Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Photography
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-18-2011, 11:59 PM
 
541 posts, read 1,336,680 times
Reputation: 331

Advertisements

best lences for portrait photography?sony

thanks
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-19-2011, 12:15 AM
 
Location: Dallas, TX
31,767 posts, read 28,756,954 times
Reputation: 12341
Budget? For Sony, you can find some inexpensive lenses (virtually anything that works on Minolta A-Mount will work on a Sony). If you don't mind using a full manual mode, you'd have those options too. A Minolta 50 mm/1.7 would be a good start, and you can find one for cheap (I got mine several years ago for about $40). I'm sure you can find one in excellent condition online for not much more than that (although, I suspect that Sony Alpha cameras have made these old Minolta lenses quite popular). I also have a Sigma 24 mm/2.8. The Sigma can be used as a close up (macro) lens as well. And a Soviet lens (M42 mount), Industar-61 L/Z, 50 mm/2.8... a fantastic lens, built like a tank, smooth but all manual (and you will need an inexpensive adapter).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2011, 02:22 AM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
11,011 posts, read 10,986,291 times
Reputation: 6191
Not to hijack this thread but I was thinking about the 50 f/1.8 for my Nikon in order to shoot some natural light portrait photography. Would that be a good lens for the purpose? I've read a ton of reviews and it seems it would be a good choice?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2011, 02:32 AM
 
Location: North Carolina
10,202 posts, read 17,789,333 times
Reputation: 13913
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
Not to hijack this thread but I was thinking about the 50 f/1.8 for my Nikon in order to shoot some natural light portrait photography. Would that be a good lens for the purpose? I've read a ton of reviews and it seems it would be a good choice?
I'm not familiar with Nikon but 50mm lenses are always a popular choice for portraits.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2011, 03:26 AM
 
106,122 posts, read 108,118,136 times
Reputation: 79688
the 85mm is the nikon champ but its better on full frame cameras. 50mm comes very close on a dx sensor camera.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2011, 03:56 AM
 
4,500 posts, read 12,300,392 times
Reputation: 2901
A friend of mine who's a professional photographer (art, not commercial) suggested to me to get any prime that shoots between 70mm to 130mm for portraits.

On a smaller sensor I would think either a prime 50mm or 70-75mm would do the trick.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2011, 04:24 AM
 
Location: Barrow, Alaska
3,539 posts, read 7,623,555 times
Reputation: 1836
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
Not to hijack this thread but I was thinking about the 50 f/1.8 for my Nikon in order to shoot some natural light portrait photography. Would that be a good lens for the purpose? I've read a ton of reviews and it seems it would be a good choice?
50mm, particularly on a sensor that is smaller than a 35mm film frame (for example the Nikon DX cameras), is a very common choice as far as focal length for portraits. It is about the same as 75mm of an FX camera. Of course it is also true that many photographers prefer significantly longer focal lengths, and 85mm, 105mm, 135mm, 150mm, 180mm and 200mm are all popular too (with FX bodies). I personally prefer something about 120mm...

However, focal length is not everything. Nikon has a new 50mm f/1.8g lens available, and I have virtually no knowledge or experience with it. But the older 50mm f/1.8 AF-D lens is something to avoid when shooting portraiture! The same is basically true of all other low cost 50mm f/1.8 lenses, with the Canon "Nifty Fifty" being another prime example.

The reason is because they are inexpensive and designed to make images look "sharp", but that is done at the expense of having some of the harshest, least desirable bokeh possible. That is primarily due to slight over correction for spherical aberration, which causes slightly out of focus areas to look sharper and very out of focus areas to look anything but "creamy".

For portraiture, some of the 50mm f/1.4 lenses are relatively good, and while not as cheap as the 50mm f/1.8 they aren't really very expensive.

By far the best deal for the money, if one can handle using a manual focus zoom lens, is a Nikkor Series E 75-150mm f/3.5, although to take best advantage of it does require shooting only wide open as it does not have rounded shutter blades. The problem with non-rounded shutter blades will be there with almost any low cost lens... Another example is the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8.

With Nikon there are several lenses that make great portraits, but none are particularly inexpensive. The 85mm f/1.4 lenses, both the old AF-D version and the new G version, are fabulous. The 105mm and 135mm f/2 DC lenses are also fabulous. If longer focal lengths suit your taste, 180mm and 200mm Nikkors are also well regarded.

The most versatile though, if you are willing to take a step back from the fabulous quality imparted by the 85mm/105mm/135mm trio, would be an older 80-200mm f/2.8 or the newer replacements, the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR lenses. They are all very well regarded by photographers who do "people pictures". A used example of the 80-200mm f/2.8 is not overly expensive, but the others are more than $1000 even used and the latest 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII sells for something over $2000 new. You've got to be fairly serious about it to pick out that one, but it really is a terrific lens too!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2011, 05:17 AM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
11,011 posts, read 10,986,291 times
Reputation: 6191
Thank you all for the great information. I have a Nikon D90, so no full frame sensor for me. The 50mm f/1.8 obviously caught my attention because of the price but at the same time worried me because of the price! I was trying to get an understanding of the quality difference between that and the 50mm f/1.4, which some believe the quality difference is significant and others believe is minimal, so its quite a quandry at times. I am definitely a novice but I am willing to invest both the time and money to improve even if it means holding off on some instant gratification in order to get something of better quality.

Floyd, I have also read that some photographers prefer longer focal lengths. Do you think, given my novice status, that I should stick to the 50mm to get better feel for learning purposes? This seems to be the way the reviews lean.

The kit lens I have is an 18-105mm and does take some great photographs but I was hoping to branch out a bit. I wanted to try and learn the basics of photography with just my kit lens before doing so. The next thing I would like to tackle is people photographs in natural light.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2011, 06:59 AM
 
Location: North Carolina
10,202 posts, read 17,789,333 times
Reputation: 13913
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
Thank you all for the great information. I have a Nikon D90, so no full frame sensor for me. The 50mm f/1.8 obviously caught my attention because of the price but at the same time worried me because of the price! I was trying to get an understanding of the quality difference between that and the 50mm f/1.4, which some believe the quality difference is significant and others believe is minimal, so its quite a quandry at times.
Check out the comparison tools at: Canon & Nikon Digital SLR Camera & Lens Comparisons - they have some reviews too but it was originally a Canon website so they only have a few Nikon reviews at the moment. Digital Cameras: Digital Photography Review, News, Reviews, Forums, FAQ has also added lens reviews.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-19-2011, 07:25 AM
 
4,500 posts, read 12,300,392 times
Reputation: 2901
I know it's not a Nikon lens, but for some reference, this was shot with a 35mm f/1.8 Sony SAM lens (cheap, around $200), natural light at probably right around 6pm.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Photography
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top