PDA

View Full Version : Help I need a New Lans!!!


Black Jack
06-17-2006, 06:48 AM
i have a nikkon d70s and i need a lans for portrets and macro what do YOU saggest?

thnx in advance Black Jack

staereo
06-17-2006, 08:25 AM
I dont intend on answering this post, as I think theres enough nikon users that could answer this better than a canon guy.

That being said, it would probably help them help you if you specify your price range as well as what you intend to do with the lens. Is it a walk around? Is it for studio work? What kind of low light requirement do you need? Do you want a zoom or prime? Are you asking for a single lens that will double role for macro AND portrait work, or are you asking for 2 seperate lens suggestions?

I think that will help the people that will answer this, help you.

I made a thread about this sort of thing a while back, but its dropping down pretty fast, and noone really looked at it much anyways.

I'm sure you'll get great advice here.

Bruce

Black Jack
06-18-2006, 06:09 AM
monney isnt an object so forgat about price range i need 1 lans for macro and portrets if it is posebale
and i dont have studio yet so it is walk aeound tnx bruce you halpt me alot

Eriol
06-19-2006, 03:21 PM
From what I read, face portraits are most effective at about 100mm. So, you would want a lens approximately in that focal range.

The hot Nikon lens is the 18-200mm VR II lens. It's about $700-$800 retail. Because of its popularity, it's out of stock in most places. That lens is considered a good "walk around" lens and its vibration reduction (VR) will help you take pictures in low light conditions without a tripod.

For macro photography, I've never used this lens, but you may want to check out the Nikon 105mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor Lens.

Black Jack
06-19-2006, 06:00 PM
tnx Eriol 18-200 vr II is prety good bat i need samthing that will help me with macro and portrets if it is posable and again tnx

Test Type
07-01-2006, 09:30 AM
Hi Black Jack,

You may want to look at the Nikon 60mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor. It's a 1:1 macro lens and it will give you a 35mm equivalent FOV of about 90mm which is fine for portraits.

http://nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1987

Black Jack
07-03-2006, 06:34 PM
Hi Black Jack,

You may want to look at the Nikon 60mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor. It's a 1:1 macro lens and it will give you a 35mm equivalent FOV of about 90mm which is fine for portraits.

http://nikonusa.com/template.php?cat=1&grp=5&productNr=1987

tnx man ill add it to my colection it is pretty good and i gat it for a low price of 280$

Shiro MS08th
07-06-2006, 12:09 AM
If its for potraits photoshoot and money's not a problem.
Get the top potrait lens like 135mm f/2 or 85mm f/1.4, doesn't harm to have an extra 50mm lens too, its very cheap and great for value.

For macro lens, i'm not sure so I can't help you on that.

Test Type
07-06-2006, 09:39 AM
If its for potraits photoshoot and money's not a problem.
Get the top potrait lens like 135mm f/2 or 85mm f/1.4, doesn't harm to have an extra 50mm lens too, its very cheap and great for value.

For macro lens, i'm not sure so I can't help you on that.

The problem with the 135 f/2 on a cropped sensor is that it will give a 35mm FOV equiv. of about 203mm. Way to long for most portraits.

The 85mm f/1.4 will give a 35mm FOV equiv. of about 128mm. Too long if this is your only portrait lens.

The 50mm will give a 35mm FOV equiv. of about 75mm. Just touching the bottom end of the acceptable portrait focal length but still a little short.

The 60mm with a 35mm FOV equiv. of about 90mm is about right. Plus it's a macro, which is what the OP was looking for.

Shiro MS08th
07-06-2006, 07:18 PM
The problem with the 135 f/2 on a cropped sensor is that it will give a 35mm FOV equiv. of about 203mm. Way to long for most portraits.

The 85mm f/1.4 will give a 35mm FOV equiv. of about 128mm. Too long if this is your only portrait lens.

The 50mm will give a 35mm FOV equiv. of about 75mm. Just touching the bottom end of the acceptable portrait focal length but still a little short.

The 60mm with a 35mm FOV equiv. of about 90mm is about right. Plus it's a macro, which is what the OP was looking for.

The 135 and 85, for normal uses or event maybe too long, that's why I said for modelshoot or photoshoot, where you have space and time.
Preference different I guess.

Black Jack
07-08-2006, 10:13 PM
what do you think about the tamron AF18-200mm F/3,5-6,3 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] MACRO ?

Eternal Drifter
07-09-2006, 12:13 PM
The Tamron 18-200 is a nice lens, but for portraiture you would be better off with the Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 lens because the F-stop being fixed gives you much more of a range at which you can use instead of being constrained by the depth of field. You also have to ask, are you handholding or tripoding? If you're handholding then I'd consider shelling out for VR lenses as well.

Black Jack
07-09-2006, 04:13 PM
ill think about it tnx for the graet ideas bat i like using 75 mm aspect so i think it is good inath for me (18-200)
i dont use a tripod so a vr lans is a must in my colection

jtnishi
07-10-2006, 04:12 PM
The Tamron 18-200 is a nice lens, but for portraiture you would be better off with the Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 lens because the F-stop being fixed gives you much more of a range at which you can use instead of being constrained by the depth of field. You also have to ask, are you handholding or tripoding? If you're handholding then I'd consider shelling out for VR lenses as well.
80-200 generally runs too long for portraiture at a normal distance (5-8', or about 2-3m). Yes, it can be used for portraiture (I know super_no_1 uses one for his shots, in fact, and gets pretty good shots with it), and in fact, arguably could produce a nicer portrait picture because of the flatter perspective at distance. However, to get the usual half-body size that one thinks about with portraiture, it requires a very long distance typically, closer to about 12-20' (4-7m). Not to mention that I don't see many such lenses used for macro.

ill think about it tnx for the graet ideas bat i like using 75 mm aspect so i think it is good inath for me (18-200)
i dont use a tripod so a vr lans is a must in my colection

I'm not a big fan of large multiplying zooms, because you have to give up a bit in image quality or aperture sometimes to get that massive variability. I don't know if I'd care about vibration reduction in a lens either if your lens is so slow that you lose the 2-3 stops advantage because you have to close down your lens. You probably could do fine with a large zoom lens, depending on your situation, but I'll go with everyone else in recommending you look at the other options first.

staereo
07-10-2006, 04:36 PM
Im with Jason. Only thing I will argue is outside of cosplay photography 80-200 isnt bad. (As Jason said, its flattering.)

If you have room for that, as in a studio with 25-70ish ft (8m-23m) of length to play with, this is GREAT STUFF.

As a walk around lens, though, you'll find yourself far too cramped. Cons are NOTABLY limited space venues. Its a trade off, and typically it seems that the distortion and unflattery of a wider angle lens has become an accepted flaw in cosplay photography. (At least from images ive seen, and the reactions to those images by the cosplayers.)

Bruce

Test Type
07-10-2006, 05:35 PM
what do you think about the tamron AF18-200mm F/3,5-6,3 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] MACRO ?

ill think about it tnx for the graet ideas bat i like using 75 mm aspect so i think it is good inath for me (18-200)
i dont use a tripod so a vr lans is a must in my colection

The Tamron 18-200mm isn't much of a macro (1:3.7 magnification) and I believe that the Nikon 18-200 is a better lens than the Tamron and it has VR.

However, if you think that you might be happy with the macro capabilities of the Tamron 18-200mm (1:3.7 vs. the 1:1 of the Nikon 60mm Macro lens) then you should look at the Tamron SP AF 28-75MM F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) MACRO, which has a magnification ration of 1:3.9.

I have used this lens on a cropped sensor camera with great success and if you get a good copy you will find that it is sharp even at f/2.8.

BTW I donít think you said which lenses (if any) you already have.

jtnishi
07-10-2006, 10:09 PM
However, if you think that you might be happy with the macro capabilities of the Tamron 18-200mm (1:3.7 vs. the 1:1 of the Nikon 60mm Macro lens) then you should look at the Tamron SP AF 28-75MM F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) MACRO, which has a magnification ration of 1:3.9.

I have used this lens on a cropped sensor camera with great success and if you get a good copy you will find that it is sharp even at f/2.8.
Strongly seconded. The Tamron 28-75/2.8 is the walkaround lens I use at most conventions, though admittedly, on a Canon body, not a Nikon. On a digital 1.5x - 1.6x crop body, it runs from normal aspect to medium telephoto, and is a great lens for cosplay photography during convention space for hall cosplay. At a distance of about 8', you can get a full body shot, and closing in to about 6-7' at full zoom, you can get a fairly tight half body shot. I spend 75% of my time on this lens, and I love it to death. It's a well-loved lens on the DPReview forums, mainly because the brand name equivalents cost >$1k (Canon's runs about $1100, Nikon's runs about $1400 on B&H, which is cheaper than retail), compared to the ~$400-500 street price for the Tamron, but the Tamron still performs admirably compared to the brand names, to the point that for the budget photographer, it's a bargain.

A really good copy can be sharp at f/2.8. I find mine just a hair soft there, but acceptable. My bigger concern was just making sure focusing was accurate. At f/4, this thing can be tack sharp, and a lens of beauty. If you're going to go with the Tamron, by all means, find a store where you can try the exact lens out before you buy it. Any good camera store will allow you to do this. It's worth the slight premium you might have to pay over going online to get a good copy.

As a macro lens, it really is only by textual definition of such, and not really a macro lens by any serious means. It's about as macro a macro lens as a macro setting will do on a compact digital, to be honest. By Test Type's note, given a sensor of 23.7mm across and 15.5mm wide (the D70s' sensor), the smallest object you can photograph while filling the frame with the Tamron is going to be ~9.2cm long and ~6cm wide. Most insects are smaller than that, for example, short of maybe a stick bug. You can certainly photograph smaller insects, but compositionally, you'll never be able to fill the frame with them. If you need serious macro capability, the only real choice is to invest in a real macro lens.

Im with Jason. Only thing I will argue is outside of cosplay photography 80-200 isnt bad. (As Jason said, its flattering.)

If you have room for that, as in a studio with 25-70ish ft (8m-23m) of length to play with, this is GREAT STUFF.

As a walk around lens, though, you'll find yourself far too cramped. Cons are NOTABLY limited space venues. Its a trade off, and typically it seems that the distortion and unflattery of a wider angle lens has become an accepted flaw in cosplay photography. (At least from images ive seen, and the reactions to those images by the cosplayers.)

Bruce
::sigh:: If only more of us could get 25' studios. XD

I've done portraits at about 20' before, using a Canon 70-200/2.8IS. I was getting lazy because I was prepping for a concert (where a long fast lens like that is helpful). It really does flatten the perspective. But having to stretch the full length of a floor space because I wanted a full body shot was just evil. XD If you're just doing half-body shots, you can get away certainly with a 70-200, but full body shots get damned annoying even at 70mm on 1.5-1.6x crop.

Super No 1
07-11-2006, 12:00 AM
80-200 generally runs too long for portraiture at a normal distance (5-8', or about 2-3m). Yes, it can be used for portraiture (I know super_no_1 uses one for his shots, in fact, and gets pretty good shots with it), and in fact, arguably could produce a nicer portrait picture because of the flatter perspective at distance.

The 80-200 lens is my absolute favorite lens to use. The first time I really used it to shoot cosplay was AX 2004 and I liked the results. Originally, I bought it to shoot stage shows, but as a portrait lens, it works very well for me. Yes, you need a lot of room to use the lens so I tend to stick to areas of a convention where there is enough room to use it. Sure, I miss a lot of shots because I have the wrong lens on, but that's an acceptible trade-off.
Plus, it's a heavy lens.

Black Jack
07-11-2006, 09:01 AM
i allredy gat the 18-200 and it is prety good acutaly i cant fiand lots of cosplayers bat i gat a some nice pictures with it tnx evrybody

Cicada
07-16-2006, 06:27 AM
here's what I've got, and i'd reccomend every single one ;) :

17-55 DX
50mm 1.8
24-120 VR
70-200 VR

i kinda wanna replace the 24-120 with the 18-200 though, as a walkaround/all purpose for now because I'm waiting for the D2Xs, then my D70 will be my second camera with the complementary lens mounted. 70-200 VR is a great lens and is very good for portraiture [105mm minimum @ 1.5 crop]

Cikgu101
07-18-2006, 08:11 AM
How about the sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG Macro <-- got this recently Performance is Very Satisfactory to me :rockon:
but
The Nikon 18-200 VR is equally as alluring :skidude2:

Black Jack
07-18-2006, 04:52 PM
yes the tamron AF18-200mm F/3,5-6,3 XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] MACRO is graet it is a walkaround all perpes lans and it has allmost the same effect as a vr lans (atlist to me) so if you want to bay it go for it i did