And again lens question

[harishon]

Hi,

I have Nikon N80 with Nikkor 50/f1.4, just as Philip recommended.

It works out good for the most part, but now I have a need for some

more lenses. What I am looking for is versatility and quality for

less money-aren't we all?

My primary(but not the only one) interest is people, so a portrait

lens would be nice, but having a limited budget I am thinking of zoom

instead. So far my options are:

Nikkor 85/f1.8 portaits mostly;

or Sigma AF 70-300mm/f4.0-5.6 APO Macro Super portraits(?), and

versatilty in distant shots

or Nikkor AF 3.5-4.5 28-105mm D IF portraits(?), and versatilty in

closer shots

I am leaning towards Sigma, since it will give me a 300mm on longer

end, but then I will miss quality of 85/f1.8

28-105 is said to have better quality then Sigma and for a little

less then 85/f1.8 it has more use.

So I am puzzeled. Any suggestions? Anything else to concider?

80-200/f2.8 I just can't afford

[efusco]

I don't think you'd be disappointed with the 28-105 on that camera...It's the only lens my wife uses on her N80. And I like to borrow it.

--evan

[el_fang]

If you're used to the speed and sharpness of your 50/1.4, you'll likely be disappointed with a cheap and slow zoom. If you already have the discipline to stick with a 50/1.4 for your first and only lens, I'd say you're a prime (no pun intended) candidate for the 85/1.8.

[lachaine]

I have some prime lenses plus a 28-105. The zoom is pretty good for a consumer zoom, though clearly not as sharp as a prime lens when each are used to the best advantage (it's obvious when I look at my photos even scanned at only 2400dpi). But when you're used to having an aperture of 1.8, a 3.5 to 4 zoom feels pretty slow, even though it's convenient to have all the focal lengths in one. A lot of times, you end up needing ISO 400 film with it, except in very bright light, or if using a tripod, or if you put a filter on it that effectively reduces the f/stop (like a polarizer). So, there are advantages and trade-offs.

[ilkka_nissila]

50 and 85 are just too close to one another. They're ok if you have a wide angle too like a 28 or a 35.

 

I wouldn't even think about the 28-105 for portraits, it's too soft and doesn't focus accurately enough. It's also slow. I would replace the body with an F100 and get a 105/2.5 manual focus.

[jason michael]

I would consider a 35mm f2 AF-D and the 85mm f1.8 AF-D. A zoom would be nice

but if you can stay away from one in your beginner years then you will develop better

composition. I really like the 85mm focal length for both portraits and as my normal

lens. I find it extremely different from the 50mm focal length. Oh and for upgrade

options, if you do not like one of your new focal lengths you will find that Nikkor

Primes retain their value very well if you ever wanted to sell one to put towards

another lens.

 

 

Sincerely,

[jason michael]

oh and don't be afraid to buy primes used...

[Carl Stone]

First, you won't go wrong if you stick with Nikon glass.

 

Second, I agree with Al, slower less optical quality lenses, will disappoint. You have a

really good sharp lens now, are you willing to downgrade the quality of your photos

by more than somewhat?

 

Third, Pierre is right about slower lenses in practical use. If every shot you take is in

very bright light, like outdoors, the maybe a slower lens will be OK. It still won't be as

sharp , but it would be useable. What if the light fades, or you shoot indoors, and you

don't want 400 speed film? What if you want to shoot Velvia in low light? By the time

you add filters and a slow lens to your camera, you have really restricted the

possibilities at your disposal.

 

I understand your dilema due to the price of the 80-200, that price stops many. But,

Ilkka had a good suggestion about that F100 and a 105 f/2.5. If that's also too

expensive, consider the 85 f/1.8, it's a good lens for your needs, and priced right.

Ask yourself if you really need to cover every focal length. The lens purchases that I

have regretted have all been slow lenses. Sometimes excitement can cause us to put

more faith in a slow zoom that it actually deserves. That is the type of lens to own if

you have faster glass to turn to when the need arises. I've never heard anyone

complain that their lens is too fast.

[arjan_lelivelt]

I have an F80 and 50mm f/1.8 and a 85mm f/1.8. Very happy with the optical quality of both lenses. They go together very well with the F80 in terms of weight (F80 is a bit of a light weight).

 

50mm and 85mm are indeed rather close together. With the 85mm, at times I would like more distance between me and my suject (when I don't want them to notice me shooting them), and at other times I would like to get closer than it allows me (to shoot only a part of a face for instance).

 

That said, the 85mm is still a very different lense from the 50mm, and it allows you indeed tot take very different images that would not be possible with the 50mm.

 

In the beginning I wasn't quite sure I did the right thing buying primes instead of, say, a 28-105mm. I missed the convenience of framing on the spot with a zoom. But I got used to it, and I notice I start to be more conscious of the characteristics of the lenses and it's inherent perspectives, it's a bit constraining at first but it really steepens the learning curve too, as many people have pointed out already on photo.net. I'm much more aware of what I'm actually doing than I was with a zoom. Just my experience. 24mm is next on my list...

[ShunCheung]

If Alex is happy with the N80, spending another $600 or so to upgrade to an F100 for the sake of using a 105mm/f2.5 AI/AI-S seems to be an expensive alternative. The F100 is no doubt a better camera but it is hard to justify 3 times the cost. In these days a lot of people are happy with using the 85mm as a portrait lens and the 85mm/f1.8 AF-D seems to be the best alternative. However, if Alex wants to upgrade the body anyway, that would be a different story.

 

If you are serious about portrait photography, I would get a 85mm. A slow 70-300 zoom may be good for other purposes, but certainly not for portrait work, where you want a faster lens for indoors and/or the capability to achieve a shallow depth of field when you desire it.

[harishon]

Thank you everybody for your input! It is overwhelming! <br>

I don't think I need to buy F100 body to use AI or AIS lenses-$200 FM or FE-10 would be enough(or used MF camera).<br>

But here's the dilemma. Here some shots of animals, only two are shot with 50mm prime, the others with Sigma zoom that I "borrowed" from Ritz Camera:<br>

<blockquote><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?presentation_id=217125" target="_blank">http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation.tcl?presentation_id=217125</a></blockquote>

<br>

<br>

However you feel about them, at least I liked them enough to post them here. But, I don't have a single portrait, that I would dare to post here.<br>

If I go with 85/f1.8-then good bye shots like that for long time!

But I here you on optical quality of the prime. That's the reason I am still considering it.

[ilkka_nissila]

The problem with the 85 is that if you already have a 50, then that determines your prime spacing and the two are pretty close to each other. It's a nice lens on it's own, and if you get a moderate wide to go with it, it's possible to do a lot of things. (I have the 24, 35, 50 & 85.) However, the N80 basically shuts you out of the moderate aperture telephoto primes (as they're manual focus) which would naturally complement the short primes. Thus I think if you want to go primes on a moderate budget, that camera is very limiting. The 105/2 and 180/2.8 AF Nikkors are superb lenses but the cost of the F100 (which has other good features) will seem small in comparison with those. Essentially, the current Nikon system is built around the assumption that everyone gets a 80-200/2.8.

[ilkka_nissila]

My first prime was the 50, and the second was 85, because I couldn't afford a longer AF lens with adequate quality. Big mistake. I was sort of tied to obtaining a dense set of primes before I could eventually do the things I wanted to.

 

I think you should try to find a 2nd hand 80-200/2.8 Nikkor w/ collar. Bargain, threaten, steal if you have to. Add a 28/2.8 or 35/2 and you have everything you need for as far as the eye can see.

[ShunCheung]

Alex, if you also wants to shoot animals, you'll need a long lens separately. In that case something like a 70-300mm zoom would be a good (but not the best) way to get started. Essentially, human portrait and wildlife require different lenses. As a side comment, lighting seems to be very harsh in your animal shots. Try to photograph animals early in the morning or late in the afternoon when the light is better and when animals generally tend to be most active.

 

If the 85mm can get the (portrait) job done for you, that would be the way to go. Hey, in the 50mm and 85mm are indeed too close to each other, a much cheaper alternative is to replace the 50mm by, for example, a 35mm.

 

What is your budget at this point anyway? That might eliminate a lot of the alternatives immediately.

[lachaine]

It seems that whichever lens you get has to cover a lot territory. One thing is certain in the primes vs zooms debate. No matter what the disadvantage or advantages of each, you can take pictures with a lens you have, and you can only dream with a lens you don't have. It depends on how serious you are about taking portraits, but when I re-read your original post, plus the subsequent one, you seem to be leaning more into needing a longer lens. An 85 won't get you that, and neither will a 28-105. 105mm just isn't that long. If you consider a 70-300, why not make it the Nikkor 70-300D? It's pretty nicely-priced right now, and it's not bad. Slow, but not bad. If you look in my portfolio, the Canada goose picture in the B&W folder was taken with my 70-300D. The picture is actually a lot sharper than scanning the negative on my flatbed can give me.

[ilkka_nissila]

I think it would be nice if you posted a few portraits that you've taken so far. I think the contrasty light might have something to do with the problems. You should try Fuji Reala (at iso 100) or NPH (a 400 film). Those films can do wonders on portraits in contrasty light (sunlight or flash). If you have some clouds, you might try Astia, a very nice slide film for people shots. Try window-lit indoor shots with NPH. Many people also like black and white for people pictures. Easiest to try would be Portra 400BW or T400CN as they can be printed by a minilab.

 

I think the 50 mm should be adequate for learning to do portraits although it may have a too strong perspective for face shots. It's better for full-body verticals and waist-to-head portraits. The 85 is good for head-and-shoulders, while I like the 105 for outdoor portraits and tighter shots. None of these differences should mean a life or death and there are many more important issues to a successful portrait than the focal length in my opinion. The shallow depth of field is important though, so a 70-300 is in my opinion not adequate for portraits of people (but obviously animals are a different matter).

[Carl Stone]

"I think you should try to find a 2nd hand 80-200/2.8 Nikkor w/ collar."

 

I really don't know how practical that would be. The used prices that I've seen for that

lens are very close to the new prices from B&H. I'm also trying to fund that lens, it's

just a matter of time. I did manage to find a bargain though. Since this coming

weekend is Labor Day weekend here in the US, the camera store is taking a long

weekend. So, I can rent the 80-200 from Friday Morning until Tuesday afternoon for

1.5 X the daily rate. That's 5 days! Yes, I have it reserved, LOL.

[harishon]

Ok. As far as budget-I have $300 that was given to me to by "toys". I could stratch it to $500 tops. And taht would be a BIG stratch!

As far as sample portrait shots here couple samples of my better ones.

Both indoors, available natural light. Color one with Kiev 19 w/ Helios-44 50mm/f2 lens. B&W with N80 w/ Nikkor 50mm/f1.4<div></div>

[harishon]

and here the color one<div></div>

[austin_calhoon]

Here is something to think about... and I mean really think..

 

What feature is most important with your next lens purchase?

Portraits? I've found the 85 to be a great lens, but awfully limiting

for tight head shots.

 

The first thing I would tell you is to steer clear from sigma

consumer zooms. Absolute crap. If you are to purchase a

70-300, the Nikon ED version is very nice and within your budget.

 

My reccomendation would be to pick up a user 80-200 2.8 and

shoot away. I've found anywhere from $275-$400 is user

condition. Well within your budget. Call KEH, and B&H, and

Adorama, and Wolf Used... They have tons of stuff they never list

on the web, and back it up with warranties.

 

There are somethings I'll never understand... but I figured this

out long ago... There is always legal methods for raising camera

funds!

 

Once I decided that being a photographer was the only

occupation I could love doing for the rest of my life, I managed to

fill my bag full of pro equipment, in two years, all out of my

pocket, and without handouts from anyone.

 

Start looking around your house... Do you really need this or

that? You know? I went on huge E_bay runs, cleaning house

and raising thousands of dollars for gear. You would be amazed

at what people will buy.

 

Believe me though, even if you manage to raise funds, it's

almost impossible to make a decision how to spend it.

 

I keep a seperate camera fund. Searching local papers, auction

houses, and shops is a great way to find bargins that you can

turn over for a profit. It can be done. I'm doing it right now. Good

luck.

[chuck_greene]

Alex,

 

Nice baby pic. I just checked prices at www.keh.com, the AFD 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 new with rebate is around $300. You can find an AFD 85mm f1.8 used in very good condition for $300 or less. I bought one from a local dealer this spring for $270, mint condition in the box with hood, caps, instructions, and 90 day warranty. The non-D versions are even cheaper. It's a fine lens, I use it for most of my shooting now (photographing my family).

 

You said your main interest is photographing people. If you do a lot of indoor and/or low light people photography go for the 85/1.8, it's great for that.<div></div>

[roland_vink]

Have you considered using a manual focus camera? Someone else already suggested and it is worth thinking about. You can buy a decent camera such at the FE-10, or a good used camera such as the FE or FE2. The FE-10 is a low cost camera made by Cosina for Nikon. It is rather light weight but is a capable camera. The FE or FE2 are classic Nikon cameras, well made and reliable. These all have aperture priority Auto mode so you can concentrate on taking pictures. The main advantage of these cameras is that they will accept and meter with the vast array of manual focus Nikon lenses, your AF 50/1.4 will work as well.

 

If you are looking for a good portrait lens, you have the choice of the AI or AIS 85/2, 105/2.5, 135/2.8, the 100/2.8E and 75-150/3.5E. These are all excellent lenses, probably as good as the AF 85/1.8 and easily a match for the best zoom. They all accept 52mm filters like your 50mm lens so you don't need to buy an extra set. The 105/2.5 is considered one of the best portrait lenses around and the focal length would be good in combination with your 50mm lens. All are available for good prices on the used market.

 

Of course, there are also a wide array or other manual focus lenses - wide angle, macro, telephoto which you can use.

 

On the other hand, if you decide to stay with an AF system, I don't think you will go wrong with an AF 85/1.8, whether you buy new or used. I don't think the focal length is too close to 50mm. Try one out and see for yourself, the perspective is quite different.

[david_h._hartman]

I recommend a 105/2.5 AI or AIS. AI and AIS lenses will not meter ambient light on the N80/F80 but if you are interested in portraiture you are going to want a hand held flash/ambient meter anyway. You can shoot in full manual mode with these lenses. It�s easy, actually easier than second guessing all the automation. You will still have standard TTL flash with AI and AIS lenses.

 

With portraiture when using fast lenses and shallow DOF you need to focus on the subjects eyes. AF is no good at doing this. You can play with the focus selector and try to keep one focus sensor on the near eye but it�s a waste of time. It�s much easier to switch to manual focus.

 

Many will tell you have to chose AF or MF, you don�t. You can mix and match with ease if you avoid G type lenses. When I bought my first AF camera, an F4s, I and exactly Zero auto focus lenses.

 

Nikon FE and FE2 cameras are fine camera and having two bodies is a good idea for any serious photographer. I have several FE2(s) and use them with my AF 80~200/2.8D ED and AF 35/70/2.8D. The FE2 offers standard TTL flash and aperture preferred exposure. It very similar to the FM3a and is in fact the camera the FM3a is based on.

 

If you like shooting back lit where the sun is near to being in the frame most zooms will ghost from about 120~115mm and down. The 105/2.5 AI/AIS and the 85/1.4 and 2.0 AIS will not. Also you are used to shooting with a fast prime lens. I believe you will be disappointed with a medium-slow zoom.

 

The 105/2.5 AI uses an HS-8 or HS-14 lens hood. The 105/2.5 AIS has a built-in hood but I prefer to use the same hoods as those used on the AI model.

 

All the best,

[harishon]

Ok. From all the responses I see that my goal to have qulity and versatility for low price may be obtained only in MF lenses. Here's what I found in local classifieds:

<br>

EM BODY BLACK, W/ 50mm lens, 100mm 1:2.8 lens,

macro zoom 70-210,sun shade for zoom, camera bag, vivitar 215 flash

<br>

all for $150.

<br>

I am thinking to go with that, so it leaves me some mony for other stuff too, may be Sigma 70-300(?). Is that a good solution?

<br>

BTW, Austin, the money I was talking about-wasn't a handout-it was my birthday gift.

[ShunCheung]

There is an old saying, "You get what you pay for." There are good reasons that a lot of those old MF gear is so cheap now. It is fine to take advantage of those bargains, as long as you understand all the limitations and compatibility issues you will face. However, I would advice against the EM. My dad still has one from 1979. It was a camera for those who want "a better point and shoot" and you cannot directly control the shutter speed. If one wants to go for an MF body, I would get one from the FM/FE family.