Must have portrait lens?

[MrsLittle]

The pop comes more from the lighting and editing. In the pic of your son he is a bit overexposed and this will cause some detail to be lost. I would say lower the exposure just a bit and add a little more contrast. If you have PS i would suggest adjusting the shadow and highlight values so you can fine tune the contrast in a better more subtle way. You might also try adjusting the angle of your reflector or the distance between it and the subject.

Also clothing choice would make a difference. Try to avoid white on white as you have going here and see if it is more to your liking.

This is not actually a serious photo, I would hope I have more style than that. I was just in a rush when my backdrops came in to try a photo, which is why this was taken in the evening.

I do think I need a second light, but then I wouldn't have enough for the 24-70. Are there any alternative suggestion to get the same quality I aiming for?

 

[MrsLittle]

What about the 17-55 with an AB800? Does anyone have experience with that lens?

 

[DiskoJoe]

The pop comes more from the lighting and editing. In the pic of your son he is a bit overexposed and this will cause some detail to be lost. I would say lower the exposure just a bit and add a little more contrast. If you have PS i would suggest adjusting the shadow and highlight values so you can fine tune the contrast in a better more subtle way. You might also try adjusting the angle of your reflector or the distance between it and the subject.

Also clothing choice would make a difference. Try to avoid white on white as you have going here and see if it is more to your liking.

This is not actually a serious photo, I would hope I have more style than that. I was just in a rush when my backdrops came in to try a photo, which is why this was taken in the evening.

I do think I need a second light, but then I wouldn't have enough for the 24-70. Are there any alternative suggestion to get the same quality I aiming for?

tamron 28-75mm f2.8. Good lens, very sharp. Tamron makes a 17-50 f2.8 as well.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

The pop comes more from the lighting and editing. In the pic of your son he is a bit overexposed and this will cause some detail to be lost. I would say lower the exposure just a bit and add a little more contrast. If you have PS i would suggest adjusting the shadow and highlight values so you can fine tune the contrast in a better more subtle way. You might also try adjusting the angle of your reflector or the distance between it and the subject.

Also clothing choice would make a difference. Try to avoid white on white as you have going here and see if it is more to your liking.

This is not actually a serious photo, I would hope I have more style than that. I was just in a rush when my backdrops came in to try a photo, which is why this was taken in the evening.

I do think I need a second light, but then I wouldn't have enough for the 24-70. Are there any alternative suggestion to get the same quality I aiming for?

The 50mm lens isn't your issue

 

[DiskoJoe]

What about the 17-55 with an AB800? Does anyone have experience with that lens?

Its probably one of the best options for nikon in that focal range. You get what you pay for.

 

[MrsLittle]

Can you please elaborate for me? I really want to improve and want to know what I'm doing wrong. If it's exposure, then that would be an easy fix next time. If it's lighting, then I would plan to pick up a 2nd light.

 

[MrsLittle]

What about the 17-55 with an AB800? Does anyone have experience with that lens?

Its probably one of the best options for nikon in that focal range. You get what you pay for.

Is it that bad?

 

[KmH]

I recommend you undertake a study of lenses, what the all the various numbers mean, and how those numbers relate to your photographic goals.

One or 2 lenses won't cover the range of portrait possibilities from head shots to group portraits.

Once focal lengths get shorter than 50 mm, distortion of subjects features becomes problematic because the camera is by necessity closer to the subject.

 

[MrsLittle]

I recommend you undertake a study of lenses, what the all the various numbers mean, and how those numbers relate to your photographic goals.

One or 2 lenses won't cover the range of portrait possibilities from head shots to group portraits.

Once focal lengths get shorter than 50 mm, distortion of subjects features becomes problematic because the camera is by necessity closer to the subject.

I understand that, I saw examples somewhere a while back. I just wanted a lens I can take with me everywhere and get family photos but would also be sharp and great for in studio.

 

[Jeremy Z]

MrsLittle - I was going to say 50mm, if you have a crop body. If a fast 50mm doesn't do it for you as a portrait lens, then it is probably not the lens.

I thought your picture of your son above was fine, but maybe not what a short telephoto portrait lens was intended for. Those lenses were intended to be shot wide open and for head-and-shoulders portraits.

So in answer to your other questions, if you're not happy with the results you're getting from your kit lens and your 50mm prime, I think you should study up a bit more on lighting and posing, then get the studio equipment you'll need for the results you want. Look here and in books at the shots you like, and take note of the set-up, lens, lighting, and pose. Try to duplicate it as best you can with the equipment you have, and if it looks like you're going in the right direction, buy the equipment you'll need to really make it happen.

My A little tip: For family pictures, consider candids more. To me, studio portraits are kind of a mass-production type of photography. The smiles and moods are never really honest. With candids, the backgrounds and lighting may not be as perfect, but they portray an honest moment, and the in-focus parts of the picture often help to complete the story of that moment. I tried posed portraits once, and was never happy with them, even when they were technically good. I then moved to candids with my SLR, a telephoto zoom (a simple 80-200 equiv. f/3.5-5.6) and a bounce flash. I don't post them here very often, because they get torn apart for not having perfect backgrounds and lighting. I realized I don't care; I like them because they're honest and they tell a story.

Give it a try; you probably already have the equipment you need. If so, the worst that can happen is you don't like the results and go back to your quest for the perfect portraits.

 

[MrsLittle]

I will definitely study more on lighting and posing. It's not that I don't like my 50, it's just that I don't have a zoom lens and would really like to have that kind of versatility.

My dilemma was if I should get an Ab800 and some sort of cheaper zoom lens, or get one of the better lenses like the 24-70 and work it into the lighting I already own. It's a tough choice.

 

[cgipson1]

Why do you have to have an AB800? That is going to be more power than you really need in that 15x20 space.

check out the flashpoint 320.... not as powerful, but it is 1/3 the price of the AB800..... and they do really well. Pro Review: Adorama Flashpoint II 320 Monolight (Professional Photographer Magazine Web Exclusives)

Amazon.com: Flashpoint II 320M, 150 Watt Second AC / DC Monolight Strobe.: Camera & Photo

Get two of those.. and learn to use them. If you do need more power...the FP 620 is good.

http://www.amazon.com/Flashpoint-Mo...?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1327606377&sr=1-16

 

[Postman158]

I'd say the 24-70, because not only can you use it in your studio area, but its a great walk around lens too.

 

[KmH]

Lens Genealogy « Canon Rumors

 

[cannpope]

I had a Sigma 17-50 f2.8 OS on my D7000 and I really liked the combo.