Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
Best Portrait Lens
Page <<first <prev 5 of 7 next> last>>
Apr 27, 2014 15:43:36   #
imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida
 
Gobuster wrote:
The OP has received a great deal of advice, but I urge you all to re-assess his requirements:

Budget - under $1000
Camera - D7100 crop sensor
Needs to get full body shots in confined areas and 70mm too long, not enough FoV.
Does not want a heavy lens.
Hand trembles and he shoots hand held.

Really, the only single lens that will serve his needs will be a zoom in the approximate 16-120mm range preferably with image stabilization.

The Nikon lenses with a 4 star rating that best fit the criteria are:

24-85 F3.5/4.5 VR at around $500 FX
24-120 F4 VR at around $1000 FX (may be over budget now)
16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR at around $500 DX
18-140mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR at around $500 DX

There may also be Sigma, Tamron and Tokina equivalents in those ranges.

My personal experience with the 24-85 is that it's very good for portraits. For sure a bagful of fast primes may be better, but that is not what the OP is searching for. Remember he wants to shoot full length body and head shots in a confined area with just one lens.
The OP has received a great deal of advice, but I ... (show quote)


This is the one I meant to quote ! - again, sorry ....

Reply
Apr 27, 2014 16:25:41   #
Tom47 Loc: Gettysburg, PA
 
Nikon 105mm f2.8 macro it's excellent for as portrait lens and also gives you the ability for macro.

Reply
Apr 27, 2014 16:45:49   #
Vlux
 
IMO, unless graphics in the background are an important element in the shot, they should not be there. Neutral backgrounds work best for portraits and head shots. Then you can shoot at 4.0 or 5.6 ( preferable ) so that part of a turned head does not go out of focus. It also helps to move back a little bit.
I realize that outdoor shooting does not always offer a neutral background -- but might if one looks around. Portable backgrounds are available. As much as possible, the photographer should try to control the set-up.

Reply
 
 
Apr 27, 2014 16:56:46   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
donmabry wrote:
I have a Nikon 7100 and I'm looking for a good lens that could double for fashion, glamour and portraits. Is there such an animal that can be purchased for under $1000? I have a 70-200 and I've heard that it's a great portrait lens. The problem is, I'm moving around a lot and changing set-ups almost after every shot. So, it's difficult working on a tripod and the 70-200 is so heavy, I have trouble hand-holding it and moving around as much as I do. Plus, I have a slight tremor in my left hand and that makes it even worse. I've considered the 85mm but sometimes have to move away from the subject more than the 85mm will allow. Sometimes even the 70 mm range is pushing it. This is important when I'm trying to get a full-body shot in the frame and can't get far away from my subject to allow this. What would all you hoggers recommend?
I have a Nikon 7100 and I'm looking for a good len... (show quote)


Don,
I'd recommend something in the 80mm to 105mm range, however as a prime lens. The less mechanisms and glass in the lens, the less the weight. I would avoid anything less than 80mm as requires the camera t be set up a lot closer to the subject. This can cause a bit of personal space discomfort on the part of the model. A prime 135mm would also be a recommendation, depending on how much space you have in the area in which you photograph.
--Bob

Reply
Apr 27, 2014 17:13:45   #
grandmabish
 
For portraits you cannot go wrong with the 85mm1.8 I learned the hard way that the 50mm can make your subject look out of sorts. I have a crop camera, but I believe it is the same rule for a Full frame.

Reply
Apr 27, 2014 17:19:32   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
grandmabish wrote:
For portraits you cannot go wrong with the 85mm1.8 I learned the hard way that the 50mm can make your subject look out of sorts. I have a crop camera, but I believe it is the same rule for a Full frame.


:thumbup:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG1pN5Vic8E

Reply
Apr 27, 2014 17:35:36   #
grandmabish
 
Thanks for the video...that is what I learned.

Reply
 
 
Apr 27, 2014 17:39:42   #
Manglesphoto Loc: 70 miles south of St.Louis
 
donmabry wrote:
I have a Nikon 7100 and I'm looking for a good lens that could double for fashion, glamour and portraits. Is there such an animal that can be purchased for under $1000? I have a 70-200 and I've heard that it's a great portrait lens. The problem is, I'm moving around a lot and changing set-ups almost after every shot. So, it's difficult working on a tripod and the 70-200 is so heavy, I have trouble hand-holding it and moving around as much as I do. Plus, I have a slight tremor in my left hand and that makes it even worse. I've considered the 85mm but sometimes have to move away from the subject more than the 85mm will allow. Sometimes even the 70 mm range is pushing it. This is important when I'm trying to get a full-body shot in the frame and can't get far away from my subject to allow this. What would all you hoggers recommend?
I have a Nikon 7100 and I'm looking for a good len... (show quote)

I have used the 24-120 for most of my glamour work usually shooting between 70mm and 100 mm.

Reply
Apr 27, 2014 18:29:31   #
Pentony Loc: Earth Traveller
 
To All Replies: After just reviewing the replies only on the first page, please thoroughly read the OP before replying.

He stated
1. he already has the 70 - 200 mm zoom AND IT IS TOO HEAVY
2. he finds that both the 85 mm and 135 mm doesn't allow him room to frame.

Only one person's response made sense which was recommending the 50 mm.

Don't be so quick to respond.

READ THE REQUEST, SO YOU DON'T COME OFF AS BEING IGNORANT (STUPID).....

.....and waste a lot of time.

Reply
Apr 27, 2014 19:06:05   #
TheoB Loc: Los Angeles, CA
 
donmabry wrote:
I have a Nikon 7100 and I'm looking for a good lens that could double for fashion, glamour and portraits. Is there such an animal that can be purchased for under $1000? I have a 70-200 and I've heard that it's a great portrait lens. The problem is, I'm moving around a lot and changing set-ups almost after every shot. So, it's difficult working on a tripod and the 70-200 is so heavy, I have trouble hand-holding it and moving around as much as I do. Plus, I have a slight tremor in my left hand and that makes it even worse. I've considered the 85mm but sometimes have to move away from the subject more than the 85mm will allow. Sometimes even the 70 mm range is pushing it. This is important when I'm trying to get a full-body shot in the frame and can't get far away from my subject to allow this. What would all you hoggers recommend?
I have a Nikon 7100 and I'm looking for a good len... (show quote)


I haven't read all of the replies so this may have already been suggested, but Sigma makes a 50-150 f/2.8 which might meet your needs and fits your budget. I have no personal experience with this lens, but it might be worth looking into.

Reply
Apr 27, 2014 19:09:52   #
Basil Loc: New Mexico
 
A friend of mine has the Canon 85 f1.2L on his 5D Mk III and WOW does that take great portraits of his grandkids!

Reply
 
 
Apr 27, 2014 20:30:53   #
imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida
 
Pentony wrote:
To All Replies: After just reviewing the replies only on the first page, please thoroughly read the OP before replying.

He stated
1. he already has the 70 - 200 mm zoom AND IT IS TOO HEAVY
2. he finds that both the 85 mm and 135 mm doesn't allow him room to frame.

Only one person's response made sense which was recommending the 50 mm.

Don't be so quick to respond.

READ THE REQUEST, SO YOU DON'T COME OFF AS BEING IGNORANT (STUPID).....

.....and waste a lot of time.
To All Replies: After just reviewing the replies ... (show quote)


Soooo, what is wrong with a 28-105 2.8 ???

Reply
Apr 27, 2014 21:39:26   #
RRS Loc: Not sure
 
imagemeister wrote:
Soooo, what is wrong with a 28-105 2.8 ???


:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Reply
Apr 27, 2014 21:58:11   #
amehta Loc: Boston
 
imagemeister wrote:
Soooo, what is wrong with a 28-105 2.8 ???

Is there an AF version for Canon/Nikon mounts?

Reply
Apr 27, 2014 22:03:44   #
imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida
 
amehta wrote:
Is there an AF version for Canon/Nikon mounts?


Yes, The AF versions are most common - but there are also manual focus versions also. This was ( and still is ) a revolutionary lens when it came out - at the time about $700 new ( about $1400 in todays $$) ....

Reply
Page <<first <prev 5 of 7 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.