Any Suggestions about buying a good lens within my budget?

[jean_braeburn]

<p>So i have been saving and i have about 400 to spend on a new lens. Id like to spend less, but 400 is my limit. I already own a 50mm 1.8, and the standard 18-55 and 55-200. I am an assistant wedding photographer and lately have been shooting in very low light. I do a wedding every coupple of months. On the side i do my own portrait sessions for models and children. I would like a lens that will allow me to shoot in low light and will be versatile for both weddings and portrait photography. I shoot glamour in private settings so because of the small space i have to work with i think id like something between 18 and 50mm?.. im really not sure what i need. I do know i want a very sharp lens because ive noticed my 50mm does not have the sharpness im looking for. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated!!</p>

 

[Matt Laur]

<p>Before we head into what other lens(es) you might want to consider, it's important to figure out why your 50/1.8 doesn't seem sharp to you. How are you using it? If you're using it wide open (at f/1.8) in order to make the most of low light, you are indeed not seeing that lens at its absolute sharpest ... but you're also seeing the effects of <em>very</em> shallow depth of field that is a natural byproduct of using that aperture (on any lens) at that focal length in typical people-shooting distances. <br /><br />Because it will help to establish the vocabulary and some basic concepts in tackling your lens shopping, let's be sure we're on the same page when it comes to talking about the fast lens you're already using. Can you post 100% crop out of one of the images, from that 50/1.8, that you find soft? Try to keep the image's EXIF data intact so we can see what's going on.<br /><br />All of that being said ... you might want to think about Nikon's 35/1.8 AF-S, or Sigma's 30/1.4 HSM. That extra 5mm wider on the 30mm will be quite noticeable, and that lens is optimized more for wide-open shooting in lower light. It also has much more attractive bokeh, if you're worrying about that in situations with busy backgrounds. That part is a matter of taste and style, and comes at a higher price. Well, that f/1.4 is part of that, too.</p>

[robert_hooper1]

<p>Jean,</p>

<p>I am surprised you are not satisfied the the sharpness of your 50mm f1.8. Most people are. I'm also surprised you don't seem to have a specific focal length in mind since you have some experience under your belt. With your budget, purchasing a high end, high speed lens seems hardly possible. All that comes to mind is a Nikon 35mm f1.8, but if you are not happy with the sharpness of your Nikon 50mm f1.8, I'm not confident you would be happy with that lens either. What you are asking for; high speed, sharper than a Nikon 50mm f1.8, under $400, might not exist in the Nikon lens line up, or at all.</p>

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>+1 for Sigma 30mm/f1.4 - you'll love that lens!</p>

[dpbours]

<p>I would sell the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 and get te 50mm f/1.4. Get the older version second hand. It is as sharp as the new version and I hear it focusses quicker than the IF version... I'm very happy with the 50mm f/1.4. Sharpness is really great. <br>

Don't go for the 85mm 1.8 - If you feel the 50mm 1.8 is unsharp for you, you will surely have the same feeling with the 85mm.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I wonder which DSLR body/bodies the OP is using. I suppose it is a DX body since a couple of DX lenses are already listed. But knowing exactly which camera we are talking about will help answering the question.</p>

[stephen_worth]

<p>The Sigma 30 1.4 and/or Sigma 50 1.4 would be good choices. The 30 would be better for weddings and the 50 would be more suited to portraits.</p>

[jim mucklin]

<p>Could your sharpness in low light be slow shutter and camera movement? I don't want to sound smart but my photos got sharper when I locked the camera down with a book on on a tripod. I just can't hand hold like I use to. You didn't mention your camera.<br>

Is it unsharp even with a tripod?<br>

The 50 is very sharp, my next favorite is the 85.<br>

I like my Nikon primes, but in your range there is a sleeper, the Tamron 28-75/ 2.8. Which might fall in your price range.</p>

[rarmstrong]

<p>I'd have to vote for the Sigma 30mm f1.4 HSM. A truly excellent lens with smooth bokeh and very sharp on the wide end. But, may be too much above budget for you.</p>

[johnmyers]

<p>Not sure why you're not satisfied with the 50mm's sharpness. What's your technique in using that lens? If that lens isn't sharp enough for you then most any lens won't be. If you didn't get a faulty one, then I'd take a look at how you're using it.</p>

<p>As for a lens to buy...perhaps a 20mm 2.8? On DX it'd be about 30mm so it won't be bad for portraits in tight spots and the distortion is really quite minimal. The 20mm 2.8D is really a fantastic lens.</p>

[steve_bingham]

<p>Less than $400 and razor sharp - and low light capable.<br>

Tamrom f2.8 28-75. Read the review of THIS site - by Ellis Vener. Also on my site: <a href="http://dustylens.com/lens_tests.htm">http://dustylens.com/lens_tests.htm</a></p>

[jean_braeburn]

<p>Thank you all for your input and information. I'm sorry i forgot to mention the camera- I have a nikon d80. i'll try to upload a photo at full frame and then at 100% crop so you can see the problem im having with my 50mm.</p><div></div>

[jean_braeburn]

<p> The next photo is 100% cropped.. ISO 640 1/160 f2.0</p><div></div>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Jean, the 50 f/1.8 is indeed not yet super-sharp at f/2, though I find these photos pretty sharp actually. Stop down the lens to f/2.8 and it gets seriously sharp, but you'll loose part of the 'dreamy' effect of selective focus.<br />I find it a very nice photo, too, by the way, good use of the shallow depth of field. I wouldn't worry about this one, and (I guess) neither will the client.</p>

<p>I owned a D80, and I found that the ISO values between 400 and 800 suffered rather badly from not getting any noise reduction (by default); often ISO800 looked cleaner and better than ISO640. I do not think it's the issue here, but it is something worth checking. Noise can rob some sharpness too.</p>

<p>As for your original question, I much like the 85 f/1.8 for portraits (like it much much better than the 50 f/1.8, but like the 50, not top-sharp wide open). But it needs some space for sure, being longer. I liked for the (very little) wedding work I did too, since it delivers torso shots from a reasonable distance.<br />But the focal length you need, you should be able to tell using the 2 zooms, just check using those which length would suit your studio best. We can only guess, never having seen the space you have.<br />A problem will be, though: a lens that performs good at wide apertures and affordable at the same time. They're rare.</p>

[midan_smith]

<p>my 20 year old 50mm f/1.8 is very sharp on my D80, and many of my best images were taken with that combination, but i notice that you are shooting ISO 640 at 1/160 speed, and the noise on my D80 at that level was quite substantial. id much rather shoot at 1/80 with ISO 320, and use a tripod if i couldnt get the results hand-held. your crop doesnt look hugely soft to me, but the focus is just behind the front of the eye so the lashes at the side are in better focus, but nothing that couldnt be largely fixed with a decent raw conversion and 150-200% smart sharpen (simple and lens blur setting) with a 1.1 radius in photoshop. This looks like more of an ISO problem, aggressive noise reduction could be affecting your sharpness, and 640 is quite high on a D80. I saved up the money from shoot after shoot to upgrade my d80 to a D700 which has much better focusing, and eats ISO 3200 for breakfast. You can get fantastic results on a D80 in studio conditions, but for weddings etc it will struggle in low light, without seriously fast glass in front of it, and even then. 400 to spend? there arent a huge number of options, the ones listed above are very good, but in the end if you are struggling with sharpness on a 50mm 1.8 i dont think 400 is enough to transform this situation. BUT you *might* have a dud lense. </p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Generally speaking, portraits don't have to be super sharp. And if sharpness is what you are after, I would bring the ISO down to the base ISO and use a tripod (unless flash is your sole source of light). On the D80, ISO 640, 800 will contribute to your problem.</p>

[steve_bingham]

<p>The 50mm f1.8 should not be used at f2. It is not that sharp wide open. At f4 it is much better!!!</p>

[mikemason]

<p>I have the D80 and the 50mm 1.8, as well as the 35 1.8 AF-S. I've not found much difference in sharpness between the lenses but find both need to be closed down to f/2.8 for "killer" sharpness. I find both are great even at f/1.8 if the subject is a few feet away and you have some latitude in depth of field. For a close-up portrait I'd want more DOF leeway. 50mm on the D80 at f/2.0 with the subject two feet away gives you only a third of an inch.</p>

<p>Is the shot RAW or Jpeg? I find my D80 gets noisier and softer at or above ISO 800. Processing from RAW definitely helps. Auto-ISO is fantastic -- for this kind of a shot I'd have had the camera set to auto ISO with minimum shutter speed of 1/100th.</p>

<p>For studio work you can even use a cheap zoom stopped down and enough flash lighting to keep the ISOs low. The 18-55 at f/5.6 should be pretty decent. I love using my 50mm at about f/11 with flash through an umbrella, gets me a really detailed close-up Schoeller style portrait.</p>

[adam zyto]

<p>The Sigma 30mm f1.4 would be a good available light addition. Also please consider saving up another $200 and picking up the spectacular Tokina 11-16mm f2.8. It'll add a a lot to your range. </p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>jean, as others have commented, the 50/1.8 is plenty sharp, when stopped down to 2.8 and beyond. that said, the lens you want for wedding and portrait work in low-light is the tamron 17-50, which is very sharp wide open (sharper than tammy 28-75 @ 2.8). the 28-75 is perhaps a better range for pure portraiture on DX; the 17-50 is a better overall range on DX. either one will give you much less jittery bokeh at large apertures than the 50.</p>

<p>i would definitely get a fast zoom before another fast prime or dedicated ultrawide for the type of work you do.</p>

<p>also, the pic you posted looks fine to me; portraits dont need to be as sharp as landscape pics.</p>

[jean_braeburn]

<p>Thank you all for your information. I do shoot in raw and i try to use as much natural light as possible. the image above was shot with nothing but natural light. In order to do that i need to shoot at 1.8 or 2 to allow the amount of light i would like. I checked out the issue with the iso at 640 and 800 and i do see what you mean it takes away some sharpness and adds too much noise- thats something i will have to make sure i pay attention to. As far as lens suggestions you have all given me some great ones i have alot to think about!</p>

[jean_braeburn]

<p>Thank you all for your information. I do shoot in raw and i try to use as much natural light as possible. the image above was shot with nothing but natural light. In order to do that i need to shoot at 1.8 or 2 to allow the amount of light i would like. I checked out the issue with the iso at 640 and 800 and i do see what you mean it takes away some sharpness and adds too much noise- thats something i will have to make sure i pay attention to. As far as lens suggestions you have all given me some great ones i have alot to think about!</p><div></div>

[eric_arnold]

<p>jean, the 50/1.8 will not be at its sharpest wide open or one click down. there's no way around that. and with a d80, you do want to keep the ISO low -- no way around that, either.</p>

<p>shooting available-light is often a case of adapting to your environment, so if sharpness is what you want, why not shoot at an aperture/ISO combo which gets you where you want to be and tweak light levels in post- ? it's a lot easier to lighten a too-dark photo than smother over-sharpening on a too-soft pic.</p>

<p>or, use a lower shutter along with lower ISO and smaller aperture. 1/640 might be overkill; at that focal length, you might be able to drop down all the way to 1/125 or so without motion blur.</p>

<p>as far as lenses go, i'm afraid there's no magic bullet for you. none of the 1.8 nikkor primes will be razor-sharp wide open, and their 1.4 counterparts (all 2 of them) tend to be equally or even less sharp, just with better bokeh. the 2.8 zooms will also be sharper stopped down.</p>

<p>i've personally found the 50/1.8 starts to get sharp at 2.8 but not so much so that i'd rather use it over the 17-50 wide open. same thing with the 30/1.4 --it's not really sharp until around 2.8, although shooting at higher apertures (1.4-2) can give the illusion of sharpness since DoF is super-shallow and background bokeh is niiice. as for the tamron 28-75, it's usable at 2.8 but not really sharp until f/4. so if you must spend $400 or therabouts on a new lens, the 17-50 will be your best option at that price point. it basically makes both the 50 and the 28-75 redundant, unless you must shoot at f/1.8 or you absolutely need the longer range, and i shoot it wide-open frequently with no hesitation. the advantage for you would be getting a constant aperture in the wide and midrange, plus smoother bokeh than the 50 at 50mm (though the 28-75 has better bokeh than either, its probably too long for weddings on a DX crop cam and less capable for avail-light portraits than the 17-50).</p>

<p> </p>

[dan_south]

<p>Jean, the photo that you posted is lovely; I don't think it needs to be any sharper. The reason that her eye is not super-sharp is because you (or the autofocus) focused on her lips rather than her eye. The eyes are therefore slightly behind the plane of focus. If you want sharp eyes, you have to focus on the eyes. If you want all features to be sharp, consider stopping the lens down to f/5.6 or f/8 as long as that doesn't slow your shutter speed down below 1/60th of a second or so. Slower shutters speeds will soften your images even further.</p>

<p>How much sharpening are you applying in post-processing? Via which software package?</p>

<p>If I had a lens budget of 400 (dollars? euros? pounds?) I'd keep saving and concentrate on getting the best results from the gear that I already owned.</p>

[gemma_seymour]

Depth of field, not inherent sharpness of the lens is the answer here. While we're on the topic of sharpness, the sharpened

version posted later is inferior to the original version. The manipulation has caused a significant loss of smoothness and

color shift in her skin tone, which is far more of a problem. As others have commented, the overall level of sharpness in the

original image is perfectly appropriate for the subject matter, though personally, I would not have focused on the lips, as no

girl likes having every wrinkle in her lips highlighted. I would have focused on her eyes.

 

ISO 640? 1/160s? With a 50mm lens? At that focal length, you should easily be able to handhold as much as two full stops

below that EV. That could have been shot at about ISO 200 around 1/60s, and your image quality would have likely

improved significantly.

 

If you really feel like you need to part with the money, get yourself the AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D, which is slightly better

overall than the AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D, and gets you an extra half stop.

 

[edit]I just noticed the part where you mentioned you shoot with a D80. That DX sensor means you're going to have to shoot a bit faster shutter than if it were an FX camera, but you could still have gotten a full stop extra out of that. Otherwise, your options are to add a tripod or add light. Available light is nice, but a good portrait is the goal here. Formal portraiture isn't street photography.