24-70 vs 70-200 Nikon

[laurence_nyein]

<p>Hi everybody,,<br>

I am getting a new lens (i got D700 body) so i am thinking to get one of the above two (24-70 f2.8 or 70-200 f2.8 VR 1). Especially I wanna do Portriate Works both indoor and outdoor. I also got a small studio room so actually 24-70 is more appripriate for me. 24 edge can give me wide angle portriate and 70 edge can give head/shoulder portriate. I don't do tele photography. However my question is why most of portraite photographer use long lens ( i saw most of portraite photographers use 70 - 200 lens or if fixed they use like 85 mm fixed) and move very further back and take the shoot. What is the advantages of using long lens and move further backward and take the shoot in Portriate photography. Is 70 mm on 24-70 lens enought for proper portriate work ? thanks.</p>

[iwong]

<p>There are two reasons for using a longer lens and backing off as far as practicable for portraiture: 1) you make the model feel more comfortable; 2) perspective: the effect is more flattering since a longer lens compresses near to far objects, as opposed to using a wider lens which exaggerates the nose and distorts the face.<br>

In your case, the 24-70/2.8 is not really long enough for head/shoulder portrait, the 70-200/2.8 is more appropriate.<br>

However, for the price of a 70-200/2.8 (you mentioned VR1, not VR2), it might be more cost effective to research if a 105/2DC or 135/2DC, plus the 50/1.4 and 35/2 might be the cheaper alternative. 24mm might just be too wide for portraiture anyway. The max aperture of at least f/2 of those lenses could be of use to you since you also get greater separation of background, which is desirable in portraiture.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Although there isn`t rules in matter of taste (hmmmm, I`m not sure about this), the approach you mention about portrait photographers could not be considered the orthodox one.<br /> The first thing to do in portrait photography is about placing the camera at the right distance to the subject (the right distance is the one who pleases you).<br /> After that, you need to choose the focal lenght needed to fill the frame with your subject... it will be longer (narrower viewing angle) or shorter (wider viewing angle), depending on the area to be covered (e.g. a tight head portrait or full body portrait).<br /> That`s all. A 70-200 lens cover the usual viewing angles in standard portrait photography (85mm is in that range). Notice that the viewing angle using this lens on a DX camera is reduced due to the crop factor, hence here shorter lenses are needed.<br /> There is no rules; if the photographer want to have a different perspective (e.g. looking for different background), there is always the possibility of changing the "correct" distance (e.g. moving very further back) and compensating with a longer or shorter focal lenght (e.g. zooming).<br /> The standard zoom usual range (up to 70mm) use to be short for tighter portraits, at usual focus distances (near 7-9 feet).</p>

[craig_big]

You need to get them both. No photographer is prepared unless you can cover the entire range from at least 35mm at the wide end up to at least 135mm at the long end. Once you've got the basics covered, the next consideration is quality of glass. The two lenses you mention are top quality, so you're good there. But if the question is ONE vs the OTHER, the answer is that NEITHER will cover the entire useful range. Maybe to compromise you should get the 70-200 f/2.8 and a kit lens to cover 28-70 in the f/3.5-5.6 apertures. Later, you will still want to be looking for a f/2.8 zoom in the 24-70 range. Primes, of course, are much faster and of top-quality, but they are also expensive and tend to be more specialized, due to the lack of zoom. For example, a 50mm f/1.8 is a great lens, but it can't do everything. You wouldn't want to be taking headshots with a 50, for instance. Maybe a 105 or a 135. You might use an 85 for whenever you are taking head & shoulders or half body-length portraits. If you don't already know which primes you would use, starting with a zoom is a good way to find out.

[ramon_v__california_]

<p>getting both is a very good suggestion if you are not on a budget.<br /> how about a 50mm f/1.8, a 1.4x teleconverter for the 50mm if needed and the 70-200mm?<br /> i don't have money so i still do portraits with the 50mm, sometimes with a kenko 1.4x teleconverter. there are times that i use the sigma 50-150mm.</p>

<p>i agree with jose on how you look at things. how and what things will make you and the subject happy.<br>

i even remember doing portraits with my old D70 with the 18-70mm kit lens both in the studio setup and outdoors. and i got paid :-)</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>If you're on a budget, do consider primes.<br /> To me, given your description, the 24-70 does sound quite useful, and so does the 70-200. Both, however, are big, heavy and intimidating. Filling the most required lengths with a few primes just may be a whole lot cheaper too (35 - 50 - 85/105, and maybe a 180, maybe a 24, though it is a tad wide).<br /> If AF is not important to you, there are also some great manual focus portait lenses; the 105 f/2.5 is the prime suspect, and for all the right reasons.</p>

[lwg]

<p>I hate pointing the 70 to 200 at people. They tend to shy away. Not a good look for portraits. The 85 or 105DC would be where I looked first (not that I've used the 105). </p>

[alex_lofquist]

<p>The 70-200 VR is a very nice portrait lens, especially for hand-held semi-candids. Otherwise the 85 f/1.8 is an excellent value and easier to carry.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>For portraits, I think 28/2, 50/1.8 or 50/1.4, 85/1.4, and 105 or 135 are great lenses. Using an f/2.8 telezoom for long portrait sessions gets quite tiring and the lens is also unnecessarily intimidating especially if you're in a small studio. For outdoor portraits, the 70-200 would be quite good. I frequently use the 24-70 in small studios but the problem with this approach is really that the studio is small and forces you to use wide angle too often, leading to distorted limbs etc. I would not consider 70mm acceptable for head and shoulders. It forces the photographer uncomfortably close to the subject. 85mm is minimum for head and shoulders on FX in my opinion. For head shots, consider 105 or 135mm, for half body portraits, 50mm. Wider than that, tread very carefully to avoid unwanted comedy and caricature in the pictures. Sometimes wide can work and of course for environmental portraits, it is fine. I use 28mm (horizontal) for this kind of shots, e.g. office portraits with surrondings. Also 50mm for a bit closer shot (vertical), with half body shown.</p>

<p>While I frequently use the 24-70 and 70-200 II for people pictures, they're not my first choices when it comes to quality portraits. They are my choices when I need to work quickly and produce a variety of pictures with minimum time spent with the subject. I much prefer using the 28 (ZF), 50 (AF-S), 85 (AF D), and 105/135 (DC) lens array for portrait work when I am aiming for the best results including skin rendition, bokeh, and clarity. In particular, the 85/1.4D is my favourite portrait lens and perhaps my best lens in terms of overall quality. I'm not saying the zooms are bad, they're not, but they're complicated lenses optimized for general image quality using very technical criteria. The "portrait" primes are optimized for people images with human observers and include a mix of aberrations - but they make people look beautiful out of the box, with minimal fuss and post-processing. Which saves time and frustration later.</p>

<p>If you're intent on getting at least one of the zooms, I would recommend the 24-70 and combine that with an 85/1.4 since you have a small studio and later 105 VR (for detail shots and head shots in the studio), or 135 DC when you do outdoor shots or if you want a tighter shot with some compression. The 24-70 can act as a general tool for environmental portraits and group shots (though not my favorite, it's very practical and allows you to work quickly). I would avoid using the 24-70 for head / head and shoulders shots though. It's tempting to zoom to 70mm and do it but the 85 will give a different result, and 105/135 may still be better for the close shots. The 85 is more intimate though, you may like that. It's extremely good for available light portraits by the way.</p>

[laurence_nyein]

<p>first of all, i wanna thanks to everybody who gave me advices and explanations.<br>

I ended up buying 24-70 today.. i was still confusing until i got to the shop but i could make a decision when the staff said all 70-200 lens are out of the stock. LOL .. :P<br>

Few things i forgot to mention, i also have 50 mm f1.8 D, and 105 mm micro.<br>

I may use 105 mm micro for portriate but i do consider 85mm f1.8D for value and quality OR 105 DC f2D.<br>

All the reviews say the new 70-200 vr2 is fantastic but as i don't do any tele,, 1600 quid is too much for me and not worth to pay that much just for head/shouder portriate (i think).<br>

So,, my new question is , shall i use my micro lens for portriate or shall i get DC 105mm F2D ? I never have DC lens before and i don't really know the advantages of using it.. i don't really understand either. And i am thinking to sell 50mm f1.8D to make some cash to meet the expense of getting either one above (85mm, 105 DC), shall i do that as well as my new 24 70 can cover the distance and quality of 50mm f1.8D.<br>

Thanks again to all.<br>

PS. I do love the quality that gives me by 24-70.. Superb sharp fast lens... i think i made the right first move as it is must have one as i don't have any other wide that can cover the range of 24-70... it's not proper micro lens but as it has very short closing distance, i tried to shoot some flowers today.. i got pretty good results (inserts may be different though).</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>I have had Canon envy about their 24-105 f/4 for some time. I understand that Nikon has one coming out in the fall. It might be something to consider. If I had to choose, and I did, I went with the 70-200 and it is my main portrait lens usually shot in the 85-135 area. If I need wider for 3/4 or full length with my back against a wall, a Sigma 50 1.4, especially useful if I can get it open pretty wide for that sweet bokeh. For specialty wide angle shots, I use a 16-35 and a crazy wide Sigma 8 mm fish. Nice thing about the first 3 is they all take 77mm filters so that polarizer and softar works on all of them. </p>