People lenses

[shawnivan110]

The eighty five is not "better" than the 24-70, it's different! 70mm is historically the terribly widest finish of the portrait focal-length spectrum (in terms of single/couple's portraits; teams square measure a special animal altogether). My workhorse lens is that the eighty five,1.4D. By all accounts the new eighty five one.8 AF-S could be a stellar lens, however there is one thing regarding the rendering and color from 'D' series glass that i can not get around. The eighty five accounts for regarding seventieth of my portrait work, with the rest being somewhere between eighty five and a hundred thirty five, sometimes shot with my 70-200, which, whereas it may be a dandy camera lens, I notice simplytoo darn cumbersome for studio work.

 

[Braineack]

however there is one thing regarding the rendering and color from 'D' series glass that i can not get around.

what one thing is that?

 

[VidThreeNorth]

...
look how blah the OOF leaves are in this shot.

...

Long-tailed glossy starling by Braineack, on Flickr

a better lens would have rendered it much better. sure it's sharp, but sharpness isn't everything.

Looking at the leaves just a bit out of focus that have a sort of blue fringe, I have been seeing that on trees a lot and I wonder if it is more than just optical. I think there is something in the processing too.

 

[photoflyer]

I have the Canon 85 f1.8 -- I am sure the Nikon equivalent is similar in cost and performance. I think I paid around $450 and the f1.2 is around $1600 (?).

While I normally don't shoot portraits, I've used this lens on a full frame body at a few family events that were indoors and, without a flash, everyone really liked the results.

I've also used it for a few basketball games where I was very close to the action and the results were also very good. I have the 70-200 f2.8 but one venue was so poorly lit I switched to the 85 f1.8 and kept it on.

I don't use this lens a lot but when I do I get great results.

 

[SquarePeg36 7]

I’m surprised by the OP’s choice after what Derrel had to say about that lens.

 

[Derrel]

I’m surprised by the OP’s choice after what Derrel had to say about that lens.

Look at the closer-distance OOF areas....

http://www.lens-rumors.com/wp-conte...P-85mm-F1.8-Di-Vc-USD-lens-sample-images5.jpg look at the nose. look at the eyes.

http://www.lens-rumors.com/wp-conte...P-85mm-F1.8-Di-Vc-USD-lens-sample-images2.jpg

But that 85mm 1/.8 VC lens does have Vibration Control!

As the Photoblographer said, "

• A unique look that makes everything seem like it’s got quite a bit of Clarity in Lightroom increased."

from their review at https://www.thephoblographer.com/2016/04/26/review-tamron-85mm-f1-8-di-vc-usd-canon-ef/

maybe the OP prefers that type of lens rendering...there's a range of tastes and preferences; I myself do not like red wines, and vastly prefer whites or roses...I like salmon, many detest it...I like bourbon but dislike most gin...

 

[mrca]

I like the 84 1.4 for 3/4 and torso up portraits but for head shots, I find filling the frame puts you too close to the subject resulting in unflattering nose size. I prefer the distance for head shots from a 135 2.0. Flattering for the nose/face but not obvious. Crank a 70-200 out to 200 and the distortion becomes apparent. The 135 for me is the sweet spot for head shots. Also, the 135 2.o dc has been the bokeh king since 1994. It has been made unchanged all that time because they nailed it. Of course, shooting with higher megapixel cameras, can just step back with an 85 and then crop to get the same compression as the 135. With 46 mp, I now set my camera for 4:5 or square format and only record 36 and 30 mp respectively.

 

[JBPhotog1]

It depends on the look you are after but my 70-200 VRII or my 105 f1.4E are my first choice lenses in studio or location.

 

[andrewdoeshair]

I'll chime in to defend the OP's choice for the Tamron. My business is people photography, but when I started taking photos I was just trying to build a well rounded lens collection, so I scored anything that was a great deal. After a few years I had picked up some killer wide angle lenses (16-35mm F2.8L ii, sigma 24mm F1.4) and one decent portrait lens (24-70 F2.8L ii). After joining this forum, learning, and then readjusting my priorities, I sold all of my great wide angle lenses and put the money (plus a little bit more) into a few nicer portrait lenses (85mm F1.2, 70-200 F2.8, 100mm F2.8L, and 135mm F2L). Today the widest lens I own is a Tamron 35mm F1.8 because it has stabilization and is a general all around fun lens to use for pretty good results doing the things I sometimes do for fun. I've borrowed much nicer 35mm lenses, but I can't justify buying a nicer "fun" lens. The OP said he doesn't shoot people and is dabbling, it sounds like a "fun lens" to me, and I think the Tamron 85mm was made exactly for him. With the stabilization he'll be able to get a lot more random various uses out of it than if he had gotten a weapon of mass potraitude. If he ends up loving portraiture and wants a more serious lens, he won't be out TOO much to sell the tamron and move up. I think it was a pretty smart buy, given the circumstances.

Although a purchase was already made, I would have a lot of fun sharing my 2 cents about choosing a lens for people photos. We rarely have the luxury of a massive desert with endless space for a scene (like the link I saw earlier), so for me I choose a lens based on how much background I want to see. 85mm if I want the viewer to know where the photo is taken, 135mm if I only want them to see small clues... 70-200 if I don't know what the shoot will throw at me and I need to be ready for anything. But the 85 at a distance, wide open, creates pure magic that I haven't seen in another set of specs. Also the 135 F2L really is a damn miracle, although not the sharpest thing on the planet, it was the lens that made me realize that sharpness is a ways down my list of priorities.