Nikon 135 f2? Sigma 150 Macro? Nikon/Tamron 70-200 2.8?

[D-B-J]

I never use my 80-200. Like, ever. It sits, and sits. So, I want to sell it, but need a lens longer than my 85 1.8, as that's not really that long, especially for portraits. I was thinking of the sigma macro, because it's a good length and had macro abilities, but as a portrait lens it may be TOO sharp... Thoughts? The 135 is a good length and amazing for portraits, so I've read, but is old, and I'm worried it won't stand the test of the D800's sensor.

Now for the 70-200's, versatile and fast, image stabilized, etc... But also big, heavy, more expensive, etc.

I guess what I'm looking for is a good portrait lens that's longer than 85 but doesn't break the bank. And I have no idea which one would suit me best. What are your thoughts? Or am I just confused and there's no help for me?

Jake

 

[sm4him]

WHY don't you use the 80-200? Is it not sharp enough? Too soft? Too heavy?

Knowing why you don't use THAT lens might help people point you toward a lens you WOULD use.

For me, I *love* my older Tamron (non VC, or whatever they call it) 70-200. Good and sharp, good quick focusing, and definitely didn't break the bank. A little on the heavy side, maybe--but then I'm also used to carrying the Sigma 150-500 around all day and shooting it handheld, so the weight of the 7-200, which is about equivalent, doesn't faze me.

 

[astroNikon]

yup .. ^^ what she said ... what I read ...

have an 80-200 but don't use it as an obvious choice
but what I really want to try is a 70-200
please confirm my mis-thinking so I can spend more money

 

[D-B-J]

WHY don't you use the 80-200? Is it not sharp enough? Too soft? Too heavy?

Knowing why you don't use THAT lens might help people point you toward a lens you WOULD use.

Honestly? It's soft wide open, and I've forever had AF issues with it. It's slow to focus, and the whole point of having a big honking f2.8 is to be able to shoot it wide open, which I've never been impressed with... Like using my 85 and then the 80-200 makes me not like it one bit. It's not nearly as sharp, and it's sooooo much bigger. But I don't want to sell it yet because it's my only "long" lens... for ya know... That one time a year I see a deer in the field. I've been contemplating selling it for the Tamzooka, but not sure that's the best for portraits, haha. The 85 is great, but doesn't provide the compression I want, ya know?

Jake

P.S. I hope that all made sense.

 

[astroNikon]

maybe it's soft on the 36mp d8x0 as it seems sharp on my 24mp at f/2.8

so sell it and buy a 70-200, or rent one to see if you like it.
You have plenty of options - Nikon, Tamron, Sigma
or the Tamzooka ... you know you want one.

 

[Derrel]

Too sharp? Lay a very slight diffusion layer over the image. Or a very,very slight blur layer. Not kidding. There is such a thing as too much "sharpness" from really high-performance lenses. I personally think the 60mm and 105mm Nikkor macro lenses are too sharp, and too saturated, for people pictures. The "new Nikkor" G-series primes seem to have this new-style, uber-saturated color rendering, and I think it is a bit too over the top for people pictures.

I dunno...there are a lot of lenses out there. Not sure what portrait means to you, or how you shoot them and whatnot. I think that one of the BEST values is a lens you'd probably never think of; the older 80-200mm f/4 Ai-S zoom lens. It's very well-constructed and very parfocal. It's easy to zoom to 200mm and focus and then zoom back to the framing desired, all without accidentally moving the focus setting.

I agree that an 85mm length does NOT provide the compression or the narrow angle of view behind the subject that is often desired, especially in outdoor settings, where controlling the background angle of view is often critical, and where a zoom lens makes things easier.

Here is plenty of information about this lens, which was made from 1981 until 1998. This lens is a much better lens than you might be thinking that it is. Nikon 80-200mm f/4 AI-s Review

 

[astroNikon]

....I think that one of the BEST values is a lens you'd probably never think of; the older 80-200mm f/4 Ai-S zoom lens. It's very well-constructed and very parfocal. It's easy to zoom to 200mm and focus and then zoom back to the framing desired, all without accidentally moving the focus setting.

The AF might be a bit too slow for him though

 

[D-B-J]

....I think that one of the BEST values is a lens you'd probably never think of; the older 80-200mm f/4 Ai-S zoom lens. It's very well-constructed and very parfocal. It's easy to zoom to 200mm and focus and then zoom back to the framing desired, all without accidentally moving the focus setting.

The AF might be a bit too slow for him though

Oh hardy HAR HAR. [emoji16]

 

[Derrel]

One of the cool things about the lens is that it is light in weight, and focuses to 4 feet or 1.2 meters, at all lengths. And it has a nice, long focus throw at the closer ranges, which means it is MUCH easier to focus precisely at portrait distances than with an autofocusing lens. And, since it's from the manual focusing era, the degree of parfocal accuracy is very high by today's standards. This was the last manual focusing zoom lens Nikon ever made; they kept this lens in the lineup to the very end of their MF zooms. I know what you mean about a big, heavy f/2.8 80-200mm zoom lens...it's...BIG. And yes, it's from the film era and the D version is not all that good on 36MP when shot wide-open...it needs to be stopped down to...f/4...so...why even OWN an f/2.8 lens that's not good enough to be used at f/2.8? Did you see in Rockwell's review that he states this older MF lens is sharper across most of its length than the 30+ years newer 70-200mm f/4 AF-S VR-G Nikkor?

Again though, "sharpness" is a very overrated quality in a portrait lens. And besides, at f/5.6 or f/8, the f/stop needed to get the nose, eyes AND ears in focus, to avoid a gimmicky-looking headshot, almost any telephoto or tele-zoom made within the past 40 years is perfectly fine. I find it tedious and annoying to see an out of focus forehead, or an OOF nose, sharp eyes, and then ears that are so OOF that the shot looks like it was made by a noob who just found out about "bokeh".

Another lens to consider: the 105mm f/2.5 Ai- or Ai-S. A VERY,very good-focusing lens, and a lovely length for portraits on FX.

 

[goodguy]

I tend to listed to Derrell's advice closer then the one I give to myself but still since you asked about the Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 VC then here is my 2c

I fell in love with this lens since I bought it, had some issue with it but now its perfect, so frik'n sharp and flexible to use. I do lately more portaits then I used to do before and most done with this lens and its just amazing.
So for me its the one I go for out doors, while indoors I still go for the 85mm 1.8G

 

[D-B-J]

One of the cool things about the lens is that it is light in weight, and focuses to 4 feet or 1.2 meters, at all lengths. And it has a nice, long focus throw at the closer ranges, which means it is MUCH easier to focus precisely at portrait distances than with an autofocusing lens. And, since it's from the manual focusing era, the degree of parfocal accuracy is very high by today's standards. This was the last manual focusing zoom lens Nikon ever made; they kept this lens in the lineup to the very end of their MF zooms. I know what you mean about a big, heavy f/2.8 80-200mm zoom lens...it's...BIG. And yes, it's from the film era and the D version is not all that good on 36MP when shot wide-open...it needs to be stopped down to...f/4...so...why even OWN an f/2.8 lens that's not good enough to be used at f/2.8? Did you see in Rockwell's review that he states this older MF lens is sharper across most of its length than the 30+ years newer 70-200mm f/4 AF-S VR-G Nikkor?

Again though, "sharpness" is a very overrated quality in a portrait lens. And besides, at f/5.6 or f/8, the f/stop needed to get the nose, eyes AND ears in focus, to avoid a gimmicky-looking headshot, almost any telephoto or tele-zoom made within the past 40 years is perfectly fine. I find it tedious and annoying to see an out of focus forehead, or an OOF nose, sharp eyes, and then ears that are so OOF that the shot looks like it was made by a noob who just found out about "bokeh".

Another lens to consider: the 105mm f/2.5 Ai- or Ai-S. A VERY,very good-focusing lens, and a lovely length for portraits on FX.

Hmm, I'll have to look into those. Thanks for your time. The AI or AI-S lenses... Don't they need to be converted? Isn't there a tab that sticks out or something?

 

[Derrel]

No, Ai and Ai-S lenses will work fine on your D800. You will have A and M metering modes. Enter the EXIF data in the camera's NON CPU LENS menu option field. Here's a compatibility chart for you. Nikon Lens Compatibility

 

[D-B-J]

No, Ai and Ai-S lenses will work fine on your D800. You will have A and M metering modes. Enter the EXIF data in the camera's NON CPU LENS menu option field. Here's a compatibility chart for you. Nikon Lens Compatibility

Oh okay thanks!

 

[Derrel]

A few casual, around the house shots of my kid watching YouTube videos at my desk. From the $79 80-200mm f/4 Ai-S zoom.

These were a few of my test shots and crops, the day after I bought the lens, to see how it measured up.

 

[D-B-J]

View attachment 85117 View attachment 85118 A few casual, around the house shots of my kid watching YouTube videos at my desk. From the $79 80-200mm f/4 Ai-S zoom. D3x, 24MP FX.

Damn, that's sharp!