Recently I spent some time in Calcutta (India) with my D300 and my new AF 85mm 1.8D. Calcutta is a wonderful place to photograph people and I did come home with some good shots.
BUT I did find that I had to be so far away for a full length shot that (in a city of more than 15 million) there would be no time to focus before the frame was full of other people. I do also carry an 18-200 which I find generally very useful but not nearly as good as the prime for close portraits. I am wondering if I should add a 60mm lens to get in closer (which I also like, and Indians seem to like being photographed) and if I do should it be the AF or the AFS. I do need fast focus (obviously) but most reviews seem to favour the AF. Any ideas from people who shoot in similar situations would really be appreciated.
The 60 AF-S is very sharp (I've read the older version is also) and is a GREAT macro lens, but if I were looking for a shorter lens specifically for portraiture on DX I'd be inclined to pick up one of the 50s (probably the Sigma) or maybe even the Tokina 60mm f2, just for the better isolation that the faster apertures allow.
Thanks TrenchMonkey
You must have a better eye than me as I've never experienced any noticeable distortion.
I've used the 35 at f/1.8 and f/8.
Perhaps you got a bad copy or just have to justify paying 6 times as much for a 17-55.
It ought to be better for that price.
I guess I will have to take your word for it and throw my 35 f/1.8 in the trash.
Except. I cannot figure how f/2.8 will be better than f/1.8 in low light when they both have AF-S.
I think the real question is, why isn't your 18-200 making you happy for that sort of full length people photo? What are you looking for it's not giving you specifically? Realistically something more expensive like a 17-55 f/2.8G is going to give you a similar FL range at close quarters, it will be better in low light and have more background blur if you're shooting at f/2.8 vs whatever the 18-200 is giving you, but otherwise...
I really like the 40mm Micro, it is the most fun I have had with a lens, except for my 50 1.8G. I agree with Monkey, the 17-55 is just a superb lens. But the Tamron 17-50 is also a great lens.
RRRoger wrote:
Thanks TrenchMonkey
You must have a better eye than me as I've never experienced any noticeable distortion.
I've used the 35 at f/1.8 and f/8.
Perhaps you got a bad copy or just have to justify paying 6 times as much for a 17-55.
It ought to be better for that price.
I guess I will have to take your word for it and throw my 35 f/1.8 in the trash.
Except. I cannot figure how f/2.8 will be better than f/1.8 in low light when they both have AF-S.
You need to learn how to read I recommended the 40 f2.8 BUT if you want a wide angle zoom
the 17-55 is the best. WTF, dude...somebody piss in your beer? or perhaps a Patriots fan?!
trenchmonkey wrote:
quote]
You need to learn how to read I recommended the 40 f2.8 BUT if you want a wide angle zoom
the 17-55 is the best. WTF, dude...somebody piss in your beer? or perhaps a Patriots fan?! :quote
If I need to read, then you need to learn to write.
Perhaps the 40mm f/2.8 is the best option.
I have never used one and would not go on specs alone.
Sounded like to me that you were recommending the 17-55 instead and knocking the 35mm unfairly. I only commented on the price and f-stop difference.
The 35mm image above shows shallow DOF not distortion to me.
And, yes beer does taste like piss to me.
So, now you will probably knock drinking Orange Juice instead.
I am also a fan of those "Patriots" that have defended my USA.
Are you one of those Englishmen that are still griping about our gaining independence? ...Show more →
Well. thank you all for your great advice.
Sometimes it really amounts to "horses for courses", as they say, so it's probably not worth getting too hot under the collar.
Jammy, you are "on the money" I think and I may be a little closer to answering that question for myself. That is, if the D800 isn't about to change everything.
Thanks again.
I recommended the 40 f2.8 BUT if you want a wide angle zoom
or perhaps a Patriots fan?! 