full lenght portrait lens

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Purple: Glad to help. And, for the record, I'm missing any training in artistic concepts which, as Ralph says, is the important bit. Knowing how to take the photo is the easy bit once you've done some reading; knowing what photo to take is the difficult bit, and I claim no expertise there - you're probably way more qualified than I am. Have confidence, experiment, have fun, and don't let the frustrations get you down. Oh, and don't be worried that you're still learning - we all are.</p>

[cc_chang2]

<p>PP, I will give you my take on this, and I too will ask you to do an experiment b/c this is the best way to see for yourself how lenses with different focal lengths affect the final images, even though they can all be used to do full-length portrait.</p>

<p>Use the 18mm on your kit lens, the 35/1.8, and 85/1.8, frame the same person (or object), and then take pictures at the same aperture. In doing so, you can see that all three lenses can frame the same object, but the "working distance" is very different — the longer the lens, the farther away you need to be from the object. Thus, this difference in working distance can determine which lens to use if your are working indoors with limited space. Another thing you may notice is that the background is not blur to the same degree — the longer the lens the more blurry the background, even though these shots were taken at the same aperture. Here again, if it is important to blur the background, all things be equal, the longer lens has the advantage. Finally, you may or may not notice this that the shorter the lens, the more likely that the object becomes distorted. This is caused in part by having to shoot too close to the object. </p>

<p>Because of these various reasons, I believe the "convention wisdom" suggests that for a FF camera, it is best to use a 50mm lens for full length portrait and for the DX camera, you need a 35mm lens. Unless you really need to work in low light, I would suggest that you get the new 40/2.8 micro. As a micro lens, it can allow you to shoot very close to your object without creating perspective distortion. Thus you can also use the same lens for head/shoulder shots. If you were doing the same with the 35/1.8, it is very easy to get distorted images.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>Because of these various reasons, I believe the "convention wisdom" suggests that for a FF camera, it is best to use a 50mm lens for full length portrait and for the DX camera, you need a 35mm lens. Unless you really need to work in low light,</blockquote>

 

<p>Using the "people look about right from 15 feet away" guideline, a full-frame camera would cover a 6-foot tall subject in the longer direction (holding the camera sideways to give you a portrait-format image) using a 90mm lens (36mm x 15' / 6' = 90mm). On DX, a 60mm lens would have the same field of view. If you want to get the same subject on the shorter side of the frame (either for composition or because you're shooting a group), 60mm now fits the shorter side of the full-frame camera (24mm x 15' / 6' = 60mm), and the focal length with the same field of view on DX is 40mm. That's more or less the conventional wisdom I've heard, but I may not go to the same conventions as everyone else. :-)<br />

<br />

Now, that relies entirely on the "15 feet" guideline; if you're closer, a 50mm lens might be right for full-frame. Generally, on full frame, I would expect most landscape-format images of full-body subjects to be in the 35-50mm range (much wider than 35mm and people start to look very distorted), depending on how intimate they are and how many people are included, and most portrait-format shots of a single person to be nearer 85mm (or above, for candids). But I'm no expert, I can just do maths based on guidelines I've heard.</p>

 

<blockquote>I would suggest that you get the new 40/2.8 micro. As a micro lens, it can allow you to shoot very close to your object without creating perspective distortion. Thus you can also use the same lens for head/shoulder shots. If you were doing the same with the 35/1.8, it is very easy to get distorted images.</blockquote>

 

<p>I wondered about suggesting a macro lens. Most aren't very fast, but if you really want plenty of depth of field so the clothing is all sharp, and if you can pick a pretty background, that's probably not an issue. A macro <i>would</i> let you get very close to details of fashion, although the working distance of a 40mm macro might make it difficult to handle lighting. I would perhaps suggest the 60mm f/2 Tamron macro lens, which is sharp, is roughly the conventional length for a shortish (full-body) portrait lens on DX, and which can lose the background if you need to rather better than the f/2.8 lenses. I own its 90mm big brother (also bought partly for use for portraits) and I'm very happy with it. Perhaps the biggest issue is that it's quite similar to the 50mm f/1.8 that Purple already owns, albeit sharper wide open.<br />

<br />

That said, I think it's best for PP to experiment with a zoom and make up her own mind about the focal lengths she wants.</p>

[vic_canberra]

<p>hallo, today i went to my photo shop<br>

and i found a 85mm 1,8 F NOT AFD AT AN INTERESTING PRICE<br>

(AND TO DO SOME EXPERIENCE COULD BE FINE) BUT WHAT DIFFERENCES ARE WITH THE 85MM AFD VERSION?<br>

is there anyone who can explain me the differences?<br>

THaNK YOU</p>

[cc_chang2]

<blockquote>

<p>BUT WHAT DIFFERENCES ARE WITH THE 85MM AFD VERSION?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For someone starting out with limited budget, the 85/1.8 is perfect. It is new in the US for about $450. Personally, I think a 85mm lens is a bit too long for the DX format for full body shots, unless you will use it mostly outdoors (due to the long working distance).</p>

<p>If you really want to know about the 85s, there are two Nikon AFD 85mm lenses. Besides the one you looked at, there is the very expensive 85/1.4, which is best known for its creamy bokeh. Do a little reading and you will know the advantage of f1.4 vs f1.8. This one is now being replaced by the AFS version, which is even more expensive. There is also a AFS macro VR 85/3.5 for the DX format. You can do a search to learn about "AFS" "VR" and "macro."</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Purple: <a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/AF85mm/index.htm#D">here</a> is the non-D version, <a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/AF85mm/index1.htm">here</a> is the D version.<br />

<br />

"D" means that the lens tells the camera the distance at which it's focussing, which

may make a slight difference to metering (especially flash) under some circumstances.

With this lens, it appears that the optics are identical between versions, except that

the older lens is heavier and may not have such good coatings.<br />

<br />

If you want an 85mm lens:<br />

<br />

The Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 AF and AF-D lenses are generally considered pretty sharp at fast apertures. I've generally heard (and seen) bad things about their bokeh, although this is relative and there seem to be some happy customers.<br />

<br />

The Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 AF-D is soft away from the centre wide open, but has very smooth bokeh. It costs much more than the f/1.8 lenses.<br />

<br />

The Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 AF-S is much sharper away from the centre than the AF-D, but much more expensive again.<br />

<br />

The Nikkor 85mm f/3.5 DX micro has, I believe, less than flattering reviews as a macro lens. It's also a bit slow for portraits.<br />

<br />

The Sigma 85mm f/1.4 is reasonably well-considered, and priced competitively to the f/1.4 Nikkors. It's not <i>as</i> sharp as the AF-S.<br />

<br />

The Samyang 85mm f/1.4 is about the same price as the Nikkor f/1.8, sharper than the f/1.4 AF-D wide open, and appears to have better bokeh than the f/1.8. However, it's manual focus. For what it's worth, this is what I own.<br />

<br />

If you can live with a smaller aperture, I'd also consider the Tamron 90mm f/2.8, which is easily as sharp as the f/1.8 lenses, a similar price, and a macro lens as well. I own this too; I got the Samyang to complement it (so I don't miss much by not having autofocus on the Samyang, as I can use the Tamron except at the widest apertures).<br />

<br />

I hope that helps.</p>

[studio460]

<p>I have a non-D version, bought as a refurb when Nikon was blowing out all of their non-D stock. It looks identical to the D version. According to the Nikon rep, the lenses are identical, except for the distance information that a D lens is capable of communicating, which is of little use anyway. If it's not super-old, I'd say get it!</p>

[paul_k1664875007]

<p>Quote:<br>

forum are made for asking <br />and since i have not receive informations that i need i will asking here or anywhere<br />if someone asks me <br />something that i know i always give informations<br />and to person who linked a book yes i have read a lot about that<br />i am a novice <br />in my opinion it not so bad learning from people who had more experience<br>

Unquote.</p>

<p>Dear purple, I think the basic mistake you are making is that you are asking your fashion photography related questions on either the Beginners forum or the Nikon forum, where the chances of anybody reacting who is really specialized/experienced in fashion photography are obviously quite low.<br>

As you can see in the sling of reactions on your last question, a lot of gear heads and knowitalls are however well intended, which makes it inevitable that a lot of fingers are raised but little real answers are given.</p>

<p>I quickly ran through the three threads that followed your three questions and as far as I can see only in one thread has one poster accompanied his reaction with something really resembling a fashion picture, and one person pointed to a book to leave to someone more expert to answer your questions.</p>

<p>For starters I would start reading yourself into fashion photography, be it by 'expert' written books (although I'm not a fan of that, you know ' he who knows does, he who doesn't teaches') or looking into fashion magazines and trying to find out how the pictures you like were taken (so basically finding out the technique of that specific photographer)</p>

<p>Second I would not worry too much about equipment initially. In my (personal) experience in the beginnng stages you tend to buy stuff you read about or are told about works, but after finding your personal tast and style much of it will tun out a waste of money. I myself bought and eventually sold a field camera because I loved Paolo Roversi, and have a full Hasselblad set collecting dust because I admired do love the medium format work of the 1950/1960 work of Avedon and Penn. Still love those pictures, but found out I have a different shooting and photography style (although I stress I wouldn't dare to compare myself with the photographers mentioned).</p>

<p>You have a Nikon DX body (didn't see what type but apart from the AF and the IMHO neccesary advanced possiblities to dial in your settings manually basically any type will do) and as mentioned a zoom will nicely do initially (though I would not recommend a superzoom like a 18-200 or a slow lens with a maximum aperture of eg 4.5/5.6 because of likely IQ and DOF issues).</p>

<p>Don't buy anything really expensive and rather spend your money on magazines, books and shooting pictures (hooray for digital, I still have heart aches remembering the piles of money I spent on film, developing, polaroids, contacts and prints when I started to shoot fashion).</p>

<p>If you really want to spend money, get a 1.4/50mm (great for availible light, also nice on DX for portraiture) and a 1.8/85mm (good for portraiture, although maybe a little long on DX unless you do close ups like eg make up shots, and nice wide open for outside medium/three quarters shots).</p>

<p>If you then still have money left and are eager to spend it, get a 2.8/80-200 (they go for amazingly low prizes secondhand these days, and although heavy are great wide open or nearly wide open for all kind of things like portraits, three quarters and even full outs). Sure the 70-210 is better but will cost a lot more. These are typical work lenses and can still be used even when you're not shooting fashion, but eg weddings, PJ style stuff etc. A wide angle also qualifies a 'work' lens but is not really fit for fashion (unless you like the JeanLoup Sieff kind of pictures)</p>

<p>I'm not going to post pictures as I would need to post several to illustrate my (photographic) remarks but due to forum policies can't directly post a link to my website. But yoy can probably find that in my profile and hopefully see I have some (yes, I know, a very little) knowledge on the suject this long (sorry!) post is about.</p>

<p>BTW, sorry for any typos or language mistakes, like you I'm also not a native English speaker</p>

<p>HTH</p>

<p> </p>

[ruslan]

<p>85/1.8D will not focus automatically on entry-level bodies like D5000, D3000, etc.... It has screw-type focus.</p>

[studio460]

<p>purple purple:</p>

<p>Yes, what Rusian points out is correct. Nikon D40/D50/D60, D3000/3100, D5000/5100 bodies will only auto-focus when using newer, AF-S lenses ("AF-S" is a feature on newer lenses, those with internal, electro-magnetic focus motors). Older, "screw-drive" lenses, such as the AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D, need a motorized, mechanical spindle on the camera body to turn the lens' focus ring to enable auto-focus. The old Nikon D70 has a screw-drive, as does the not-as-old, but still kind-of-old, D90. Higher-end DX bodies such as the Nikon D7000, and D300, also have screw-drive mechanisms, and support both newer AF-S/VR lenses, and older AF lenses, such as the 85mm f/1.8D. Which Nikon body do you own?</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Guys - we know that Purple already has a 50mm f/1.8 AF-D, which is a screw-focus lens. I'm assuming that she has a camera body which can autofocus it, or at least is happy to manual focus - in which case any recommendation of a similar screw-focus lens (like the 50 f/1.4 AF-D or either Nikkor 85mm AF-D) will work no worse than her existing lens. If that's not the case then yes, paying for an AF-S lens (or equivalent lens with integrated motor from a third party) may make life easier for her. Just keeping us on-topic.<br />

<br />

Paul - good advice, and I don't claim to be more than a gear head (which is why several of us suggested that Purple make up her own mind, and I've only described the technical differences between lenses). Just to pick up on a couple of points:<br />

<br />

1) I think when you say "70-210" you mean "70-200"; the latter is the replacement f/2.8 lens for the 80-200 variants, and the 70-210 is an f/4 lens that I believe is discontinued; just wanting to avoid confusion. Details <a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/AF-Nikkor80200mm/index.htm">here</a> - for what it's worth, I recently picked up a mk1 80-200 AF, knowing that it's appreciably inferior to the newer versions in handling, but not willing to pay twice the price for a newer lens.<br />

<br />

2) Neither superzoom that was suggested - the 18-200 or 18-105 - will produce especially high-quality results away from the centre wide open on a high pixel density body (comparing photozone's reviews used on a D7000 and a D200 is quite informative at showing how much better these lenses appear if you don't pixel-peep too much). I don't recommend either of these zooms as a perfect fashion lens - however, since we were talking about Purple learning about the effects of different focal lengths in the context of fashion shooting outdoors with (presumably) plenty of light and where a deep depth of field is actively desirable, I think one of them would be a good stepping-stone to learning what lens she really wants to buy, and would not be entirely useless to complement primes (on my D700, my 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 gets quite a lot of use in spite of my owning a number of faster primes). The 18-200 is the standard go-to suggestion for a "does everything" lens; it's a little pricey if it's only to be used as a learning experience. The 18-105 is appreciably cheaper and probably optically better within its range - although you're obviously missing the 105-200mm range if you decide you want to start shooting wildlife or sports. That said, Purple may have learnt everything she needs by playing in a camera store, and be happy with the additional optical performance and larger apertures offered by using primes (or more expensive zooms with a shorter range).<br />

<br />

As ever, buying a "better lens" won't make for better photographs. All you can do is buy a lens that lets you take <i>different</i> photographs. Unusually for people asking this kind of question, it seems that Purple is actually asking what lens she needs to take a particular style of image, rather than just better images in general - I hope we've provided some useful support, although Paul's comments have kind of shaken my confidence about that. (I'm aware that I tend to go on at great length on a range of topics; I try to stick to information that's technical enough that I'm probably getting it right, but I feel that I should have an "I probably don't know what I'm talking about" disclaimer everwhere...) I've ended up with a moderately large lens collection because there are specific shots that I've wanted that my existing lenses have not allowed me to take, but I'm under no delusion that any of them make me a better photographer. If I had the time, I'd be spending it trying to get better with the lenses I've got.<br />

<br />

Purple: On the topic of magazines, when you're in the UK, Professional Photographer magazine (professionalphotographer.co.uk) has a series where they try to deconstruct fashion images and work out what equipment was used. It's not usually very technical, but it might be worth browsing. (ProPhoto is sometimes bundled with more amateur-friendly magazines, like Photography Monthly.)</p>

[ruslan]

<p>Purple, thanks for your kind comments upon my shot... If you have a high class body, that can meter with manual lens and good eyes or just happy with MF, and big budget too, consider this: <strong>Carl Zeiss 100mm f 2 Makro-Planar ZF.2</strong>. <br>

This is an exceptional top-class instrument e.i. second to none. Comparable to Leica 100 mm lens... It delivers highest resolution from border to border and rendering. It will ovecome every 70-200/2.8 in terms of quality. It is made of metal with engraved figures on its body. You will change bodies like gloves but this will stay with you like Stradivari voilin. I saw full resolution shots and they shocked me! You should shoot RAW and even use a tripod and focus very accurately! And keep on improving to realize the greatness of it! <br>

Consider Voigtlander Lanthar 90/3.5<br>

<br />If you need a cheaper one - 105/2.5 AI or 105/1.8 AI should be considered, and 105/2 DC too... <br />If you need even cheaper - Samyang 85/1.4 ...<br>

I took mine with 100 mm (very old and <strong>not</strong> Zeiss) on 4/3 sensor which is equivalent to 200mm. I save for the Zeiss with Nikon mount awaiting for the crisis ending. </p>

[john_narsuitus]

<p>Purple Purple,</p>

<p>I cannot tell you what is ideal for you but I can tell you what works for me.</p>

<p> When I shoot fashion with a DX camera, I use the following Nikon lenses on two bodies:<br>

20-35mm f/2.8 auto focus<br>

35-70mm f/2.8 auto focus<br>

<br>

These are older lenses that are only available on the used market. If I had to replace these lenses, I would buy the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8.</p>

<p>When I shoot full-lengths outdoors with a DX camera, I may use the Nikon 18-55mm f/3.5 to f/5.6 G AF VR. This low-cost lens is capable of producing high-quality images.</p>

<p>When I shoot portraits of adults with a DX body, I prefer the coverage, perspective, and working distance provided by the following focal lengths:<br>

23mm for group shots (3-meter wide group shot in landscape orientation)<br>

27mm for full length (2-meter tall subject shot in portrait orientation)<br>

55mm for half-length (1-meter subject area shot in portrait orientation)<br>

60mm for head & shoulder<br>

70mm for headshots<br>

.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>"<em>the distance information that a D lens is capable of communicating, which is of little use anyway" - </em>if you do not program or set the "D" information, you think is of little use.<br>

Actually many modes use this information, that is not at photographer's control, and therefore gives impression that D information is not used.<br>

To mention few, the flash balanced mode uses D, and the 3-D focus tracking uses D information, as well as used in metering, and Nikon software will use it if available, showing an extra menu for it.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Frank said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To mention few, the flash balanced mode uses D, and the 3-D focus tracking uses D information, as well as used in metering, and Nikon software will use it if available, showing an extra menu for it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Copy that. Perhaps I should have said <em>I</em> don't find it very useful. I rarely use 3D focus-tracking, and most of the time, I'm (now) shooting almost exclusively manual (although previously, I did use the in-camera meter, shooting aperture-priority, almost exclusively), and firing my Speedlights mostly in manual mode as well. I always thought the D information would be useful for i-TTL Speedlight shooting, but I never really noticed any significant difference.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Andrew said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Guys - we know that Purple already has a 50mm f/1.8 AF-D</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I didn't catch that. I just assumed she had the newer, AF-S Nikkor 50mm f1/8.</p>

[jose_angel]

<blockquote>

<p><em>To mention few, the flash balanced mode uses D, and the 3-D focus tracking uses D information, as well as used in metering, and Nikon software will use it if available, showing an extra menu for it.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have read somewhere (in Nikon literature) that is also used for White Balance calculations (just this, they don`t specified if refered to flash, too).</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Just to weigh in on the D-vs-not-D debate: pretty much all the feedback I've seen in these fora (and I've not performed my own experiments) suggests that, while D ought to make a difference under unusual circumstances, it's rare for it to make a significant difference. The most commonly-stated benefit is that it makes the difference between 3D matrix metering and plain matrix metering - and even Nikon's plain matrix meter is pretty good, unless you're using an on-camera flash under unusual conditions. I would not be surprised to know that it also influences the autofocus module - for example, I don't know how much of the difference in performance between my 80-200 f/2.8 AF (one ring mk 1) and the replacement 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D (one ring mk 2) is simply ballistics tables, and how much is the lens telling the camera where it's currently focussed and this helping the algorithm.<br />

<br />

I can't see how the lens focus distance could affect white balance, but I'm always prepared to learn. :-)<br />

<br />

In general, I'm sure that - unless the lens design has been modified in some other way - we can agree that D is beneficial, but probably not worth losing sleep over most of the time. So Purple - if you have a bargain offer on the 85 f/1.8 AF non-D, by all means go for it (although how much you'll save over a new one for a cheapish lens I don't know - for what it's worth, Nicholas in the UK has them listed for 195-295ukp),<br />

<br />

To quote from leofoo's (amazing) site:</p>

<blockquote>For those who may be new to the Nikon system and keep worrying you might be buying an older 85mm f/1.8, don't be. Although whether the AF 85mm is an AF-D or non-D version or not - optically both should behave and deliver the same quality (EXCEPT for a fact, where we assume all newer versions should be treated with Nikon's SIC (super Integrated lens Coating Process) where majority of the older ones could be just being treated with NIC (Nikon Integrated Coating).</blockquote>

<p>Incidentally, I'm not sure how I came to think the older lens was heavier. They're both 414g, allegedly. Sorry about the misinformation.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Okay, who the heck is "Vic?" And what have you done with purple purple?</p>

[Christopher Sperry Photogr]

<blockquote>

<p>Okay, who the heck is "Vic?" And what have you done with purple purple?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is apparent that Purple Purple has exercised the right to a Photo.net name change. This may be a good sign, in that Vic has chosen a new name with the intention of staying around.</p>

<p>From Name Change guidelines, found in members' <em>My Workspace</em>: " .... in order to minimize spam and "multiple personality" problems, photo.net only allows one name change per account. Please choose wisely and double check your name request."</p>

[studio460]

<p>Yes, I gathered that, Christopher. It's just at first glance, "Vic" didn't sound like a girl's name.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I'm assuming it's short for Victoria, which is a name that's hard to abbreviate. One of my other half's friends is called Victoria, and I'm never quite sure what to call her. "Vics" is fine in person, but written down it's dangerously close to a cold cure and looks a bit odd; "Victoria" seems too formal and I don't think she uses "Vicky" (which sounds less professional anyway; she's a veterinary neurosurgeon and might be projecting an image - no offence to anyone using this abbreviation). Yes, I've tended to see "Vic" as an abbreviated "Victor", but I'm way past making assumptions these days. I know too many people going by Chris (one of whom is now Sarah, apparently superfluously), Andy/Andi, Terry, Joe/Jo, Max, Robin, etc. (Dare I say "Bob"?) It's not like we'd formed a consensus on how to abbreviate "Purple Purple".<br />

<br />

By any name, welcome, Vic.</p>

[studio460]

<p>Andrew said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>One of my other half's friends is called Victoria, and I'm never quite sure what to call her.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmm . . . "Victoria" is such a pretty name. How about, just 'V'? You know, like in the movie <em>Ultraviolet</em>? I always thought single-letter names were cool. I have a co-worker that everyone calls "Vi" (pronounced as in "buy"). I actually don't know what her full first name is. Anywho, welcome to the forum, "Vic!"</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>"V" does get used. Perhaps I should stick to it. :-) As for "Vi", I'd assumed it was "Violet" (except in a war about use of emacs) - but I'd probably regret assuming!</p>

[studio460]

<p>Off-topic: Gorgeous shots by Rusian, Christopher, and Bela in the bottom random photo thingie!</p>