elliot_berlin

I still use an F3 at times, but I also really like the D300, my very first digital. Maybe there isn't one best year.

In fact this question was inspired by a very specific assignment requiring a series of head and shoulders portraits against a standardized dark background, roughly following a specific lighting scheme (which I've approached my own way). It is precisely in the context of these very controlled and predetermined requirements that the question has relevance to me.

 

Benjamin: thanks also for your comment.

No text

I'm trying to figure out why in the world you'd reply to such a harmless question with such a supercilious and condescending attitude. I'll admit I'm no closer to figuring it out than when I started.

 

I sure hope you'll steer clear of any of my future threads as you seem more interested in positioning yourself as a superior, above-it-all character than in actually contributing anything useful.

 

Unless, of course, you opt to reply to the next thread by writing a complete Platonic dialogue ridiculing my question is a more entertaining and literary fashion. If you're going to push us down a rhetorical road the least you can do is entertain us along the way.

There are probably 3 dozen replies on this thread, and until yours all were well-intentioned. In the context of the other replies I have a hard time understanding why you take a seemingly condescending tone in your post. No one is saying that there's a "law" about a given lens being "the" portrait lens. But the range of replies clearly supports the idea that the 85mm is very popular as a portrait lens. All I was really trying to uncover with this thread were the reasons why it's so popular and if it's as popular in a cropped image context as in full frame. Consider it an "historical" inquiry rather than a search for a rule I must follow.

 

Oddly, the tone of your message suggests you took the way I phrased the question as a personal insult. How could that be?

I already have the classic 55mm macro, which I love, so I'm not inclined to add a 60mm to my kit.

My natural inclination is to use primes but my primes don't currently cover every useful focal length so I'm curious to see how the newest, high-quality zooms do in terms of sharpness as compared to primes. Some say the latest zooms are as good as primes and some that that's not so. So I'm trying to see if there's a consensus here.

 

Obviously I can do my own tests and figure this out for myself, but I'd also like to check on other folks' opinions.

And I think it works like a charm. It has a quick-release plate that has a small brass locking knob, so if you seat it properly and lock it there's pretty much no way it's going to fall off. It just takes a quick squeeze (adjustable) and quick hand movement to position the camera. I use it with the 190XPROB legs and it's a good combo, although it's not the highest-reaching tripod I've seen.

I have the highly regarded 17-55mm and will be getting the 70-200VR lens before too long. Any reason to favor

primes (as would be by natural tendency) for portraiture, or are they considered as sharp as they need to be (of

course I have my opinion about this, but I'm curious to hear other perspectives).

Elliot B

...I don't have the sense that people who advocate for one particular "portrait" lens are being doctrinaire; what they're doing is trying to provide helpful answers to my question. And I would never take any one reply as gospel; you might say I'm "triangulating" the responses and learning what's useful or offers insight in the replies.

 

I doubt whether anyone would object if I settle on my own choice for a favored portrait lens, whether it's an 85 or not. And, if some people's experience leads them to greatly favor the 85 or another lens then that's just their experience and their way of working talking to them. Nothing wrong with that.

...and I knew that even before asking the question, but the question was useful as a jumping off point.

 

I admit that I didn't know that perspective is a function of distance, not focal length. That's useful information.

 

My reason for asking this question is that I've intended to buy the current 70-200 VR lens to complement by 17-55/2.8 and my other lenses (mostly primes), but if I was to conclude that an 85mm was more important to my kit I could get that first. What I think I'll do now is use either my 50/1.4 or 105/2.8 for portraits and stick with the idea that the 70-200 is the next lens to buy. But in the future I may pick up an 85/1.4 if I get enough freelance work to justify it.

...that I GREATLY appreciate the range of perspectives and contributions to this thread. I'm getting exactly the kind of insight I sought. Perhaps the single most interesting comment is the suggestion that I try different lenses to see what works best with a given subject. Makes great sense to me. But all the comments are useful and helpful.

I can understand why the 85mm is considered an ideal portrait lens for full-frame shooting, but I'm surprised it

still

seems to be considered the ideal portrait lens for digital, where it's effective focal length is over 120mm. In

the old days the 105 was considered a great portrait lens, and I still use it for that when I shoot film. But

the 50mm "becomes" a 75mm lens in the DX environment, and that's closer to a "real" 85mm than the 120+mm.

 

So...I'd think a 50, 55, or 60mm lens would be the ideal portrait lens on a DX body. The main drawback of my

manual, micro 55mm is its slowness, but optically it's a beautiful thing. I just used my new 50mm f1.4 Nikkor

for some professional portrait work and the pictures are very good. Every bit as sharp as the pix that another

photographer took with his D200 and an 85mnm 1.4. FWIW I'm using the D300.

 

Comments?

I've been using two flashes (SB-800 and SB-600 with a D300) for an ongoing job doing portraits against a black

background. The art director's instruction for this job includes throwing a circular glow behind the subject,

using a third light.

 

So far I've lit the background with continuous output movie lights but that's not ideal, as I have to use a wider

aperture than I want which can lead to slight focus/depth of field issues. This is because the available movie

light's output isn't strong enough to match the flash units.

 

I have a third flash - an SB-24 - which can operate manually down to 1/16th power if I remember correctly.

 

I'm wondering if I use the SB-800 and SB-600 in Nikon CLS configuration, could I also add the SB-24 linked by a

PC cord and, set at least at first by trial and error, fire the SB-24 at a brightness level that would work for

lighting the black background? In other words, would the SB-24 work simultaneously, yet independently of the CLS

settings and allow me to manually set the SB-24's output level and trigger it at the right time through the PC

cord connection?

 

Thanks in advance!

Elliot Berlin

I originally bought the SB-600 over the SB-800 because of Ken Rockwell's comparison. My opinion is that he is just plain wrong about this. The SB-800 is more fully featured and versatile and works much more like a professional unit. I find the SB-600 just fine as a second flash.

I also downloaded the demo and in general it looks exceptional but I have one concern: the manual reveals that "Silver Efex Pro cannot process images in the grayscale color mode." That means it can't do what you can do in Photoshop when you handle conversion by selecting adjustment layer>black and white, which gives you sliders that adjust tones in bw *based* on the original colors in the photo. That strikes me as an important means of controlling tones in bw conversion.

 

I'd like your take on the significance of this being absent from Silver Efex Pro.

 

Thanks!

I have the Gary Fong Whale Tale Studio, which is very expensive and which I don't use so far. I subsequently bought the Lumiquest ProMax system, which I like a lot, because there are several different configurations that are easy to switch between. You can do a regular 90deg bounce, you can keep or remove the bounce card with the wrap-around translucent diffuser, you can use the 20% bounce you get from using only the ProMax frame, there are several different colors of bounce cards, etc.

 

My favorite so far is using the deflector with NO bounce card AND the plastic diffuser. This means a lesser amount of light goes directly forward and more goes up to bounce off whatever it can. I generally find it gives a good balance of extra light with a really nice softness. I just HATE flash shadow of any kind. If you set your aperture for about what would be a normal exposure without flash then the flash balances better with the environment and doesn't overlight what's close so badly.

I ordered the 50mm f1.4 today, so the decision is made.

Elliot

Anyone have final comments on the matter regarding comparative build quality, etc.?

Joe

 

Thanks so much for taking the trouble to do that testing. I think I'll scrap

the current lens and get the AF version, as I don' really want to pass on the

problem to someone else!

 

Why do you recommend the 1.8 AF over the 1.4? Is it just as good as the 1.4

save the marginal speed difference, or is it partly the price difference?

 

Elliot

I currently have about $700 in my "account" (based on photography income and sales of unneeded gear). So I can afford the 1.2 but I can't see spending the extra money unless there's something more I'm getting than the minimal speed difference. More comparative info regarding the 50mm 1.2 and 58mm would be appreciated. Since I already have to do the 1.5 multiple to reach the effective focal length with my D300 I think I'd prefer not going with the 58mm since I'm using this sorta as a "normal" lens. It should be kept in mind that I also still use my F3 a good bit and want a lens that works well with both; I think all of these do.

 

Richard: the pic you posted is certainly the exact lens I've got.

 

The sense I have from the collected posts is that there's something wrong with this 1.8 lens, either in the design or manufacture. I can only get about $35 if I sell it (although I'd be willing to trade it in if there's a dealer who will do that) and I don't really want to foist a crappy piece of gear on others and I'd guess that if I described this problem that would lower the value to purchasers even more.

 

And...the other issue is that all else being equal I'm better off with an AF lens, as it CAN be distracting to have to switch in the middle of an intense work session between an AF and command-ring on-camera f-stop adjustment to to manual focus and having to turn the on-lens f-stop ring. This is relevant in part because I almost always control my exposure manually with the D3.

 

Then again I also want to save for the 70-200 VR lens for use in the kit that's appropriate to certain assignments and types of shooting.

...it dates from about 1988. Does this mean it's the "The last model of the 50 mm f/1.8 AIS?"

...who has so far offered suggestions and ideas about this matter. I appreciate that you take the time to assist.

 

Meanwhile, I'm still leaning toward buying an AF 50mm 1.4 to replace my manual 1.8. I invite your comments as to the advantages and disadvantages of doing so.

 

Cheers!

Elliot

The lens is clean, and I wouldn't say it sat for "years." It just gotten light use. But it looks very clean and transparent and I have a number of other lenses that also saw light use for some years and none of them have acquired any bad habits.

 

The ring in the attached pic can be made to happen only, I think, at f1.8. And it occurs with AND without the filter.<div></div>

I'll go outside later and see what happens if I shoot street lights both with and without the filter.

 

I was always under the impression that Nikon branded filters were considered very good but that could be wrong...