DSLRUsers.com

I know, I know.... but I need some help deciding which lens to buy. I am about to place an order for a D200 and am going to get another lens as well.

The lens I want will mainly be used for portraits. Very similar type of photos taken in this album:

http://thefollans.smugmug.com/gallery/2781634

Now before everyone starts recommending the 85mm 1.4, it is on my list, in fact I almost placed an order for it.

But then I started thinking if it had enough versatility if it was my only "main" lens. Would I be better off with a zoom 2.8 lens to give me more flexibility?

So I was looking at the 28-70mm 2.8 http://www.nikon.com.au/productitem.php?pid=82-8945b55bdb. More pricey than the 85, not as much reach but then maybe be better suited for my needs?

I sort of think I need something in the 35 - 135 range??? Is there any one lens that covers this range (which is also constant 2.8?)

There is the 80 - 200mm but then this might be to long for close quarter (room/studio) photography. I do have the 50mm 1.4 though so maybe I can make use of that in these situations?

As you can see I am ready to lay down the $$$ but on which lens???



Cheers Guys,
W00DY

if you have a studio 20m long, then the 70-200VR (or 80-200) would be great.

If you have somehting more like 4-6 m room length to shoot, then 28-70 is fantastic. It covers 80% of my portrait shots in studio environment (70-200 if outdoors).

If you like to have a wide angle perspective in your studio work, then perhaps the 17-55.

In addition to physical room constraints, what perspective do you like in your style of shots? Looking at the album you posted, ourdoor, go to 200mm, 28-70 is gerat for indoor working distances (70mm gives you some breathing space from the posing subject).

I have the 85 1.4, 50 1.4, 28-70 2.8 and 80-200 2.8. The 50 1.4 is rarely on the camera. If I'm doing head and shoulders work, you cannot beat the 85 1.4, although I would not discount the 85 1.8. There is no word to describe the detail and bokeh on the 85 1.4 but exquisite. I use the 28-70 2.8 for wider portrait work and as Bruce says the 80-200 (or 70-200VR if I had one) if you need a bit more length. I have also considered getting the 17-35 2.8 (I think that's the one) for group work but as I do that infrequently haven't ventured down that path yet. I try to stay away from the DX glass, just in case Nikon do go full frame one day.

IMHO you have the choice of 85 1.4, 28-70, 80-200 or any combination depending on what you want to primarilly do (which I suspect would necessitate the first 2 lenses). If money was no object I'd get those 3 (well maybe the 70-200VR instead) and a 17-35 2.8 for group work and a Fuji S5 Pro.

The S5 Pro is the next thing on my shopping list.

Cheers
John

I do have the 85 f/1.4 and 28-70 f/2.8, as well as couple of primes in the middle, 35, 50... The 50mm sits mainly in the bag for 'just in case', mostly the 35mm takes over it for me because of the wider angle I can get.

When doing portraits, the 85mm is magnetised to my camera body. It doesnt go off that easily. Normal event type of photos, the 28-70 is my 'do it all' lens and it stays there for the whole while. But mind you, holding a heavy camera (D200+grip / D2), SB800 and the 28-70 for the whole day will get you a sore wrist and arm... they are heavy...

I do miss the wide angle on the 28-70, but the problem is solved if you have either a 10-20 or 12-24 in your kit.

Why not consider the 17-55 f/2.8? It goes wide and its a great all rounder lens as well.

Yi-P wrote:I do have the 85 f/1.4 and 28-70 f/2.8, as well as couple of primes in the middle, 35, 50... The 50mm sits mainly in the bag for 'just in case', mostly the 35mm takes over it for me because of the wider angle I can get.

When doing portraits, the 85mm is magnetised to my camera body. It doesnt go off that easily. Normal event type of photos, the 28-70 is my 'do it all' lens and it stays there for the whole while. But mind you, holding a heavy camera (D200+grip / D2), SB800 and the 28-70 for the whole day will get you a sore wrist and arm... they are heavy...

I do miss the wide angle on the 28-70, but the problem is solved if you have either a 10-20 or 12-24 in your kit.

Why not consider the 17-55 f/2.8? It goes wide and its a great all rounder lens as well.

Yip - you don't have the 28-70 anymore?

Reschsmooth wrote:Yip - you don't have the 28-70 anymore?

He misses the 18-28 wide angle, when using the 28-70, not that he's sold the beast.

Alpha_7 wrote:

Reschsmooth wrote:Yip - you don't have the 28-70 anymore?

He misses the 18-28 wide angle, when using the 28-70, not that he's sold the beast.

The beast is still with me...

As Craig said, I wish the 28 can be wider on a DX sensor... You can't really get the perfect solution in photography... otherwise a 10-500 f/1.4 at the size of a 18-70 will be perfect

Yi-P wrote:otherwise a 10-500 f/1.4 at the size of a 18-70 will be perfect

You don't have one? I can lend you mine, but it doesn't seem to be able to come off my D3xs, 39mp FF, 15fps compact camera.

Woody, I would be disappointed if you didn't buy both a 85 1.4 and a 28-70 2.8

whew, so many posts to catch up on...

ok, here I go...

Thanks so much for all the advise, you have made it even more difficult!!!

This is what I have so far, let's see how accurate this is...


80 - 200/2.8
Good for outdoors with longer reach
Might be tight indoors with 80 being the widest.

85/1.4
Best portrait lens
Limited versatility being a prime
Might be tight indoors

28 - 70/2.8
Best all round lens
Great indoors with good range
May be limited outdoors with 70 being the longest reach

70 - 200/2.8VR
Best lens for outdoors photography
Benefit of having VR
Would handle indoors as well at 70mm
Very expensive!!!

SO...

Do I upgrade the D70 to a D200 and get the 85mm or 80 - 200

or

Do I keep the D70 and get better glass (thinking 70-200 at this stage)

or

Do I upgrade D70 to Fuji S5 and use current glass for a while???

See. I am no closer to a decision than before!!!!

No, honestly I am a lot closer as the info above is very helpful. All I need to do know is look at the bank account and think about what type of photography I will do the most (indoors or out).


hmmmmmmm.

Glen wrote:Woody, I would be disappointed if you didn't buy both a 85 1.4 and a 28-70 2.8

and maybe a S5 and 70 - 200????

Woody, going back to your original post, the 28-70 sounds like the lens you wanted. I've owned all those lenses (I replaced the 80-200 with the 70-200) and I have no intention of getting rid of any of them. That's what I think about them. There are no DX lenses that are as good as any of the three (85 1.4, 28-70 and 70-200.)

Remember that your feet can also act as a zoom. But if you want to excel at portraits then having those three lenses in your arsenal is just about all you'll need.

Woody, the question will simply be "Which First?"

You'll always want something else when you have one...

Jumping back to the first post you had... You've asked a lens that can do, portraits, studio, indoors, outdoors with fantastic quality and speed. Unfortunately, Nikon has not yet released one of these, nor I think they will release one.

Looking at the gallery you linked in the first post, you are very good off with just a D200 + 80-200. Dealing with kids is easier to have a flexible zoom and you stay at a distance for them to do what they are at best.

The 80/85mm indoors is not a bad idea, the extra 10mm wider is only a mater of a step or two back... Unless you shoot in a cubicle, I will say that you will have enough room to move around.

I'm just making this comment from the info you provided, I don't really know what you do mostly and what you need most. So the final decision is on your side... Again, "Which First??"

Killakoala wrote:Woody, going back to your original post, the 28-70 sounds like the lens you wanted. I've owned all those lenses (I replaced the 80-200 with the 70-200) and I have no intention of getting rid of any of them. That's what I think about them. There are no DX lenses that are as good as any of the three (85 1.4, 28-70 and 70-200.)

Remember that your feet can also act as a zoom. But if you want to excel at portraits then having those three lenses in your arsenal is just about all you'll need.

The only hesitation I have with the 28 - 70 is the fact that it is limited in zoom outdoors, where I think I will do the majority of shots. I realise my feet can also act as a zoom, , but when photographing kids it is quicker to zoom than run!!!

But in saying that, the 28 - 70 is probably perfect for what I need indoors.

Yi-P wrote:Woody, the question will simply be "Which First?"

You nailed it right there... I do intend to get pretty much the lenses mentioned here, but which first.

I think at this stage it is between the 28 - 70 and the 70 - 200. However this also means that I *may* not upgrade to a D200 but keep my D70. Is it worth getting these lenses with a D70?

Off I go to think about it a bit more...

but when photographing kids it is quicker to zoom than run!!!

And even then they can be too quick

if this makes any difference

i was never happy with the 28-70 focal length
mid range zoom is a boring focal range
28mm doesnt fit enough in
70mm not very interesting

i get much more fun out of 17-35
17mm distortion 35mm for portraits
you can always step closer to your subject if you want to ger a closer shot

1 thing i did like about the 28-70 is that its bulky and it looks serious
lots of people were impressed like oh your a pro sort of thing when they saw it yeah superficial yeah but it was the only good thing about it

anyway it depends what your using it for

wendellt wrote:if this makes any difference

i was never happy with the 28-70 focal length
mid range zoom is a boring focal range
28mm doesnt fit enough in
70mm not very interesting

i get much more fun out of 17-35
17mm distortion 35mm for portraits
you can always step closer to your subject if you want to ger a closer shot

1 thing i did like about the 28-70 is that its bulky and it looks serious
lots of people were impressed like oh your a pro sort of thing when they saw it yeah superficial yeah but it was the only good thing about it

anyway it depends what your using it for

Thanks for throwing that spanner in the works!!!



This is my main concern as well, focal length.

I think I need a 24 - 130 f1.4

wendellt wrote:i was never happy with the 28-70 focal length
mid range zoom is a boring focal range
28mm doesnt fit enough in
70mm not very interesting

i get much more fun out of 17-35
17mm distortion 35mm for portraits
you can always step closer to your subject if you want to ger a closer shot

I have to agree, the 28-70 perspective is "traditional" which can be boring. 17-nn can give a much nicer variety, if you want some edge (17-35, or 17-55).

Also, the 17-35 since its a narrower range of focal lengths, its a nicer quality...

I flipped between 17-55 and 28-70 for a few months, then went with 28-70 because I will have it for a long time, and no risk of DX issues in a few years...

Keep up the discussion.... when I have enough money I will be out buying.... and I enjoy the discussion as to what is better.

who wrote:Keep up the discussion.... when I have enough money I will be out buying.... and I enjoy the discussion as to what is better.

Hi Who,

One thing I have learnt so far from this thread is there is no "what is better" it is coming down to "what meets your needs better".

also the differential focus on the 17-35 is more extreme because its minimum focus distrance to the subject is much smaller than the 28-70
huge advantage the 17-35 gives you lots of funky options

wendellt wrote:also the differential focus on the 17-35 is more extreme because its minimum focus distrance to the subject is much smaller than the 28-70
huge advantage the 17-35 gives you lots of funky options

I agree with Wendell - the 17-35 is a great option for crowds but also 'alternative' portrait style shots.

It's a beautiful piece of glass.

P

well I think I have made my mind up

In fact I have because I just ordered everything

my final decision...

A Fuji S5 and the 85mm 1.4

Should be in my hands tomorrow. A HUGE thankyou to Padey for lending me his S5 to have a play with, after 10 mins I knew it was the camera I wanted. The JPEGS are amazing, even at ISO's over 1600!!!

There is a LOT to learn with this camera though, I think if you can master it the images will be outstanding.

Thanks everyone for the great advice int his thread... Once I pay off this equipment I will revisit the thread for my next lens

Cheers,
W00DY