A700 and what lens for portraits?

[durr3]

<p>I am considering getting an A700 and a good lens for shooting portraits, inside and out. Any advice?<br /> Also, I've heard the CZ 16-80 is so so. True? Thanks, Durr</p>

[jiun_der_chung]

<p>If money isn't an issue then the CZ135 without a doubt. The CZ85 is a slightly cheaper option that would be better for the crop factor indoors.</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>What sort of portraits? 135mm is too long for most on APS-C for more intimate portraits, but if you're doing grab shots/candids it will work very well. I find lenses between 50mm and 85mm work well for head/shoulder/close shots. Good luck.</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>IMO, it depends a lot on:<br>

(1) how close to the subject you want to get (personally I consider 6 ft / 1.8 m a minimum, and 10 ft / 3.0 m to be a usual maximum);<br>

(2) how wide a field of view you want to capture (standing full-body, three-quarters, head and shoulders, tight head shot);<br>

(3) how big is your subject (my two year old might suggest a different approach than an NFL offensive tackle);<br>

(4) whether you are using studio-type backgrounds (and therefore don't care too much about how the lens renders out-of-focus area); and<br>

(5) how much money you want to spend.</p>

<p>I usually use my old beercan (Minolta AF 70-210mm f/4). It is reasonably sharp and nicely renders out of focus areas. You can find them used for not too much money (maybe $200 these days?). The Minolta AF 50mm f/1.7 is also a good, inexpensive choice. If money were not an issue, I'd get a Sony Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 and (for a full-frame body or a smaller subject) a Sony Zeiss 135mm f/1.8. The old Minolta AF 100mm f/2 is supposed to a great lens, but they're comparatively rare and expensive. I would be curious to see how the various Minolta and Sony 70/80 - 200/210 mm f/2.8's do, but can't justify the expense.</p>

 

[d_g5]

<p>look... if money is an factor go with the 50mm f1.7 minolta lens you can find on ebay! on the alpha a700 its a 75mm portrait lens! i got mines used about 7 years ago from Samys camera in los angeles ($49.00)! Its been a beast ever since! if money isnt a factor then go with the carl ziess 24-70mm f2.8. the 70mm range on the lens will frame just as much as a 105mm lens (around 1800 i think)! how do you argue with that? If your money is in the middle go for the 24-70mm sigma lens in sony mount... i have it (damn near permanently strapped to my Alpha A900) and its great at only $439.00!</p>

[steve_c.5]

<p>The 85mm f1.4 would be perfect if money is no object. If it is, then the Sigma 70mm portrait macro has won awards and is a great value for the money.</p>

[alanbrowne]

<p>If you have the bucks, the Minolta/Sony 135 f/2.8 [T4.5] STF is one of the finest portrait lenses of any system, though on a cropped sensor you will need a lot of working distance. This lens will cream the background out to absolute smooth bokeh while making a tack sharp image of the subject and allow precise DOF control on the face when wide open. It is manual focus only - a true craftsman's lens.<br>

The Sony-Carl Zeiss 135 f/1.8 is a very fine, very sharp lens that lends itself to portraits very well and also has a remarkable bokeh. These two lenses above are about the same price (the later is much faster (f/1.8 v. T4.5) and has AF), but the STF is the better portrait specific lens (f/2.8 DOF is more than adequate @ 135mm - exposure is only fT/4.5 however).<br>

The Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro is well regarded as both a superb macro lens and a _fine_ portrait lens.<br>

The Minolta/Sony or Sony-Carl Zeiss 85 f/1.4's are supperb.<br>

80-200 / 70-200 f/2.8's make for versatile portrait lenses.<br>

(Note: an advantage of shooting portraits long (say 135 - 200mm) is that the subject is flattened making "geometrically challenged" faces less awkward looking. I've shot portraits at 300 as well (Minolta 300 f/2.8) that were very nice - need a lot of room).<br>

On the budget end, the 50 f/1.7 is a possibility, esp. with a cropped sensor, however I find the Minolta/Sony to be distortion prone if not used with a lot of care. Geometrically challenging faces can be made to look a bid hideous...</p>

[rick noakes]

<p>The 70mm - 200mm g series is fantastic for portraits.</p>