Best lens for outdoor portrait photography under $600

[dots]

Save your money until you know exactly what you want.

A 2/105 DC..and a Citroën SM

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Buy a 50mm.

Anyone who says that a 50 is a bad choice for portraiture, probably just doesn't know how to use one.

I shoot alot of outdoor portraiture, professionally too, and the 50mm angle of view on Film/FF is my favorite. For location portrait shooting, I think it's a beautiful, versatile focal length that you can shoot all day with.

Now I shoot mostly film, so if you put a 50mm on a little DX camera it's going to act a little different, but it will still be really nice.

What I like about 50mm's over something like an 85 or 135:
The perspective is very close to what we see with the human eye.
The distance between me and my subjects is enough to be intimate without being invasive.
I can do full body/wider shots without switching lenses or being shouting distance away.
(except for the sigma) very small, light, and un-intimidating.
Generally have a really wide aperture, so you can destroy backgrounds easy and shoot in any light (f/1.2-1.8)
The Bokeh can have a distinctive, almost swirly character.
IT'S CHEAP AND EASY.


GET A 50MM! IT'S A GREAT FOCAL LENGTH! Here are some of my own examples, that I shot over the summer (on film of course):

Nikon F100 (Kodak Portra 400@200), Nikon 50mm f/1.4G @ f/1.4, straight off the flim scan, no PP:

Now you tell me that 50mm is a bad focal length for outdoor portraiture

The 50mm f/1.8G is a tick sharper than the 1.4G and has faster/more responsive AF. The only reason to get the 1.4G is if you shoot film, shoot in the dark and need the extra light gathering, want a little bit better bokeh rendering, or bragging rights. I usually recommend the 1.8G. Hell, you could get a 1.8G+an F100 and still have a few hundred left over for film and processing!

I'm now 100% investing in a film camera.

AWESOME!

 

[dakkon76]

I went with the Sigma f/1.4 because it got better reviews than either Nikon or Canon. I couldn't be happier. While it's true that a prime is best for portraits... since you're new to DSLR's and will only have a single lens, I say go with a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8. This will give you a lot more versatility... and you won't be shooting outdoor group portraits below f/2.8 anyway.

 

[Robin Usagani]

you won't be shooting outdoor group portraits below f/2.8 anyway.

135 shot at f/2

 

[MLeeK]

Thanks for the replies. Sounds like 50mm will not be a good "go to" lens to fit all my needs- I understand that I will eventually need more than one lens to fulfill all my needs. As of now, I just have that D7000 body, I decided against the kit lens.

To get a fill for the majority of my photography uses: I have 5 kids and my husband is taller than 6 feet, so I will be needing something that can work under that scenario. I wish I had it in my budget to get the spectacular 85mm, but maybe someday soon when I prove that this is something I will be successful at. My dilemma is....is that I want to invest in only one lens for now- being used for photographing my family of 7 and friends. I suppose I can up the ante to 1000.

One lens only for less than a $1000, any suggestions on that? Again, I appreciate all your help and input.

That changes the game a little. You need a lens that can do EVERYTHING for right now and the 50mm isn't really it. And with a large family it will be tight on a full family portrait. It would most likely have to be taken outside in order to get everyone in it full body. And to get everyone in fully standing it would definitely put you way back... Probably more than 20 feet.

You will also need this lens to give you a little bit of a zoom if this is your one and only lens for the time being. Working with ONE prime lens is next to impossible when you're trying to find out who you are and what your style is. In that case... I would recommend a fast, mid range/wide zoom.
Sigma makes a 24-70 f/2.8 OS that is looking pretty awesome under $1000. If you are REALLY having a hard time pushing up the budget Tamron makes a 28-75 f/2.8 that is very well loved. If you go with the Tamron I'd probably buy both the Tamron zoom AND the 50mm f/1.8. You'd still be well under a grand. The sigma is pusing up in your budget a bit more than the two of them together, but Sigma's OS is what canon and Nikon lenses refer to as IS or VR. It's also a better build quality. I've not USED one yet, but I hear tell it's supposed to be a pretty divine lens.
I do know the Tamron 28-75 is a very sharp and incredible option for a budget, professional speed lens. It's build is not as hefty and solid as the Sigma and there is no OS/VR/IS option there.

 

[MrsLittle]

Beautiful shots guys! What about Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM; Nikon 18-200mm or Nikon 16-85 VR plus the Nikon 35mm 1.8 to keep me in my budget. ?

 

[Robin Usagani]

out of those 3, sigma will produce the best images. It will be hard to take a pic of someone standing up indoor though with your crop body.

 

[thereyougo!]

Personally I would go for the Sigma 24-70. It's a good focal range on a crop body and stopping down to f/4 you'll still get good bokeh. You'll also have greater flexibility at the wider end. Sigma lenses are reliable come with a good guarantee and produce sharp results. The 24-70 will allow you to experiment with your shots with less compromises. While 18-200 has even greater flexibility there may be barrel distortion to deal with and it won't be as fast as the 24-70

 

[MLeeK]

Personally I would go for the Sigma 24-70. It's a good focal range on a crop body and stopping down to f/4 you'll still get good bokeh. You'll also have greater flexibility at the wider end. Sigma lenses are reliable come with a good guarantee and produce sharp results. The 24-70 will allow you to experiment with your shots with less compromises. While 18-200 has even greater flexibility there may be barrel distortion to deal with and it won't be as fast as the 24-70

Adding... The 18-200 isn't going to have the image quality of the 24-70 either. When you have a lens that covers that much of a zoom range there is quite a bit of compromise across the zoom to make the elements work together. You lose a bit of sharpness and even some color vibrance. It's ok for a vacation lens or maybe scouting, but it's not a real quality lens.