Need help choosing lens

[richard_strickland]

<p>Im debating between a few different lenses. I shoot mostly portrait and newborn trying to get more practice doing these. So I have a 50mm f/1.8 and 18-200mm f/3.5-5.4. Im looking at a sigma 24-70mm f/2.8, sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 and a 85mm f/1.8. So Im curious to know what your advise would be. My budget is 800 roughly so if you have any other ideas please let me know. Maybe a combination of lenses or something</p>

[Javier Gutierre]

<p>Greetings Richard,<br>

My first question would be; What camera body are you using?<br />As far as the lenses you mention, the only one I would personally not consider is the Sigma 24-70 F/2.8 Perhaps I had a bad copy, but the reviews on it are not that great either. I keep reading that the Tamron version is the bad boy to get. </p>

[richard_strickland]

<p>I have a nikon d7000</p>

 

[Javier Gutierre]

<p>One of my favorite all time bodies. Personally speaking, my favorite 3 lenses for this body go as follows. <br>

Sigma 30F/1.4...This is a superb portrait lens. I also love though not as much as the Sigma, is the Nikon 35F/1.8DX version. You will never find a better deal for the money. My third Favorite is the Tamron 28-75F/2.8. An amazing lens for the money. Image quality is superb. I will throw one more lens in there. The Tokina 12-24F/4...This Lens is currently mounted on my D7000. Wonderfully quick and with the new firmware update for the D7000, The distortion is well controlled. With this wide lens, i do suggest an external flash to use as fill light. UWA lenses are a bit tricky to get the exposer right, so this helps. I know many of the Pro'S here will disagree with my choices, so research carefully. </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>When you use your 18-200 - what focal lengths do you end up using the most? Once you determine that range, you could more easily decide which lens to upgrade to.</p>

<p>On DX, I find 85mm already to be fairly long - especially when shooting indoors, not so much when I am outside.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>As Dieter said; there is much down to personal preference. For example, I quite liked 85mm on DX, but for portraits in general I tend to prefer longer lenses than quite a few others; some much prefer 50mm (which never worked for me). So, there is no right or wrong answer really, it just boils down to what works best for you. The 18-200 has all the range to help you answer that question. There are software tools to 'map' the focal lengths registered in the EXIF data of your images, those could help giving an idea using your existing catalog.</p>

[raczoliver]

<p>I find the 85 1.8G to be a very nice lens, and for me, the focal length works on both DX and FX (albeit for slightly different purposes). Whether it is the lens you need or want, that I don't know. I suppose with a 18-200, you are not missing any focal lengths, but you might want to have a faster lens, a sharper lens, a more compact and lighter lens etc. Right now since you are considering both the 24-70 and the 70-200 focal length range, it sounds like you want faster and better optics, but are unsure what you want to use it for. In that case I would wait and see what you are actually missing.</p>

<p>To me personally, the f/2.8 zooms were never really attractive, because they seem like a compromise. I know they have their place (weddings, events, sports, wildlife), I just don't do that type of photography myself. They are big and heavy, and compared to most prime lenses, their aperture is only moderate. So I chose to get a more versatile zoom (24-120 f/4) combined with several fast primes.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>For portraiture and specially newborn my most used lens has been a Micro-Nikkor. Compact and without minimum focus limitation, not a portrait specialist but still my favourite. </p>

[User_6502147]

<p>I've seen nice work done with Sigma 70mm macro and that might suit you well. It has good reviews and is reasonably priced. I use full frame DSLR....and tend to go for different optics.</p>

<p>Les</p>

[Renee Shipley]

<p>The Tamron 28-75 that Javier mentions is definitely a nice lens on the d7000 - and it can be had for a nice price secondhand, which makes it that much more attractive.</p>

[raczoliver]

<p>Somehow the first part where you mentioned you were shooting newborn portraits escaped my attention, sorry about that. I notice that I tend to photograph babies from closer distances and using shorter focal lengths than adults. I would definitely not choose a 70-200 f/2.8 zoom for this, they are too bulky and heavy. A prime lens with a focal length between 50-85 would be ideal I think.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Like everything else in photography your choice of lens should fit your "vision" not dictate it. How do you "see" the final image. There was a time in my life that everything I saw was at about 85mm, then it was at 20mm and today it is either a full from fisheye or at 300mm. Photographs are made between our ears, not in the camera. Once you get to that point you find that your vision is best matched to a particular focal length and f-stop. It is critical to find your "eye" and match your equipment to that vision. I guess what I'm saying is there is no "right" lens for any particular subject. There is a "right" lens for your vision and that is where you need to be.</p>

[dan_brown4]

<p>Perhaps a 105 Micro Nikkor would be useful for your baby pictures, portraits, and as a telephoto.</p>

<p>My 2¢</p>

<p>- Dan</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>I shoot baby portraits with the Sigma 24-70 2.8 on my D7000 (and also my old D200) nad have been very happy with it. I tend to use my Tamron 70-200 2.8 for adult head-and-shoulder portraits. But for babies the 24-70 zoom range (even with the crop factor) is good for being able to go from small groups with the parents or siblings to tight headshots of the baby. And the focusing range is good for getting in close.</p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>The Tamron 60mm is worth considering. I like it. Good around kids because you can get very close. The AF is not as fast/reliable as I would like, but that is mostly during challenging conditions with movement. I also second the endorsement of the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 - perhaps my most loved lens!</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>I'm wondering just what is "missing" when you use your current lenses. I shoot a variety of people from kids to adults all the time and I am very pleased with my two kit lenses: the Nikon 18-70 and the Nikon 18-105 with vr. My copies of these lenses are very sharp wide open (for soft backgrounds), focus quickly and have a pleasing bokeh. I've been using my 18-70 since 2005 when it came attached to my D70. Its a great lens. I do use on occasion a 50mm 1.8 or 1.4, and a MF 105 Nikkor f 2.5 classic, but I really like the versatility of the zooms. I probably wouldn't go for the heavy 28-70 f2.8 unless I had a full frame DSLR. Please peruse my folders here to see plenty of examples of all these lenses. Here's a recent outdoor shot with the 18-70. http://www.photo.net/photo/18111226&size=lg, and this one with the 18-70: http://www.photo.net/photo/18041732&size=lg Here's the 18-105 http://www.photo.net/photo/17782250&size=lg Example with 50mm 1.8 http://www.photo.net/photo/13749713&size=lg and one of my favorites done with the 50mm 1.8 (at 2.5) http://www.photo.net/photo/11254730&size=lg another with 18-70 with bounce flash http://www.photo.net/photo/10404291&size=lg 50mm 1.8 at f2.8 http://www.photo.net/photo/6071509 another 18-70 http://www.photo.net/photo/3916088&size=lg</p>

[richsimmons]

<p>I'll 2nd Leszek on the Sigma 70mm. I have one. I really like it. Great macro, 1:1 focus. solid build. It has one quirk in that it has a screw in metal hood that doesn't allow for filters, but it's still one of my favorite lenses.</p>

[Nick D.]

<p>17-55/2.8 dx nikkor around $800 used.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>a couple of good suggestions here and some that are a bit less conventional. it's not really clear what the OP is missing from his current lenses, though. i would quickly rule out a 70-200, total overkill for baby portraits. i wouldnt bother with another variable-aperture zoom lens which doesnt really add much to what you have now. but given your current situation, a faster zoom or a fast prime could work. you might be a good candidate for the tamron 35/1.8 or 45/1.8, both of which have better than average close-focusing, though not quite 1:1 macro, as well as stabilization. the 35 would probably make more sense as you already have a 50mm. 24-70/2.8 is also a good range and 2.8 zoom lenses tend to be sharper than superzooms. i havent personally used the sigma but i do own the tamron 28-75 which is excellent and inexpensive, but a tad soft wide open. as long as you dont miss the wide end, its a good choice. for DX i personally use the sigma 17-50 OS/2.8, that lens is pretty nice and far less expensive nowadays than when i bought mine, but 50mm can be short on DX for portraits.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I'll chime in with another advice not to touch the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8. I briefly had one of these in a Canon fit - until I returned it. It had the worst image quality I've ever seen in a supposed semi-pro lens, making a Canon 5D look like a cheap compact. I swapped it for a Tamron SP 28-75mm f/2.8 and the Tamron was miles better. As other have said, it's a tiny bit soft at 75mm and wide-open, but that might not be a bad thing for baby pictures. Stopped down to f/5.6 and at 50mm it's as sharp as a 55mm Micro-Nikkor, and that's saying something!</p>

<p>I now also own a Tamron SP 24-70 f/2.8 VC, which is excellent but priced a bit above the budget you've set. It's also a lot heavier and more bulky than the neat little 28-75mm.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>As other have said, it's a tiny bit soft at 75mm and wide-open, but that might not be a bad thing for baby pictures. Stopped down to f/5.6 and at 50mm it's as sharp as a 55mm Micro-Nikkor, and that's saying something!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the 28-75 is capable of impressive sharpness, for sure. it doesn't get mentioned much compared to newer, more expensive lenses, but as far as performance metrics go, it delivers. the softness at 2.8 clears up by f/4, and wasn't severe enough to the point where i wouldnt shoot it wide open. i also think the bokeh on the long end is a little bit better than the nikon 24-70 AF-S. in terms of price/performance ratio, there arent too many better deals out there in 2.8 zooms. for me the question on a DX body would be is 42.5mm equivalent wide enough? but that may not matter in portrait shots where the extra length is a benefit.</p>

[Wayne Melia]

<p>Existing 50mm f1.8 @f8 on the fx body... what's lacking?</p>

[Wayne Melia]

<p>uuhhh... Dx body (7000) .... (senior moment?)</p>