Nikon 24-70mm (Page 4): Somewhat off-topic (as that's never happened before): How about a 135mm f/2 for $549? No, it's not the $1200 Nikon DC and it's not AF, but Rokinon/Samyang has...

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Somewhat off-topic (as that's never happened before):

How about a 135mm f/2 for $549?
No, it's not the $1200 Nikon DC and it's not AF, but Rokinon/Samyang has been getting pretty ambitious lately.

Nikon Rumors review with sample photos HERE.

WereWolf1967 Loc: Knoxville, TN

DavidPine wrote:

No, not really. The 70-200 f/2.8 is a fantastic portrait lens. Images (portraits) should be made from 15' to 9' from subject.

David,

I downloaded the photo of the young lady.

Darn Man, you can see every little follicle of "peach fuzz" on her chin as well as individual follicles of hair in her scalp.

That camera/lens combo should come with a warning, "If using this lens and camera combination while photographing any woman over 25, it is strongly suggested that a Zeiss Softar lens be placed in front of the front lens element"!!!

WereWolf1967 Loc: Knoxville, TN

DavidPine wrote:

That was the shape of the soft box on her right side. It was a one light shot with a reflector on her left side. I am an amateur and only shoot for my pleasure. Therefore, I make lots of mistakes and usually on a daily basis. I do appreciate your critique though.

If that shot is a "mistake", I want to take a mistake class from you.

Tai Chi Loc: Virginia

DavidPine wrote:

That was the shape of the soft box on her right side. It was a one light shot with a reflector on her left side. I am an amateur and only shoot for my pleasure. Therefore, I make lots of mistakes and usually on a daily basis. I do appreciate your critique though.

That is funny, I also use the 70-200 f/2.8 and make tons of mistakes; although, your "mistake" does not affect me at all. Mine are really very good mistakes...Thank you for posting your beautiful picture. I think, I also answered SteveR.
:lol: :thumbup: :lol: :thumbup: :lol: :thumbup:

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

SteveR wrote:

Is this lens long enough to be used as a portrait lens? I trying to decided whether to purchase this lens or the 70-200mm first.

I use it with a Nikon D300 for headshots. With a 1.4 multiplication factor the 70mm setting equates to a 98mm on a 35mm camera, which is pretty much ideal. If you have a full frame camera you'll probably want to back off a little and crop loosely to avoid distortion.

WmLeeGriffin Loc: PA

Dave that is just good work!

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

SteveR wrote:

Is this lens long enough to be used as a portrait lens? I trying to decided whether to purchase this lens or the 70-200mm first.

I am from the longer is better psyche .....more control of backround blur is better....definitely 70-200 , especially for outdoor environmental - except it is so big, heavy, and intimidating ! The Nikon 70-200 is only 140mm at portrait distances - just so you know. A 200 2.8 prime would be nice , but Nikon does not make one. This is why Tony Northrop keeps his Canon gear for portraits.

Meganephron Loc: Fort Worth, TX

I think I said that not implied. It is a great portrait lens

GeneC Loc: Rhode Island

The Nikon 135mm f2 on a cropped sensor gives you approx. a 200mm f2.8.

Meganephron Loc: Fort Worth, TX

FM wrote:

David-fantastic. This lady is Gorgeous!!!!!!!! send it to MGM-
and the photo is great- The 70-200 2.8 is a must have lens in
my mind.
FM

Nice por trait on black background. So if you don't care about the 60% of the picture that is not the subject, shoot all portraits on black. The 70 -200 begins compressing the periphery the longer you make it. The OP question only overlaps at 70 mm. Not a perfect portrait lens. There are a lot of reasons to own a 70-200 but portraits aren'e necessarily one. He owns the 105 prime and that is the better lens for this purpose

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

imagemeister wrote:

I am from the longer is better psyche .....more control of backround blur is better....definitely 70-200 , especially for outdoor environmental - except it is so big, heavy, and intimidating ! The Nikon 70-200 is only 140mm at portrait distances - just so you know. A 200 2.8 prime would be nice , but Nikon does not make one. This is why Tony Northrop keeps his Canon gear for portraits.

Go here - http://petapixel.com/2014/09/04/why-i-want-to-switch-to-nikon-but-cant-tony-northrup-throws-gas-on-the-canikon-debate/ - for a good explanation of 70-200 portrait work beginning at 8:00

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

imagemeister wrote:

I am from the longer is better psyche .....more control of backround blur is better....definitely 70-200 , especially for outdoor environmental - except it is so big, heavy, and intimidating ! The Nikon 70-200 is only 140mm at portrait distances - just so you know. A 200 2.8 prime would be nice , but Nikon does not make one. This is why Tony Northrop keeps his Canon gear for portraits.

The Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR II is only 140 at portrait distances but that is not the only version of that lens made. Nikon may not make a 200/2.8 but they make both a 200/2.0 (pricey, but a fantastic lens) and a 180/2.8D which is, in my opinion, one of the best lenses Nikon has produced. Other than the ones mentioned, there are many other lenses that fit the bill. Tony Northrop is welcome to use what he wishes; however there are many fine lens choices in both systems. I do have a 400/2.8 but have never tried it for a portrait, nor have I used my newly acquired Sigma 150-600. They are longer so perhaps they are better! If you believe the 70-200 is big and heavy, try one of the last two I mentioned.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

cjc2 wrote:

The Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR II is only 140 at portrait... (show quote)

I use 300 2.8 - so I do know what heavy is .......

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

imagemeister wrote:

I use 300 2.8 - so I do know what heavy is .......

So we have some similar lenses. That one, depending on specific model, is about the same as the Sigma 150-600 Sport. Wouldn't mind the new 400/L as it's a feather compared to my much older AFS model. The 70-200 is a lightweight unless you compare it to something like a 50. Have a good night.

Lloyd Miller Loc: Washington state

The first thing I noticed was the catch light being different in each eye. Under closer inspection I see that it is the lashes in her left eye that gets in the way. Yes, I know it can be fixed and I have done many of them...other wise great portrait.