Lens recommendations for newborn/family photography

[Penkwist]

I'm looking for a few lenses to prepare for more newborn/toddler photos. I currently use the D700 with Nikon 50mm f/1.8 and Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. For one, I'm trying to decide on a macro lens for the tiny details, but having a hard time pulling the trigger on the Nikon 105mm f/2.8 just due to cost. I'm also considering the Tamron 90mm f/2.8, Nikon 50mm f/1.4g and/or Nikon 60mm f/2.8. Any advice is appreciated!!

 

[Rhoads238]

The nikon 105 micro is an amazing lens. I love mine, its incredibly sharp. That said it can show unflattering details when used as a portrait lens. For newborns and toddlers toddlers it probably wont be too much of an issue. But if you point the lens at an adult you will be able to see things like nose hair, blemishes and tiny craters on skin and that is without using it on the macro end of the focusing range. As far as macro photography of children goes, I'm not sure what you would be taking pictures of. You can take pictures of things like peppercorns or ants and make them look huge in the frame. I think a better choice at a similar price point would be the nikkor dc-105 f/2. It has a control for the quality of bokeh and is many portrait photographers wet dream. As far as the other lenses you are considering, I haven't used so wont comment on quality.

 

[JaronRH]

I have the older Tamron 90mm (BIM but not the new VC version). I used this when I was getting started as a portrait lens prior to getting a Sigma 85mm. It is very sharp (be ready to SOFTEN pictures in post-processing!) with a nice bokeh. The downside, at least is the old one, is that you can watch your subject grow in the time it takes to focus So, be ready to do some manual focusing! The new VC model sounds very promissing though in this area though so check that one out as well. As a macro lens, the quality is outstanding on my D700.

Here's my short-list of the [old] Tarmon vs Nikon:
- Tamron is not internal focusing. i.e. it extends when focusing (the new VC version I think is an IF lens though!)
- Tamron's AF is painfully slow (greatly improved in VC version from what I've heard)
- Bokeh is on par if not better on the Tamron then the Nikon (again, this is subjective!)
- The Tamron's min f-stop varies between 2.8 and 3.2 depending on the focusing distance (never been a problem for me)
- The Tamron has a very deep first glass element so no hood is required (which is great for keeping things off the glass and controlling lens flare!).
- I personally love the AF/MF clutch. MUCH easier for switching between AF and MF (which I do a lot with a macro lens) then a switch.
- Tamron has a 6-year warranty and their customer service is very easy to work with (I've had good, personal experience with them).

Tamron 90mm example of my daughter (All manual; Studio setup with 3 flashes):

Sigma 85mm example (natural window light & reflector):

 

[djacobox372]

Is your 50 1.8 the new "g" version? If not than that's the upgrade I'd suggest. The older afd is really soft below f2.8.

As for macro, the older manual focus 105mm ais f2.8 micro works great on a d700 and will save u a ton of $$ over the new lens without sacrificing IQ.

 

[IgsEMT]

For newborns on our D700 we use 50 1.4g.

Two issue that I have with that lens is its focusing speed (I've exchanged in several time w/ in the first week) and its minimal focusing distance (not close enough IMO).

Otherwise it is a great lens and does wonders. Newborn, child, family, wedding photography, go to website --> Galleries --> Tiny miracles. If you have FB, it gets updated much more often then website.

Good Luck

Joe

 

[Derrel]

Tamron 90/2.8 Macro ought to be a decent macro lens for close-in work....but at longer distances, like 3 to 10 feet...the focus on macro lenses, like the Tamron 90 OR the 60 Micro-Nikkor....VERY sketchy...HAIR-trigger focusing...bad enough to miss focus on portraits at 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12,15 feet. macro lenses are typically NOT the best choice for portraiture. They can be used in a pinch, sure, but every one I have ever used has been sub-par compared to "field" or "portrait" lens designs.

 

[Mike_E]

Ummm, which "tiny details" exactly?

If you're just looking to increase sales then why not go around the box and get a Lensbaby and sell the 'Art' shots?

 

[JaronRH]

Tamron 90/2.8 Macro ought to be a decent macro lens for close-in work....but at longer distances, like 3 to 10 feet...the focus on macro lenses, like the Tamron 90 OR the 60 Micro-Nikkor....VERY sketchy...HAIR-trigger focusing...bad enough to miss focus on portraits at 3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12,15 feet. macro lenses are typically NOT the best choice for portraiture. They can be used in a pinch, sure, but every one I have ever used has been sub-par compared to "field" or "portrait" lens designs.

If mine missed focus, it was more because the subject was moving and it couldn't keep up. I've never had an issue with focus accuracy at 3-10 feet even with my D90's 11-point AF!

 

[Derrel]

AND THE REASON the lens cannot keep up with a person moving???? Because the focusing mechanism SUCKS at longer distances. Sorry...macro lenses are almost always lousy at focusing well at longer distances in the 3 feet-and-longer range. Just shoot enough different situations and the weaknesses of macro lens focusing becomes pretty evident. The focusing of a macro lens is typically not reliable at longer ranges, when compared against a field telephoto or a portrait lens design.