Portrait lens?

[david_m12]

<p>Hi all,<br>

I've been shooting for the past few years with a D80 and a 28-80 kits lens from an old N75 film camera. I've taken some great pics and have been generally happy with the results but the lens is suffering horrible creep and well, it's probably not an appropriate lens to be using anymore. Now the time (and funds) have finally come where I can buy a better lens. I'm looking to shoot more portraits / street shots / candids and need some help. I have the Nikon 50mm 1.4 which I love. I tried the Nikon 18-200 but took it back - wasn't sure it was what I was after. I also tried Sigma's version but it was decidedly clunky halfway through the zoom so back that went too. I've been trying to read up on the Nikon 70-200 2.8 but then noticed the 80-200 as well. I've seen people mention the 180mm products from both Nikon and Sigma. I've shot some weddings and I'd like to one day turn this passion into a career so I need to step up to a better lens.</p>

[douglasely]

<p>Hi David,<br>

I have added lenses and then I have sold some off. Here are the ones that I am particularly fond of on a DX body. <br>

Nikkors:<br>

AF 17 - 55mm f2.8 ($$$) If you thik of the primes this lens replaces, the price is eayier to swallow;<br>

AF 85mm f1.4 ($$$) AF180mm f2.8 ($$); AF 300mm f4 ($$)<br>

MF 105mm f2.5 used ($); MF 75 - 150mm f3.5 used ($)<br>

I use the above list of lenes constantly and continue to love them. They each produce pro results.<br>

It is my understanding tha the AF 85mm f1.8 ($$) is also a very nice lens. Pro results also.<br>

You may enjoy renting lenses and seeing if you like them also.<br>

Best of luck to you,</p>

 

[robert_holwick]

<p>David,<br>

17-55 2.8 Nikkor. </p>

[phototransformations]

<p>The Tamron 28-75 2.8 is quite a nice lens and might suit your needs, if you were happy with the types of shots you were getting with your 28-80 kit lens. On my D80, it's my favorite lens so far and the one I use most often.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>second the tamron. it balances well on a d80 and if you ever need to upgrade it's FX-compatible. make sure you have something for the wide end too, though.</p>

[seanbreadsell]

<p>you mention the 80-200, i have this and wouldn't swap it for the worl it is simply awesome...i have a 50 f/1.4G to compliment it and also the 18-200 and i must say by far my fav is the 80-200...i am using a D90...please see the example from the 80-200</p>

<div></div>

[JDMvW]

<p>The Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 lens is and was one of the all-time great Nikon lenses, period, not just one of the best <em>portrait</em> lenses. As noted above, it's available for remarkably low prices. The older non-AI lenses are the cheapest, but at least get one of the later versions that will work without adaptation on some Nikon dSLRs.</p>

<p>However, the descendant of this fabulous lens is still in the Nikon lineup as the AF DC-Nikkor 105mm f/2, so you can have AF and all the rest. That's what I'd recommend.</p>

<p>Another great portrait lens on a crop body is the still going Nikkor 50mm f/1,8.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>JDM, the OP already has the 50/1.4. and while the 105 DC is fantastic for portraits, I'm sure, not sure it would be that great as a wedding shooter's primary lens (unless you can shoot from fairly far back with no interference between you, the bride, the groom, and the wedding party).</p>

<p>david, i dont shoot weddings but i do know that a 17-55 or equivalent paired with a 70-200 or equivalent are the bread and butter FLs for this pursuit.</p>

[david_m12]

<p>Thanks for all the responses so far - it's greatly appreciated! And Eric's right - I do have that 50. Would it be redundant to pickup that 17-55 when I have the 50? Should I maybe go with 12-24 and keep the 50 I have and grab something larger like the 105 or 180 primes that Douglas first mentioned? I have no problem with moving myself for any photos I take rather than relying on the lens to be my feet. I mentioned weddings because I've done some, and may have the opportunity for more experience with them this summer but I'm hoping to do more portraits, and things like band promo photos. Would going with a zoom be simply for the convenience of not swapping lenses? Or would that be irrelevant since by and large I would have control of the situation when staging these photos and poses and therefore not trying to capture the moment so much as create it? Sean's photo on the 80-200 is making that lens seem appealing.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>"Would it be redundant to pickup that 17-55 when I have the 50?"</p>

<p>only at 50mm.</p>

<p>"Should I maybe go with 12-24 and keep the 50 I have"</p>

<p>i also have a 12-24 and i would say no. an ultrawide lens makes a good companion to a mid-zoom like the 17-55 or 24-70, but only PJs use that as a primary lens, usually with a second body covering 70-200 or 80-200. you'd have a fairly big gap between 25 and 49--in film equivalents that's 37.5-73.5, or just about the range covered by a 35-70. OTOH, for the price of a new nikon 12-24 you can get a sigma 10-20 or tokina 12-24 plus a tamron 28-75. or a tokina 11-16 plus a tamron 17-50. the 28-75 would be better for portraits, the 17-50 for group shots. if you have to ease into paid work, that's the budget approach. OTOH, if you get a nikon 17-55 and 80-200 you won't feel like you need to upgrade glass. however, the 80-200 is pretty hefty and isnt as easy to handhold as the 70-200, since it lacks VR. for indoor use where you need high shutter speeds and max aperture, that could be problematic, especially on a d80 which doesnt have top-of-the-line high-ISO performance, by any means.</p>

<p>"Would going with a zoom be simply for the convenience of not swapping lenses?"</p>

<p>there's a difference between swapping lenses in a studio setting and swapping lenses during an event you are getting paid to photograph. also, primes only cover fixed focal lengths, so if you want to shoot at exactly 26mm, for instance, you'd be in-between the 24 and 28mm prime ranges.</p>

<p> </p>

[jimknowles]

<p>105 f2.0 DC - best portrait lens ever made. Second best: 135 f2.0 DC Nikkor.</p>