I purchased my first camera, the Nikon D500 almost a year ago so I could capture better quality pictures and videos than our smartphones. I currently use the D500 to take pictures of our family and my kindergartner playing soccer.
Over this past year I have learned so much about taking photos. I've made a lot of mistakes, taken some great photos, learned how to edit raw photos (which I'm still learning), and so much more. However, all of it has been great to experiencing and learn, and I still have much more to learn, but that's the fun part!
Currently, I have two lens for my camera. The kit lens that was included with the body, "DX NIKKOR 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR" and "AF-P DX NIKKOR 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G ED VR" (which I purchased from a forum member last year). I am looking to add another lens to my tool belt that would be great for taking portraits and maybe also use it for street photography. I found a few lens today that seem to have great reviews, but I am not sure which one to purchase or if there is another one to consider that I haven't came across.
The lenses I am looking at are: the "Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D”, “Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM lens” (which is an older non-art lens), and the “Voigtlander Nokton 58mm f/1.4 SL II S Ai-S”.
Would you recommend one of these lenses for portraits or is there a different lens I should consider? Oh, I forgot to mention that I am trying to stay under $600.
If you are looking into the 50mm and 85mm focal length, you may as well get the Sigma 50-100 f1.8 art. Is a fantastic lens, even for sports, when you need very shallow DOF and nice bokeh. If the price for a new one is too much, wait for an used one.
Shot from this Sunday....
Shot this at either f2 or f1.8...d500 and Sigma 50-100
Sigma 50 Art is ~ $500 used, I can think of no better portrait lens on the D500. 75mm equivalent FOV is just right most of the time.
50-100 mentioned above is a good, well regarded option that might also pay dividends if your kids end up doing any indoor sports. That f/1.8 will come in very handy.
... or is there a different lens I should consider?
The different lens you should consider is one of the lenses you already own (based on desired framing), and save yourself $600. First priority is learning how to compose a portrait, then capturing expressions. Finally, work on lighting schema. I like my faces in focus and use a slow lens stopped down, or a fast lens stop down even more: taking aperture of f/5.6 through f/11 depending on FL. In the sun or with flash, light is plentiful.
Of course, if you have a dose of GAS to quell then anything f/1.4 is a fine choice, although f/1 is better.
As point of interest, I don't hesitate to mount the 70-300 AF-P DX or the kit 55-200 on my D500 for portraits. Both cost a pittance, and aren't sexy compared to my 70-200/4 or 70-200/2.8E but that's not the point.
Considering the lenses you listed, this: Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D
Super sharp for nice detail and soft background. I don't currently own it, but have and loved it.
A very useful all around lens as well as a killer portrait would be 70-200 f2.8
Thank you for your recommendation. The Sigma 50-100 looks amazing, but the $1000 doesn't!
BSPhotog wrote:
Sigma 50 Art is ~ $500 used, I can think of no better portrait lens on the D500. 75mm equivalent FOV is just right most of the time.
50-100 mentioned above is a good, well regarded option that might also pay dividends if your kids end up doing any indoor sports. That f/1.8 will come in very handy.
Thank you for your recommendation. I apologize in advance for my ignorance (I'm still new to photography with almost a year under my belt), but may I ask, how is a 70-200 f2.8 good for portraits? Wouldn't the zoom be way too much? Also, I thought fast primes were the way to go, or so what others have told me.
Charles Loy wrote:
Considering the lenses you listed, this: Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D
Super sharp for nice detail and soft background. I don't currently own it, but have and loved it.
A very useful all around lens as well as a killer portrait would be 70-200 f2.8
I think it depends a little bit on your preferred focal length. On Dx cameras I would want something in around 50mm- 60mm in focal length personally. I think that the Sigma 50 art is the smartest buy at this focal length. You could also use the 50mm f/1.8G as a budget option. If you prefer a longer focal length, one of the 85mm options might work for you, such as the 85 f/1.4D that was suggested or the 85 f/1.8G lens.
In my opinion the smartest way to make lens purchases is to find the focal length you need, figure out how much money you're willing/able to invest and then find the best choice within those parameters. Nothing stops you from upgrading to a better lens down the road or deciding you want to go a different direction in the future.
I’d probably lean towards the 50 1.8G on the d500, particularly because the little 50 keeps the total cam + lens package pretty small. Smaller is better for street photography - less conspicuous, and effective 75mm is a great focal length for portraits
FYI, I bought my Sigma 50-100 for $575 used from another FM member. Just wait for an used one if you can. Also, a brand new Sigma 50 art is around $900 too. I haven't seemed an used one for less than $500...at least recently. And 85 AF D is around $300 used as well. In reality, you aren't saving any money getting the Sigma 50 art and 85mm AF D...used vs Sigma 50-100. FYI, the 50mm F1.8g is an OK lens and not sharp at all at wide open, until stopping down to f2.5.
And another cheaper but better quality option is the Tamron 45 f1.8vc. I have the lens too. Is sharp, if not tack sharp, at wide open. At wide open shooting at highly contrasty subject, you may see some green or purple fringing. AF isn't as fast...for slow moving subjects are fine.
Both Sigma 50-100 or Nikon 70-200 would be great, and you can use them for many purposes.
Any Nikon 85 lens would be great too, but could be a little long in close quarters.
The sigma 50-100 is a better choice. I have the Tamron 70-200 G2 as well but I always use the Sigma instead as long as I can get closer....shooting bike races....
I would look for someone selling their Nikon 58mm f/1.4 lens. It is as good a focal length as will work on a crop camera where it has the field of view of a 87mm lens on a full frame camera.
When all Nikon sold were crop cameras I had to use the 50mm and 85mm for my wedding photography. The 85mm was too long for indoor use much of the time as there was not enough distance between me and my subject(s). The 58mm would have been ideal but it did not exist.
Another lens to consider is the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 that sells new for $499. On a crop camera it provides the view angle of a 42-112mm zoom lens on a full frame camera.
For groups of people photographed indoors I need a crop 16-24mm focal length range and for individuals one can go up to 60mm and not have problems with camera to subject distance.
Take your 16-80mm and you can quickly verify the focal lengths that do work indoors and at what point the focal length becomes to restrictive for indoor use. You can also review the images shot with the 16-80mm and see how many were done with a 80mm focal length setting.
Ah nice! I'll have to keep my eye out on the forum. It seems from what everyone is recommending in regards to focal length the Sigma 50-100 would cover it and give me other options to play around with. A plus would also be the fast primes it has.
TooManyShots wrote:
FYI, I bought my Sigma 50-100 for $575 used from another FM member. Just wait for an used one if you can. Also, a brand new Sigma 50 art is around $900 too. I haven't seemed an used one for less than $500...at least recently. And 85 AF D is around $300 used as well. In reality, you aren't saving any money getting the Sigma 50 art and 85mm AF D...used vs Sigma 50-100. FYI, the 50mm F1.8g is an OK lens and not sharp at all at wide open, until stopping down to f2.5.
And another cheaper but better quality option is the Tamron 45 f1.8vc. I have the lens too. Is sharp, if not tack sharp, at wide open. At wide open shooting at highly contrasty subject, you may see some green or purple fringing. AF isn't as fast...for slow moving subjects are fine. ...Show more →
For all the praise that 50-100 gets, it is hardly seen for sale anywhere. I don't recall it being offered on B&S forum in recent months. Is it a slow seller because of the size and weight? Or it is as dicey as 18-35 as far as AF performance goes? As much as I want that lens, having spoiled by terrific VR/OS lenses by Nikon and others I get a little skeptical about it because of lack of any stabilization on it. Weight and size aren't helping the matters either. Come on Sigma, we need v2 with OS of this unique lens
Since it seems the portraits you will be taking are not for paying gigs, the lenses you have are more than capable of taking great portraits. “Pros” and pixel peepers may scoff, but “normal” people will love any properly composed and exposed images you can create with the lenses and camera you have. If I were you, I’d continue to shoot the heck out of what you have and add the Nikkor 35mm f1.8 DX, less than $200 new, for street and low light photography. On a DX camera, you’ll get a full frame equivalent of 50mm and is a universally regarded as a great lens.
I think to supplement your current lenses you would want an f1.8 or faster lens.
I have the 85mm 1.8G, which is great for subject isolation on dx, but in normal sized rooms indoors its too long (It is however a good lens for auditoriums).
If you want a more versatile indoor focal length I'd go with the 50mm 1.4G or 1.8G the later of which is very inexpensive. 50mm wouldn't match the isolation of the 85mm. You can use the search function in flickr groups to find example dx portraits with these lenses.
All of these are lighter than your current lenses.
I'd go with more modern G lenses over D lenses unless its the 85mm 1.4D.
To Amol Throat, there was a period when many people were selling it. Yes, is heavy. Yes, is as big as a regular 70-200 f2.8 lens. the lack of OS isn't really a problem. I normally don't use it shooting at lower shutter speed, says, before 1/160s. If you are frequently using low shutter speed, by all means, get some stabilized lens. The Sigma 50-100 is a prime-zoom.... Is just that the OP wants two primes with 2 focal length and the Sigma 50-100 fits the bill very nicely... Neither OP's option for the Sigma 50 non-art or AF D 85mm has any stabilization...
Just to point out a few things and make some suggestions -
The voigtlander that you mentioned is manual focus. This is neither good nor bad but from your description it is not something that you are used to. Try setting your 16-80 at 58mm (you can use gaffer's tape), putting it in manual focus mode, and practice. It is a different skill set than your current experience suggests.
The 50-100 is not stabilized. Again, this is neither good nor bad but not something that you are used to; turn off stabilization on your 70-300 and try shooting in the 70-100 range to understand how this feels. You are probably going to need to keep the shutter speed higher than what you are used to.
I never know what folks mean when they say 'portrait' Rather, there are lots of kinds of portrait - posed, head shot (think corporate), head and shoulders (think year book), full body (think wedding) or spontaneous (kids at the playground or grandparents interacting with their grandchild). Often I suspect people mean a relatively sharp image of a person with a softly blurred background like the nice shot of the cyclist above. The 58 mentioned above (also not stabilized BTW) excels at accurately rendering skin tones with a nice transition to out of focus background. People talk about how nicely it 'renders' and this has as much to do with the photographer's skill in using lighting, background and framing as it does with the lens. It is not the sharpest lens, but then for a portrait lens, you don't want an ultra razor sharp lens unless you are working with a model with perfect skin. Trust me - your Aunt or grandmother really doesn't want a razor sharp portrait.
The 70-200 is capable of creating a nice soft background when used fully opened and gives you the flexibility to frame the image. It is often the lens of choice when shooting events outdoors or in larger spaces - particularly when using a DX mount. In commons size rooms, on a DX mount, it can be very restrictive in terms of capturing interactions of two or more people.
People classically liked primes because a) zoom lenses were traditionally not that sharp, and lacked contrast, and tended to be very large and heavy especially when you started looking at lenses faster than f2.8. But many modern zooms are (for most practical purposes) almost (almost!) as good as primes and have gotten somewhat lighter with modern materials and designs. Zooms offer flexibility. Primes (particularly the top tier ones) offer faster lenses (f1.8, f1.4, and lower), some remarkably smooth out-of-focus renderings and can be very compact.
I also never know what people mean when they say 'street'. Gary Winograd used a 28mm lens (18+mm DX) for his entire career and many classic street photographers used 35mm. But I've seen plenty of spontaneous 'street' images that use longer lenses as well.
My best advice is to take a look back through your favorite images and see what focal lengths you tend to shoot at - both for street and portrait. That should be one starting point. You have two very capable lenses and there is a good argument for just continuing to shoot with them. If you are looking to expand on what you can do photographically, look for a lens that does something significantly different from the lenses you already use.
As noted by @glassartist the OP should review his favorite images (whatever their source). Besides FL, they will suggest the rather more important matter of lighting. Photography is painting with light. There's no one kind portrait.
