Need a Tele lens, which one?

[FourT6and2]

Currently, I have two main lenses. 50/1.4G and 85/1.4D. I think I need a longer focal length for primarily studio use (location shooting as well) with off-camera flash. So, a super fast lens isn't a priority. But, a constant aperture (if I go with a zoom) is. Since I shoot with strobes. Can't readjust lighting equipment all the time due to changing aperture.

I find that with the 85D I'm always wanting to get closer to fill the frame. But it's minimum focusing distance prevents me from doing that. So, I think a longer focal length is the way to go, rather than a shorter one and getting in closer. I shoot lots of people, headshots, beauty, fashion, conceptual, etc.

So, I'm looking at the 135mm f/2D, 105mm f/2D or the 70-200 VRII.

Any recommendations? The 70-200 seems like it'd be more versatile. But, it's also crazy expensive. And I generally prefer primes because they get you moving around and I like to have less to fuss with. The 85mm on my D90 gives me the same field of view as a 135. But I still can't get in close because focusing distance doesn't change.

Maybe I'll stop in at a camera store to try them out if they have 'em.

 

[Samer]

I'm kind of on the same boat as you in terms of going longer. However, I don't understand your last sentence. Since you seem to be unsatisfied with the field of view from the 85 on the D90, then it seems you may want to go longer. Have you considered the 180 2.8? From what I've seen, I think it would serve you well for tight headshots assuming you have enough space in your studio.

 

[socrdude]

I agree the 180 2.8 is a wonderful lense. I picked up mine for $125 and its wonderful, and sharp. I use the 28-105 as well, as these are affordable to me.. others may go different based on the spend they have.

this is 28-105 shot yesterday

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

this is the 180 2.8

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

they both work well for me and what I do.. and my budget.

 

[Ronald M]

I am looking at the 1.4 G lenses now and the close focus issue is bothering me. In the old days, one could use extension tubes or bellows, but now were are stuck.

Close is not the answer for studio work. 3 foot min with 85 1.4 is enough for tight faces, but if not tight enough for your needs, I would get a 105 2.8 VR.

180 2.8 AF is not the best in very close range, but wonderful further away. Not a zoom lens fan myself. Variable aperture zooms work fine with strobe if you limit the stop you set to the max aperture at the long end. Then it is set it and forget it.

I will not buy any more more screw drive AF lenses. At some point that will be dropped from the camera body, even the pro ones.

If willing to manual focus, go back to 105 2.5, 105 2.8 Micro, but keep in mind any of these require compensation in the close range.

Chip an old extension tube? Someone will hack this eventually.

 

[andrzejmakal]

Sigma 150/2.8
KILLER

 

[FourT6and2]

lol People, it's not about getting closer. It's about filling the frame so I don't have to crop in post. I can't fill the frame with the 85mm. To do that, I have to get closer. But it won't focus that close. That's why I want a longer focal length. So I can fill the frame. And I want to avoid using my D90 since I prefer the D700.

Not sure I'll have enough room in-studio for something like a 180 or 200mm, though. I'll check 'em out.

Thanks!

 

[Joseph]

So, I'm looking at the 135mm f/2D, 105mm f/2D or the 70-200 VRII.

Any recommendations? The 70-200 seems like it'd be more versatile. But, it's also crazy expensive.

80-200?
I would think it'd be perfect for studio when your camera is on a tripod and you can zoom from half body shot to a tight head shot without moving the rig. It's also cheaper than the 70-200's. :smile:

 

[FourT6and2]

80-200?
I would think it'd be perfect for studio when your camera is on a tripod and you can zoom from half body shot to a tight head shot without moving the rig. It's also cheaper than the 70-200's. :smile:

I rarely use a tripod, though. But I'll check it out.

 

[Robert S]

lol People, it's not about getting closer. It's about filling the frame so I don't have to crop in post. I can't fill the frame with the 85mm. To do that, I have to get closer. But it won't focus that close. That's why I want a longer focal length. So I can fill the frame. And I want to avoid using my D90 since I prefer the D700.

Not sure I'll have enough room in-studio for something like a 180 or 200mm, though. I'll check 'em out.

Thanks!

You might want to investigate the Canon 500D or 250D close up lens, actually it's a screw on filter like device. It will cut your focusing distance in half.
And all the reviewers seem to love the IQ. It's main use is for close up photography but just might be what you are looking for. Sold out at B&H.

God Bless,
Robert S.

 

[FourT6and2]

You might want to investigate the Canon 500D or 250D close up lens, actually it's a screw on filter like device. It will cut your focusing distance in half.
And all the reviewers seem to love the IQ. It's main use is for close up photography but just might be what you are looking for. Sold out at B&H.

God Bless,
Robert S.

Interesting. I wonder how it would do when shooting people? A longer lens would still probably be a good idea, though. Like I said before, it's not about getting closer, it's about filling the frame. It'd be nice to get further away from the subject yet still fill the frame. But, I'll look into it. Thanks!

 

[Thorsten]

lol People, it's not about getting closer. It's about filling the frame so I don't have to crop in post. I can't fill the frame with the 85mm. To do that, I have to get closer. But it won't focus that close. That's why I want a longer focal length.

In that case, a longer focal length per so won't do a thing for you. What you will need is a lens with a larger magnification ratio. This ratio determines how large an object can appear in the frame when the lens is focused at it's closest distance.

Your Nikon 85/1.4D: 1:8.8
Nikon 70-200 VRII: 1:8.3 --> So this lens would barely do anything for you over your 85/1.4D
Nikon 135/2 DC: 1:7.1
Nikon 180/2.8: 1:6.6

The larger the ratio (the smaller the number after the , the more the object will fill the frame.

The primes listed here will get you closer but not by all that much. If you need a larger magnification than 1:6.6 and/or the 180mm lens won't fit into your studio, then it may be time to look at macro lenses which all go to 1:2 or 1:1. Not all macro lenses work best for portraits - they're all plenty sharp, but bokeh, skin tone rendering etc are a different story. The Zeiss 100/2 is terrific in every respect and provides 1:2 but it's manual focus.

And by the way I would not use a close-up diopter (Canon 500D etc) for portraits. Optical quality is ok for macro, but it's a pain to work with for longer distances. The lens will only focus within a certain range, if your subject is farther away you'll need to remove it. And autofocus can be slow and erratic.

 

[Robert S]

And by the way I would not use a close-up diopter (Canon 500D etc) for portraits. Optical quality is ok for macro, but it's a pain to work with for longer distances. The lens will only focus within a certain range, if your subject is farther away you'll need to remove it. And autofocus can be slow and erratic.

Tom, actually it's not really a macro (1:1) , but more appropriately a "close up" lens, and you're right it is better suited to manual focus, and I wasn't aware of the distance limitations. Thanks Tom.

God Bless,
Robert S.

 

[FourT6and2]

In that case, a longer focal length per so won't do a thing for you. What you will need is a lens with a larger magnification ratio. This ratio determines how large an object can appear in the frame when the lens is focused at it's closest distance.

Your Nikon 85/1.4D: 1:8.8
Nikon 70-200 VRII: 1:8.3 --> So this lens would barely do anything for you over your 85/1.4D
Nikon 135/2 DC: 1:7.1
Nikon 180/2.8: 1:6.6

The larger the ratio (the smaller the number after the , the more the object will fill the frame.

The primes listed here will get you closer but not by all that much. If you need a larger magnification than 1:6.6 and/or the 180mm lens won't fit into your studio, then it may be time to look at macro lenses which all go to 1:2 or 1:1. Not all macro lenses work best for portraits - they're all plenty sharp, but bokeh, skin tone rendering etc are a different story. The Zeiss 100/2 is terrific in every respect and provides 1:2 but it's manual focus.

And by the way I would not use a close-up diopter (Canon 500D etc) for portraits. Optical quality is ok for macro, but it's a pain to work with for longer distances. The lens will only focus within a certain range, if your subject is farther away you'll need to remove it. And autofocus can be slow and erratic.

What about the Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G micro?

 

[Thorsten]

What about the Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G micro?

No experience, but check out this thread.