Curlyp
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.2 #4 · Portrait lens recommendation for D500 | |
@glassartist - thank you for your suggestions.
At the time I was looking at the voigtlander, I didn’t realize it was a full manual focus lens. At least at this point, I am not interested in learning how to “perfect” a manual lens.
I was not aware the Sigma 50-100 did not have the built in stabilization that my other two lenses have. I will definitely keep this in mind while shopping around for lenses.
I should have provided better clarity on the type of ‘portrait' photographs I would like to take. I plan to photograph our family and friends. So, I would say my portraits would consist more of poses, half body, full body, and spontaneous (pictures of our children and niceness playing). The environment will mainly be outside (no controlled backdrops or lighting). As you stated, I would like a sharp image with a soft blurred background.
As far as street goes, I’m looking to photograph what catches my eye. Whether it be a nice fountain with people sitting around it, people out and about and different buildings or shops that “appear” to have a unique aspect to them. This could be the lighting, a sign on the wall, etc.
I was playing around with the 70-300 yesterday early evening to see how it captures half body shots. Depending how far back I was, I mainly used the 70-135 range with Aperture priority. I did notice one down fall with the lens as the sun started to go down; I had to keep increasing the ISO in order to increase the shutter. If not, I would get some blur because the shutter is staying open longer. I would assume if I had a 70-200 f2.8 all the way through, I wouldn’t have that issue.
Lastly, you mentioned, “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.” What lens would you recommend that would be significantly different from the two I already own?
glassartist wrote:
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....Show more →
@AcuteShadows - see my response above in regards to the kid of portraits.
Thanks for your response as well.
Depending on the scene and the environment, I may want to get the whole background in focus. However, I suspect a majority of the time, I would like a sharp image with a soft blurred background.
AcuteShadows wrote:
What kind of portraits do you want to shoot?
A. Headshots, half body, full body, environmental, all of the above?
B. Controlled background, candid, background compression (focal length)?
If you don't have to get rid of the background with low depth of field, then f/2 (and smaller) is often the better choice than f/1.4. That would be f/2.8 for full frame. With a good lens with high resolution/acuity, anything larger than f/2.8 means you need to be extra careful with focus acquisition.
I'd get the Nikon f/1.8 50G, which saves you money for any future venture into full frame portrait photography. If you really want shallow depth of field, I'd suggest you buy a slow and older full frame camera used and add the Nikon f/1.8 85 G.
Manual focus is a challenge for portraits, and if you don't just want to do portrait photography, but you want the challenge, it can be rewarding. The 58mm f/1.4 Voigtländer is a great lens, but I use it on full frame, thus rarely for portraits. It might be a great portrait lens on a DX sensor, but it's manual focus.
Be careful with backlit stuff in the background. This makes for interesting photographs, but it is a real challenge for all lenses at the price point you are looking for. So ultimately, you may be looking for a Nikon f/1.4 105E for autofocus, or a Leica Summarit 2.4/90 for manual focus if you get serious about portrait photography. ...Show more →
|
