Which Lenses do i need for portrait and macro photography for nikon D80?

[sjmurray]

<p>Shot with D70, 18-70 kit lens at 65mm, window light and slight fill flash from camera.</p><div></div>

[cc_chang1]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>the nikon 50/1.4 AF-S and sigma 50/1.4 HSM both have better bokeh, which is why you'd want to use them for portraiture</strong></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The bokeh from the Sigma 50mm f1.4 is intoxicatingly smooth, and it allows me to shoot indoors w/o flash with a reasonable working distance (I don't have to back out of the room to focus). Think of the Nikon 50mm f1.8, which I also have, as an inexpensive, light, all around lens, but it is not designed to do portraiture, and its bokeh overall is ill defined if not a bit harsh (by comparing to the Sigma). The DPreview just posted the review for Nikon's new 50 mm f1.4. It seems that although the new Nikon is much improved in the area of bokeh, the Sigma verson is better still and the Sigma is better wide open in sharpness. In contrast, the Nikon is lighter, smaller, and is optimized to provide striking corner to corner sharpness stopping down.</p>

 

[sjmurray]

<p>Environmental type portrait, Nikon F (film) 28mm lens.</p><div></div>

[sjmurray]

<p>D80, 35mm f 2.0 lens at f 5.6</p><div></div>

[sjmurray]

<p>D70, 50mm f 1.4 lens at f 2.0, natural light.</p><div></div>

[sjmurray]

<p>Nikon F (film), 105mm lens, natural light</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>oops, here's the shot.</p><div></div>

[sjmurray]

<p>Nikon F (film) 50mm f 1.4 wide open</p><div></div>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro, or aNikon 50/1.8 Both are super sharp lenses and best for DX portrait. 400 budget ? . . . the AF 50/1.8 (= 75mm a perfect and super sharp portrait lens on a DX body, and better for full portrait too).</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro, or aNikon 50/1.8 Both are super sharp lenses and best for DX portrait. 400 budget ? . . . the AF 50/1.8 (= 75mm a perfect and super sharp portrait lens on a DX body, and better for full portrait too).</p>

[frankeleveld]

<p>> For macros nothing, and I mean <em>NOTHING</em>, beats the 105mm prime AF-S VR 2.8 micro (say macro) lens.</p>

<p>The 105mm VR 2.8 is a great lens, but optically there are better lenses. And depending on the type of subject one shoots mostly, other options might be better. Nikon's Micro-Nikkor 200mm f/4 offers a more comfortable working distance which is useful for shooting insects and shy animals. Then there's Nikon's excellent 70-180 Micro-Nikkor zoom, or the shorter focal length Micro-Nikkors, which are great for product photography.<br>

I've the 105mm VR 2.8 myself, and whilst I certainly think it's a lovely lens also suitable for shooting portraits, the earlier versions had AF which was prone to hunting. In addition, the lens has some lateral and longitudal chromatic aberration and lacks the biting sharpness of my 35 year old Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 P.C. For portraiture work, that's a good thing, but for close-up photography, I often prefer the 55, which is much more compact and weighs nearly two times less.<br>

John Shaw, the renowned nature photographer states in his book 'Closeups in Nature' that his favorite 'flower portrait lens' is (was) a 200mm f/4 telephoto, in combination with some extension and/or a closeup filter. And there are plenty of lovely butterfly and bug shots in his books shot with the 300mm f/4.5ED IF telephoto lens. Both options give you a very comfortable working distance, and are hard to beat optically. Yes, you'd lose the convenience of autofocus, but most delicate macro work requires manual focus anyway.<br>

As for good portrait lenses on DX: I use a 20mm f/2.8D for group shots indoors, a 28mm f/2.8 AI-S for environmental portraits, a 50mm f/1.4 for half body shots and the 105mm f/2.8 VR for head shots. If I didn't had the 105, I'd use a 85mm f/1.4, which I believe is still the king of portrait lenses. Not cheap, though.</p>

[boinkphoto]

<p>Generally you want a longer than "normal" (50mm in FX, 35mm in DX) because they will compress features, which is generally more flattering. Also the smaller DOF has its benefits.</p>

<p>In the FX world (or old 35mm film world), the standard was somewhere between 90mm and 120mm. The rough equivalent on the DX D80 would be a 60mm to 80mm. You can go longer, but usually you start getting into issues with camera to subject distance and/or minimum focusing distance of the lens.</p>

<p>Personally I shoot the Nikon 60mm f2.8 macro and 85mm f1.8, both of which are affordable great lenses. The 85mm is frankly the sharpest lens I've ever used and has extraordinary DOF/bokeh quality (people claim the 85mm f1.4 has even better bokeh - but it's damn expensive). Both my lenses are pre-D, which makes them even cheaper, but they don't lack quality and I've never found an issue on the D80 or any other camera.</p>

<p>The 50mm f1.8 is also very affordable and at 1.5x crop of DX (approx 75mm equiv) makes a pretty good portrait lens, but I don't find it as compelling as 60mm or above. Still, it's definitely a very sharp lens.</p>

<p>Certainly you can get good/great photos from lenses of less than 50mm, but you can start to get apparent distortion of features, like noses, that are less than appealing. Also you can be forced to get closer to your subject than comfortable.</p>

[boinkphoto]

<p><strong>PS:</strong> It's a bit more expensive, but the Nikon 35-70mm f2.8 makes a great all round and portrait lens. It also does amazing macro...</p>

[model mayhem gallery]

<p>For the kind of Portrait work I do, the lighting is much more importat to me than the lens. I shoot Canon and use a 17-40 F4L and alien Bees Studio Strobe. If I want to get close-up detail I use my 70-200 Zoom lens stand about a foot away a zoom into the eye, hair or lips depending on what detail I am looking for. I would suggest NOT purchasing anything else until you learn what you already have. I took great shots with my 18-55 cheapo kit lens because portrait shots often look better a little soft without too much detail.</p>

[mt4x4]

<p>The Nikon 60 and 105 are amazing. The Tamron 90 is also a great lens.<br /> <br /> Basically, for portraits the focal length breaks down to how much working distance you want/have. For head shots, too wide of a lens can be unflattering, but anything 50 and longer on DX is fine.<br /> <br /> For macro, the question of working distance is also important, but perspective becomes involved. Many people seem to shoot down the 60 micro because the 105 offers more working distance, but forget about perspective. Of the flower shots I've seen, I like ones taken with the 60 more.<br>

As far as the 50 AF-S goes. It is a great lens, and great for portraits. This is one of my favorite lenses. However, it does not do well for macro or close up work, because it has a maximum magnification of 1:0.16.<br /> <br /> Your budget of $400 comes close to either the Nikon 60 or the Tamron 90. Personally, I would go with the Nikon for build quality, but the Tamron is also nice. I have gotten to use both and think that you would probably be happy with either. If you don't need autofocus (and for portraits/macro you probably won't) the old Nikkor 55 AIS macro is also a great lens, and could be had within your budget.</p>

[boinkphoto]

<p>Yeah, but on the D80 the Nikon 55mm AIS would only work with manual metering unfortunately... :-(</p>

<p>I agree on the Tamron 90 - great lens as well. Wish I still had mine.</p>

<p>If you buy used from say KEH, $400 will get you just about anything you want, particularly if you choose "Bargain", which usually they are in great shape...</p>

[jean_braeburn]

<p>Thank you ALL for your great suggestions. After looking at and messing with a friend of mines 35-70 2.8 i am definately going to purchase that after i have some experience with the 50 1.8 i just ordered :) Thank you all again your suggestions were very helpful!</p>

[peterd]

<p>I think you will be pleased with the 50mm F1.8. There is a guy on here named Vladamir Labaj I believe and I see his work in the Fashion galleries. The pictures he gets with that little 50mm F1.8 are nothing short of amazing. He is my favorite and proof that you dont need to spend yourself broke to get that picture.</p>

[pnance]

<p>A good rule of thumb, works for any camera, is: You want to be about 6 feet away from the subject for a head shot. Use a lens that works for you at this distance.</p>