propper lens?

[chat_sirichanvimol]

I starting to expand the type of photography I do.

60% Landscape

30% Portrait and Headshots

10% Action and Sports

 

Can anyone recommend the type of lenses I should be looking at for

each type?

[geddert]

how much mondy do you have? what camera system are you using?

<p>

The recommendations you get will depend on your answers to these two questions. I can come out and say the a Canon 16-35/2.8 plus 50/1.5 plus 70-200/2.8 IS would be ideal. But if you aren't going to pay anywhere close to $3500 or more for this setup, or if you shoot with Olympus cameras this info is useless.

<p>

You might want to read: <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/35mm/building-an-slr-system">http://www.photo.net/equipment/35mm/building-an-slr-system</a>

[seandepuydt]

If your expanding what are you lacking in your current system? Tough question considering all of the possibilities. For my system I upgraded my lenses one at a time after I figured out what I wanted to do. Before I bought anything I spent many hours reviewing photographers reviews of lenses and reading reviews of professionals. My system ended up consisting of all Nikkor D lenses 24/2.8;50/1.4;105/2.8Micro;80-200/2.8 and a 300/4 along with a Nikon F4s. Your question is something that I figured out over time and as I grew as a photographer.

[stemked]

It's a tough order.

 

I make landscapes with everything from 20-500mm lenses! It all depends on the look you want and what the sceen calls for.

 

Traditionally portraits are done with fast 85-150mm lenses, but I have seen people even use 200mm lenses for portraits.

 

Sports generally require fast telephotos, minimum 200 mm f2.8, but 300 f2.8 is generally better and yes people use even longer lenses.

[graphicjoe]

Kemachat,

 

I do the things you are assaying to undertake using basically two 35 mm lens equivalents, 35 mm and 50 mm. Actually my single MF lens is about equivalent to 32 mm in 35 mm format, and one of my 4 X 5 lenses is closer to 75 mm.

 

But you get the idea. Different folks have varying preferences in what lenses are needed. I�m on the few and simple end of the spectrum and I know that I lot of people would feel hampered by having so few lens choices in their kit. But it works for me for what I do. And think of the cash I have to use for other photographic needs. I believe that having too many lenses can start to become as much a burden as a benefit.

 

You can do a lot with a little. I�ve read that 90 or 95% of the world�s best known photographs were taken with lenses that are quite close to the �normal� focal length. Certainly a lot of very fine images were made using rather basic lenses.

 

Cheers,

 

Joe Stephenson

[chat_sirichanvimol]

Hey Everyone,

Thanks for the advice. This is good info.

 

I�m still a student and I�m starting to branch out on selling some work. Mostly for now I�m looking to perfect my work and expand my skills into other areas to give myself new perspectives. My budget is pretty much between 1000 to 1500 for any single lens � even then it�s a one at a time purchase.

 

Would a zoom lens or prime lens be better suited for portraiture or headshots type of work? Do I really need a zoom lens for this type work?

[hugh_t]

Landscape 17-35 AFS

Portrait 105 AIS

Sports 70-200 AFGSVR

 

at least thats what I would wish for

[stemked]

If you have a thousand dollars to improve your photography I'd suggest getting a reasonably priced lens, and yes a standard 50mm is a good start, a tripod, a library card so you can check out some good photography books AND GET LOTS OF FILM! You will likely find there is nothing that will help make you a better photographer than experience and solid critism of your work. Then once you start to get a feel for the type of photography you really want to follow you can drop a grand on a lens. ;)

[al_kaplan1]

For head shots a lens of 85mm to 105mm is generally considered standard. Really tight head shots, perhaps a 180mm. When I think of portraits I think of including some background, some of the body, as well as the head. I often use a 50mm and sometimes wider like a 35mm but I still am about 5 feet or more from the subject. I prefer individual lenses over zooms. I prefer a rangefinder camera (I use Leica) because it's extremely quiet, there's no delay while the mirror gets out of the way, and I can see the the person at the exact instant the shutter is going off. Makes it easy to tell if the person blinked.

[lex_jenkins]

One really good zoom in the 80-200mm range will take care of all your needs for portraits and head shots and most of your needs for action and sports.

 

Get the best you can afford because most telezooms are sharp even wide open at the short end but can be soft wide open at the long end, diminishing their usefulness when you really need that focal length and speed. A good example is my Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f/2.8-4 zoom. From 70-150mm it's as sharp wide open as my 105mm f/2.5 AI Nikkor. Beyond 150mm, tho', it becomes unusably soft wide open. So I regard it as either a 70-150mm f/2.8 zoom or a 70-210mm f/2.8-5.6 lens, since it must be stopped down to at least f/5.6 at the long end.

 

A single prime lens for portraits will be lighter and sometimes faster. But then you're faced with having to choose between 85mm, 100-105mm and 135mm or longer focal lengths. Trust me, you will *never* see anything remotely approaching agreement among photographers on this issue. The most vehement opinions are usually expressed by fans of the 85mm lens. I prefer a fast 180mm for portraits in the 35mm format and still have a soft spot in my heart for the now-obsolete 135mm lens. Good luck trying to choose just one based on the opinions expressed by other photographers. ;>

 

Preferences for landscape lenses are far more subjective.

 

I tend to favor a normal focal length for a particular format (50mm for 35mm film, 80mm for medium format, etc.). At most I'd use a moderate wide angle, no wider than 28mm.

 

But some folks prefer ultrawide angles and I've seen some excellent landscapes taken with 20mm lenses for the 35mm format.

 

I've even seen some unique and beautiful landscapes done in the vertical orientation using moderate telephoto lenses.

 

It all depends on how you envision your landscapes.

[david_h._hartman]

Landscape... 25~50/4.0 AIS, 20/2.8 AIS, 20/3.5 AIS, 24/2.8 AI(S)<br>

Portraits, Head and shoulders... 105/2.5 AI(S) or AF 105/2.0D DC<br>

Action, Sports... AF or AFS 80~200/2.8D ED or ED-IF, AF-S 300/2.8D

ED-IF<br>

<br>

These arent the only choices, just some top picks. I

recommend always carrying a 50/1.8 or 1.4.<br>

<br>

The classic portrait lenses are 50, 85, 105 (Im a Nikon

Partisan :) and 135. You set the perspective with your feet and

crop with the focal length (angle of view). 28, 35 and 180 are

great for candids. Play it safe, collect them all.<br>

<br>

I have yet to achieve my Philosophers Stone so the 105/2.0

and 300/2.8 have to wait.<br>

<br>

---<br>

<br>

<em>"...now-obsolete 135mm lens." --Lex Jenkins<br>

</em><br>

Obsolete?? I just bought one, why didnt you tell me?

[bacsa]

yeah...why is my favourite toy "obsolete", Lex? please show me the way:)

 

grtz

[michael_moon]

Ok Lex, I'll sell off my 135s and take the hit. I mean, they're useless, just take up bag space. I wonder how much I could get for a Maxxum 135, and Minolta MD 135, a Yashica 135 and an SMC-A 135? Sheesh, now I'm really glad I didn't buy the Maxxum 135 STF, Rokkor-X 135/2 or the SMC-A * 135/1.8 when I had the chance. I mean, I'd hate to be so silly as to think I could get good pix with obsolete lenses.

[bacsa]

hey, i'll buy your obsolete lot for twenty bucks!deal?:)