Help me decide...

[sarah_19_nz]

Right help me out here, researching lenses is quite frankly DOING MY HEAD IN!.. I want to add another lens to my collection. I have the 50mm 1.8d and a ****ty standard kit lens 18-105 3.5-5.6. I want to take my portrait photography (mainly kids and babies, but also family groups) to the next level and something tells me that a "better" lens would help with this? I shoot in my home based studio (so not a ton of room) I have the D7000 which as you know is a cropped sensor. I want something ultimately that is TACK sharp and crystal clear first and foremost, so in my research am I safe to assume I am going to want a prime lens? Not so long ago I thought i HAD to have a 70-200mm 2.8 but I now realise that isn't really what I am after is it? (I'd need more room to move and be more into 'event photog' to full benefit from a fast zoom?)

So is there any point in upgrading my 50mm 1.8d to something better?

A good photog friend shoots with a d7000 and SWEARS by her 35mm 1.8 for portraits ( I asked wouldn't you get some distortion?... apparently not at all and her images especially eyes in her portraits are TACK sharp, glassy looking)

Would a zoom lens for example the 17-55mm 2.8 give me some tack sharp images with some zoom option or stick to primes?

Advice MUCH appreciated. I go back and forth on lens choices like I change my knickers!

Perhaps suggestions with image examples of how awesome they are at portraits would be helpful)

Cheers in advance!

 

[Big Mike]

'Tack sharp' images have a lot more to do with good techniques than with expensive equipment. Sure, there are some aspects of image quality that you will only find on really good lenses, but good technique is still key.

I would suggest that the 17-55mm F2.8 is probably a good choice. I do think that prime lenses are often superior, but 35mm on a crop, in a small space...just doesn't appeal to me.

What are you using for lighting?

 

[TheLost]

I'm a big fan of Sigmas 17-50mm f/2.8.. however...

http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/IMAGES/tile1.jpg


.. i don't like shooting below 50mm for portraits.

I would recommend you rent a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR2 and give it a try. If cost is an issue the older 70-200 f/2.8 VR1 is about $1k cheaper but just as good on your DX body (My 70-200 VR1 stays on my D7100 90% of the time!)

If you want a prime.. The Nikon 85mm f/1.8G is simply amazing.. but the Nikon 70-200's give you more versatility

IMHO.. if your buying quality glass... only buy FX lenses!

 

[goodguy]

I am not sure what is there that you are not happy with 50mm 1.8G
85mm is considered by many to be the classic focal length for portrait, on your camera your 50mm is acting like 75mm which is plenty close to this golden 85mm number.
For portrait I almost always use my 50mm and to that I latly added 60mm 2.8G, both giving me excellent results and I don't find any need to add more lenses for portrait.

You talked about sharp, ANY zoom lens you will take will not be as sharp as a good prime lens, you asked if the 17-55mm 2.8 will be sharper, from your question I understand you are not happy with the sharpness of your 50mm 1.8G
If my assumption is correct then let me share with you that I had this same lens and it also was less then impressive on both my D7000 and now D7100, it was ok but not sharp at all so I went and bought of ebay the 50mm 1.4D and my eyes opened up, what sharpness WOW!!!
Same with my 60mm 2.8G, Sooooooooooooo sharp compared to my 50mm 1.8G
I know the 50mm 1.8G is sharp so I am sure I simply got a lemon, what ever it was when talking about sharpness it is my experience that a good prime really does bring the results you are looking for.
If you are not happy with your lens sharpness try to fine tune it, I fine tuned my 50mm 1.8G on my D7000 and it helped but not to the point where was was happy.
If you get the results you are looking for after fine tuning then you are in the clear and if not then consider getting an other lens.
For crop sensor camera I personally would stick to 50mm.
The 85mm 1.8G is even sharper then the 50mm lenses but not by a lot, I am sure most people will not see the different and on a crop sensor 85mm is around 130mm which I find in most cases is not a very usable focal length for most uses so unless you have a full frame camera dont rush to get an 85mm lens.

 

[pgriz]

And... sharpness in portraits is over-rated. Do you REALLY want to show every facial crevice and pore and errant hair? Yeah, there's various software that can do the smoothing/hiding... but there is a benefit to having some blurring. So to get good flattering portraits, put more effort into the lighting setup.

 

[Braineack]

, on your camera your 50mm is acting like 75mm which is plenty close to this golden 85mm number.

there you go again...

 

[TheLost]

, on your camera your 50mm is acting like 75mm which is plenty close to this golden 85mm number.

there you go again...

What Braineack means is... That is not correct.. You get the same distortion on DX and FX... DX just crops the image more..

For example.. (i'm using 35mm cuz its more noticeable)

Lets say this was shot with a full frame camera...

On DX.. you are 'cropping' the image.. not changing the distortion..

Same 'big nose' effect... just less of the image is caught on the sensor.

Make sense?


[Edit! Images fixed to correct copyright issue... i was at lunch.. this was the best i could do ]

 

[Braineack]

although to be fair, you would have stepped back a bit further on the DX body to frame the shot the same, and thus reducing the distortion a bit (and most likely closer to what a 50mm FX would look like).

 

[TheLost]

although to be fair, you would have stepped back a bit further on the DX body to frame the shot the same, and thus reducing the distortion a bit (and most likely closer to what a 50mm FX would look like).

You'll also change the DOF.. but i'm trying to stop the confusion

 

[yioties]

I had the 35mm 1.8g and traded it after a week for the 50 mm 1.8g and haven't looked back!

 

[astroNikon]

FYI, I'm considering a 35-70/2.8 AF-D lens. Which is the "old" wedding lens as I like to call it. The newer G AF-S lens are WTH expensive and heavy.
I also have a 24-85 f/2.8-4.0 AF-D lens too which is great. Macro is good on it too.

Both lenses above are inexpensive by comparison of their newer fast AF-S counterparts.

17-55 2.8 would be a good choice too

 

[sarah_19_nz]

Thank you everyone. I have to correct you all though that I own the 50mm 1.8D NOT G... what is the difference? Is the G MUCH better?

I am using it in an abundance of light. Outside and/or studio lighting and unless I am 45cm away it isn't TACK sharp. Maybe I do need to keep practicing...

Thank you for the distortion drawing, quite the artist and I understand. 50mm seems to be my best option. so either get a new 50mm (but which one) or keep practicing and try and get it to work.

I have done an AF fine tune, didn't seem to help much.

I can't quite understand then why the 'almost cheapest lens out there' seems to be the "best" in terms of clarity etc. Why do photogs buy such big expensive awesome lenses then! haha (I KNOW I probably opening a can of worms!)

Off to research the 60mm you speak of.

 

[Manna69247]

Hi, I've got a D7000. My lenses are: kit 18-105 (which is excellent for what it is), Nikon 17-55 f/2.8, Nikon 50 f/1.8D and my favorite 80-200 f/2.8D. The 17-55 is excellent and the only pro lens Nikon make for DX, it is on my camera all the time. When shooting outside where you can get distance between your model and you I use the 80-200 because of the great bokeh effect it create when you stand back and zoom in. The 17-55 and 80-200 are heavy but I like the heavy feel. My wife don't like it and use the 50 almost all the time when she shoot babies because it is so light.

Now to come back to tack sharp, I was very dissapointed in the 50D until I've changed two things. I've removed the UV filter (which was a cheapy in the 1st place) and i stopped (with all my fast lenses) to try to shoot wide open (f/1.8 and f/2.8 with the others) all the time. Most of the time I'm at f/4-f5.6 for that super sharpness. After I saw the difference I've removed my UV filter on the 17-55 as well. If you can't by proper UV filters, leave them. I use my lense hoods all the time for protection. Even got a rubber screw in lenshood for the 50D which works well for the feel in my left hand - I've got long fingers and it felt weird with the 50D, it always felt that my fingers will go into the lense because it is so short.

The 17-55 is an awsome lens which I need for the weddings (almost the same as 24-70 on full frame). The 17-55 has the same IQ as the 50, but for a price... I can't imagine only using a 50mm during a wedding or other models shoot. I only use the 50 f/1.8 for the arty shots where you want the heavy DOF.

I hope something in my ramble will help you, because your questions are exactly in the lense ranges I've got.

 

[sarah_19_nz]

Thank you, I'm off to research this 17-55mm I'm going to keep practicing with the 50mm 1.8d, as all the research I have done proves that it should be right up there with all the other 50mm's and I just need to use it correctly! I have no filter over my 50mm. Thanks!

 

[Mach0]

FYI, I'm considering a 35-70/2.8 AF-D lens. Which is the "old" wedding lens as I like to call it. The newer G AF-S lens are WTH expensive and heavy. I also have a 24-85 f/2.8-4.0 AF-D lens too which is great. Macro is good on it too. Both lenses above are inexpensive by comparison of their newer fast AF-S counterparts. 17-55 2.8 would be a good choice too

I have the 35-70. If can flare at times If the light source is in the frame but the thing is sharp as a tack.