justify since i rarely shoot telephoto these days. so it looks like i'll go with the tamron.<br>

a related question: do you guys think sample variation is something to look out for here?</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>jonathan, the reality is sample variation does exist (even with pro nikkors)... but interestingly enough, every single 3rd party lens i've purchased (all from online vendors)--tamron 17-50 & 28-75; sigma 15mm fish, 30/1.4 & 50-150; tokina 12-24-- has been out-of-the-box perfect.</p>

<p>maybe i've just been lucky--six times in a row-- but my personal experience leads me to speculate that, while problems do happen, the few folks who do run into these issues are probably very pro-active in posting about it, then the viral nature of the internet rumor mill takes hold.</p>

<p>add to that the number of nikkor snobs whose expen$$ive glass mainly sits on a shelf who pooh-pooh all 3rd party offerings (even those which hold up well in comparative testing), or those folks who bought a consumer-grade 3rd party zoom 15 years ago and compare them to current SP, EX, and AT-X offerings, some of which are much more modern and/or technologically-advanced than nikon's aging lineup, and there you have it.</p>

<p>anyhoo, my experience is that the tamron 28-75 may not look impressive on a shelf, but it holds up well in actual field work. i bought mine in 2006, and noticed right away it was much sharper and contrastier than the 18-70 nikkor kit lens, besides having constant aperture. i didnt really notice a difference in AF speed, despite the 18-70 being an AF-S lens.</p>

<p>to be fair, the one thing that could be a possible concern is the possibility of AF issues with the newer, built-in-motor versions of the tamrons on nikon bodies. similar to AF-S, these are more complicated mechanically than screw-drive lenses, so they can get misaligned, damaged in transit, etc. if you can, try and find an older version of the 28-75 without the BIM. that said, if anything does happen, tamron has a better warranty (six years) than nikon, and there's no guarantee a nikkor lens will be a perfect sample, either.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Eric: I really like the picture of the two young ladies. It evokes the feeling of their evening so well, pretty, made-up,happy, and out at an enjoyable event. I only wish the young lady in the foreground was in sharper focus.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>thanks for the comments, dan :)</p>

<p>however, this does show the narrow DoF with a 2.8 lens that the OP was specifically asking about. to me, this shot shows the tamron 28-75's usefulness as a portrait lens, even in less than perfect conditions, and qualifies the comments i made about it with a real-world example.</p>

<p>but just for you, here's another shot with both of the women in focus:</p><div></div>

[mike_bisom]

<p>Eric,<br>

I'm afraid I don't have direct comparisons and it's unlikely I will get around to that! My comments come from processing the images from these lenses. I can say that the bokeh of the 105mm DC is fabulous and a Google search will provide plenty of info in regards to this being a great portrait lens. But it's expensive. For what it's worth, we will be selling the Sigma 50-150 and the 105mm DC in favor of the Nikon 70-200. I really hate to get rid of the DC lens but I need the 105 VR for the slower shutter. I agree that I generally prefer a constant aperture lens, but the 24-85 D continues to impress me. I have some limited experience with the Tamron 28-75, but on a Canon 20D. I think it's a fine lens, but I still like the 24-85 (D BTW)... even though it's an f/stop slower at the long end.<br>

BTW- why the 250th of a shutter in the above shot?<br>

Mike</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>mike,<br>

i'll take your word for it on the 105 DC -- i'm sure it's super-creamy, bokeh-wise. if i had a FX camera, it would be tough trying to choose between that and the 85/1.4. for DX, that FL doesn't really work for me for portraits.<br>

so you have the 24-85 D, not the AF-S? i had heard that's pretty good, actually. i would like the Tamron 28-75 even better if it had the same characteristics and it were Nikon-branded, but for what i paid for it, it's been well worth it. it's earned it's keep, that's for sure.<br>

i'd love to have a 70-200VR too, but for a lot of the quick fast and dirty crowd-wading i do, i'd be a bit wary of smacking someone with the bazooka-like front element. the 50-150 is more like a sawed-off bazooka, and works great when i need tele. that extra 20mm on the long end is cool too. when i kit up with a 2-lens set-up, i use that and the tamron 17-50 and i have a lightweight rig covering wide to tele at 2.8 in two lenses with no gaps.<br>

ps shutter was 1/250 because i was using flash, shooting a live band when i turned around and saw these honeys in the front row. that way i was able to set a fairly low ISO-400. didnt really have a lot of time to set up the shot, but i think it came out ok.</p>

[mike_bisom]

<p>Yes, it's the D. Here is a shot at f/4, 1/60th, ISO 800, @ 56mm.</p><div></div>

[mike_bisom]

<p>Here is the 105mm DC lens. I pulled this from a web preview so I don't have the shooting statistics, but it was at at least f/4 if not f/5.6. And the bokeh is that of a 200mm lens. Very creamy. Prints are even better than low-rez JPEGs.<br>

Mike</p>

<div></div>