Portrait + general lens

[bmgo]

I recently purchased my D40. So far, I am learning a lot about it. I am interested in taking portraits of my 5 1/2 month old and possibly eliminating the need to go to a portrait studio. Also, I have been doing a lot of reading here and on other sites, and have read about the benefits of using the 18-125 lens as a "walk around" lens. Most likely I will purchase that one unless others have better options. Does everyone recommend the Nikkon lens for this purpose? Also, what lens would you recommend for the portraits? I have heard good and bad about the 50mm (no auto focus), and am wondering if there is a better one to use. Price really is not an issue at this point, however if I end up spending the "big bucks" on a I would prefer it be one that will upgrade with me. I also plan on purchasing the 600 flash. What else would you recommend for taking portraits at home. Right now, I do not have a room that would be good with natural light. Any and all suggestions are appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Also, I have purchased a tripod (not real expensive, will mostly be for portraits), extra battary, and remote.

[jcon]

If money is not a problem then get the Nikkor 17-55mm F2.8 and be happy the rest of your photographic life!!:D


Dont take this the wrong way, but if money isnt a real problem, why did you choose the D40?

[bmgo]

Best Buy Guy...As a new to DSLR, I was told that was the best one to get. However, after much research and reading on this site (like the last 3+ hours) and some looking, I am wondering if I wouldn't be better off getting a better camera that comes with a better kit lens??? (AND doesn't have the AF problems)

[jcon]

Best Buy Guy...As a new to DSLR, I was told that was the best one to get. However, after much research and reading on this site (like the last 3+ hours) and some looking, I am wondering if I wouldn't be better off getting a better camera that comes with a better kit lens??? (AND doesn't have the AF problems)

Im sorry you got tricked by the Best Buy guy. If you still can, I would take it back and get my money back and either get a D50 or D80. Dont give the business to Best Buy either, go elsewhere. D50 is a better camera for the same price. Oh, and you dont have a limited list of lenses to choose from then, like you currently do with the D40. I HATE BestBuy, I am so glad I quit working there years ago.

No matter what body you end up with, the Nikkor 17-55mm F2.8 is THE lens to get.

[bmgo]

Thanks, I just checked and there would be a $90 restocking fee, but I think it would be worth it. I just posted about "best priced cameras.com" and they have a d80 w/18-135 lens for 750. Think that might be the way to go?

[jcon]

I would contact the store manager and tell him you were lied to by a salesman and that you wish to return the camera due to that fact and that you want them to waive the restocking fee. If they refuse, threaten to report them to the BBB.

As for BestPriceCameras, stay away!! they have a reseller rating of 0.22 of a possible 10:eek: *CROOKS*

Look into BHPhoto.com, a little more expensive but worth it! Here is a link on most of the camera sites online and whos good and bad, read before you buy.

Oh and yes, the D80 would be a huge step up from the D40.

http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14677

[swgod98]

I just posted about "best priced cameras.com" and they have a d80 w/18-135 lens for 750. Think that might be the way to go?

I don't think that will be a legitimate sale...sounds way too cheap. Best Buy isn't that bad, if you can afford their prices (usually retail and that means a bit high).

I bought my last two camera's there, though. S2 IS and the D80 since I had 12% off coupons both times. That saved me money and allowed me to get them locally.

Much of your interests in photography is similar to mine. I am actually researching studio equipment right now. Though, I'll probably be spending $500-800...not sure what you're going to be putting into it, but I'll be starting off with the SB-800 (possibly 600).

I've got the Nikkor 50mm 1.4, so I think I'm set there. If you do decide to return the D40 for the D50 or D80, you can go with that option (or the 50mm 1.8 to save money)...or even the 85mm 1.8 for a bit closer shots.

If you keep the D40, you can get the Nikon lens jcon mentioned, but that is F'ing expensive (at least in my book). There's got to be other decent lenses in the 50-100mm range, but I don't know lenses that well.

I think all of Nikon camera's will wirelessly control the SB-600 (??), so you could actually use the 600 off to the side, mounted on something...stand or otherwise. Then maybe buy a reflector of sorts for the other side. Then you just need a decent environment/background.

I'd be curious to hear if anyone has any other ideas about equipment for your needs...

[Kellie]

I agree with Jason. Call BB and tell them you want to upgrade and if they waive the restocking fee, you will buy your D80 from them (it's currently on sale there) otherwise you will take your business elsewhere.

Then get the 50mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4 or 85mm 1.8 (or 1.4 but that is $999 lol) and a flash to use with your kit lens. I thought the 50mm 1.8 was too long, but now I love it and already want the 85mm 1.8 next. :o My kids don't like me "in their faces" much (can't say I blame them), so the longer prime might allow me to get nicer portraits and candids.

About the 18-135mm - I just had to replace my used 18-170mm yesterday (it stopped focusing, but was still in the return period - thank goodness). :rolleyes: Because the 18-70mm didn't come in a kit, I had to return both the body and used lens and the store replaced them with a brand new D80 + 18-135mm kit for the same price. I plan to replace the kit lens anyway, so that was fine with me since I got a great deal in the long run. I do think the reach of the 18-135mm will be nice, but mostly for outside. It definitely needs a flash indoors.

ETA: I'm new to dSLR too. The D80 won't be over your head. You'll quickly learn to appreciate its extra features (like WB bracketing that I found today). Trust me. ;)

[XaiLo]

A thousand questions is worth the avoidance of a bad experience. I know this is after the fact but you have to do your reasearch and understand what you want. I'm not going to fault the salesman here; he could have just honestly thought this entry level camera was appropriate to meet your needs. Be that as it may... your best bet is to try to get BB to wave the restocking fee... first don't mention the fact that you intend on buying the D80 with them. Explain to them that the salesman did not understand what your needs were and suggested an improper camera... then if that fails ask them to be fair to you and wave the restocking fee and you'll purchase the D80 through them. Good luck just be firm and persistant.

[bmgo]

So after much searching, thinking, and number crunching, I decided to buy the D50. For my skills, it did not make any sense for me to spend an extra $500 on the D80. Now, I am wondering if there is a good portrait lense that also has a zoom. Again, I have a 5 1/2 month old, and for the amount of movement he has, I think a zoom lense would be the best. Most likely I will end up getting the 50mm as well, but am thinking that a little more play at this point in his life would be the best. Also, is the 18-135 the best lense to get for a walk around? Is Nikon the brand that I should stick with, or does sigma have lenses that are just as good? I am able to spend the money, but if I can not tell the difference, I just don't see the point of spending the extra money. All responses are appreciated!! Thanks much.

[jcon]

The lens that myself and many others fall in love with is the Nikkor 17-55mm F2.8. Mine never comes off my D200. Its pricey at around $1500 but trust me, its WELL worth the money, its the best of the best. If you want portraits, this is your lens! You can also use it for walk-around. Sigma offers an 18-50mm F2.8 equivallent but its image quality isnt as good, its a decent lens for around $400. I think thats the range(17,18-50mm) you would most be suited for.

I think you made the right choice going with the D50, enjoy your new, wonderful toy!

[Rooz]

you will notice a massive difference, (photo quality and capability), of an indoor shot between a nikkor 2.8 and a sigma, (or nikon) 3.5+. you get what you pay for in this instance and if money is no object, i don't know that there's even a decision to make here. the lens is simply outstanding.

[coldrain]

Portrait ranges are between about 80mm and 135mm. This is because the slight tele effect of those ranges is very flattering (slight shortening of perspective).

With your D50 that will mean that a 50mm f1.8 lens will come close (50 x 1.5 = 75mm).
One of the BEST lenses for portraits to get is a Nikon 85mm f1.8. 85mm x 1.5 = 127.5mm. A bit over $300.

There are also some zoom lenses with a good portrait range.
You can look at the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX DG (36-105mm) is very nice at a bit over $300.
The Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 Di is also a lens with a nice range at around $400 or so (42-112.5mm).
Also the new Sigma 50-150 f2.8 will be a nice portrait zoom, and will give you quite a bit of tele for other purposes (75-225mm).

All in all, going for a D50 over a D40 will give you quite some portrait lens options for relativily affordable prices.

And while that Nikon 17-55 f2.8 is a nice lens, it is not perfect, especially at the longer end of 55mm (and that would be the end to use for portraits). It loses some contrast and resolution there, making it hardly better at 55mm than the more affordable competition). So, no need to spend that much for this purpose.

[T06]

And while that Nikon 17-55 f2.8 is a nice lens, it is not perfect, especially at the longer end of 55mm (and that would be the end to use for portraits). It loses some contrast and resolution there, making it hardly better at 55mm than the more affordable competition). So, no need to spend that much for this purpose.

Mate you really have to get out more. Yes this lens has some really bad numbers, just, but since you don't have a D40,D80, D200, D50, D70, D70s, caching caching caching, to try the real world tests why the vehemence against Nikon. Please don't quote me with another scathing opinion from I've got a big forehead photozone. Honestly mate, take some photos & do 'YOUR' comparo.;) ;)
Honestly if your cojones are big enough ask me the reverse.
Oh & by the way. You are more than welcome here anytime you choose, your attitude on this site I have noticed is not so enticing, mate honestly we do Nikons here, please leave the antagonism at the door.;)

[coldrain]

T06, this is a website for information. Not even the Nikon DSLR forum is meant as a clubhouse for Nikon fanmail.

I can and may advice anyone about lenses for their intended use and their budgets, regardless of what brand is stamped on the box. And if someone will want to know what I base my opinion on, I will be happy to share information.

So, if you have any real information to share about why a 17-55 f2.8 from Nikon is worth and preferrable as portrait lens above the lenses I listed above that all suit the posters budget way better, then please, just share your findings and sample photos (you do have comparison sample photos of portraits with above mentioned lenses, don't you? Your post seems to imply that).

Since this site is not Nikonians, or some other Nikon-shrine site created for the purpose of adoring any product Nikon pushes out the door, everyone, including me, may offer a more critical note about a Nikon product, a Canon product, a Sigma product, a Sony product, a Pentax product and what not.

And pointing out that the performance of your beloved lens loses a bit in the long end, both in contrast and resolution, is very valid information, especially since that is the intended use (portait lens).

So, if you have information for the OP that shows that this $1200 lens at 55mm has $800 worth of extra special powers over the lenses I mentioned, please do share. But leave me alone.

[jcon]

And while that Nikon 17-55 f2.8 is a nice lens, it is not perfect, especially at the longer end of 55mm (and that would be the end to use for portraits). It loses some contrast and resolution there, making it hardly better at 55mm than the more affordable competition

Do you have samples and examples to back that up? Comparisons of the 17-55mm lens along with the "affordable competition"?




So, if you have information for the OP that shows that this $1200 lens at 55mm has $800 worth of extra special powers over the lenses I mentioned, please do share. But leave me alone.



Share your iniformation and examples?

[coldrain]

Do you have samples and examples to back that up? Comparisons of the 17-55mm lens along with the "affordable competition"?

Share your iniformation and examples?
Of course jcon, you know that I do not mind sharing information with you or others.

Here are 4 graphs from a test by Foto Magazin, they tested the Nikon 28-70 f2.8, 17-55 f2.8, 60mm f2.8, 18-70 f3.5-4.5, Sigma 18-50 f2.8 and Tamron 18-200 in a group test on a D70s and a D2x.
The dotted lines are from the D2x. Concentrate on those. The D70s graphs are not really interesting, since the D70s applied sharpness on its own (as stated in the review).
In the D2x graphs you can see two things.
1: the 17-55 performs very well at 17 and 28mm. At 55mm the resolved resolution goes down a lot.
2: The Sigma 18-50 performs more even, beating the 3x more expensive 17-55 at the long end resolution wise.

This is the at portrait end anyway, which this thread is about.
If you are interested in the graphs of any of the other lenses in that test, let me know.

[coldrain]

Another source:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_1755_28/index.htm

Here you do see a drop of resolution towards 55mm, just not as pronounced as the Foto Magazin test.

[coldrain]

Another test, by ColorFoto magazin on a D200.

It shows what Foto Magazin's test showed too: Very high resolution at 17mm and 35mm, and resolution going down to more average levels at 55m, and a lot softer in the corners (as you also see from the photozone review).

But what this test shows is not just a loss of resolution on the edges, but also a quite severe loss of contrast towards 55mm.

At 17mm it scored 77 points.
from those:
31.5 points on resolution
40 points on contrast.

Resolution the edge:
1005/1010 line pairs per image height (fully open/stopped down 2 stops)
Center:
1075/1096

At 35mm it scored 75 points.
from those:
31 points on resolution
37.5 points for contrast.

Resolution the edge:
943/1017 line pairs per image height (fully open/stopped down 2 stops)
Center:
1045/1110

At 35mm it scored 68 points.
from those:
29 points on resolution
32 points for contrast.

Resolution the edge:
836/980 line pairs per image height (fully open/stopped down 2 stops)
Center:
966/1083

All three tests show a resolution drop towards 55mm. Two particularly at the edges, one doesn't specify (Foto Magazin).
The only test that also tests contrast sees a BIG drop in contrast towards 55mm.

[jcon]

Of course jcon, you know that I do not mind sharing information with you or others.


I know. I do agree that no matter what camera one owns, that doesnt mean they cant share info or experience on another brand. Ive gone through that ALOT on the Panasonic forum;)

I do disagree with the info you have shared, though. I owned the older version( the one that was in the above tests) and now the Nikkor. The Nikkor performs better, to me and my photos, in every possible way. I do use the long end alot and I was blown away with the first few photos I took with the Nikkor. Since this is about portraits, and of a child in house, thats basically what I have been shooting, my 11 month old niece, and the Sigma doesnt come close to color, detail, contrast or anyhting else you want to throw in there. Dont get me wrong, its a great alternative if your strapped for cash, but in real life experiences, to me, it doesnt compare.

Anyway, to the OP, no matter what lens you decide on, I strongly suggest it be a constant F2.8. You also might want to look into one of the speedlight flashes.

[Rooz]

graphs, graphs and more graphs...

[tcadwall]

Thanks Rooz. I think you speak for many.

Graphs have a place, but as we all know, lenses have strengths and weaknesses. You can't compare the weakest point of a lens, and ignore every other point of the lens that excels, in order to make a case that a lens is no better than its competitors.

[Rooz]

i can only speak for myself, even though i am sure it is a view shared by many, that if i am asking for lens advice i wouldn;t bother looking at graphs of the performance. that may be peripheral info i may look at but i wouldn't use it to make any decisions. its more a passing interest.

i want to hear from people that HAVE the lens or have USED the lens first hand. i want to hear from people that have taken photos with it and get some samples of the photos so i can see the capabilities.

i have personally used the nikkor many, many times and i have seen the results it produces. more importantly i have seen the results it produces in comparison to my lens and other nikkor lens'. it is an outstanding piece of kit and no graph is going to convince me otherwise no matter what the little colourful lines and bars seem to indicate. i am an enthusiast and a photographer, (i use that term VERY loosely !:p ), not a scientist or an engineer.