NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: charlie on October 19, 2016, 22:34:41
-
I am interested in something in the 50mm-ish range that will be particularly well suited for shooting into strong sunlight and maintains good image quality in the near to medium focus range. Nice bokeh, preferably AF but open to MF lenses as well. This will primarily be used for portraits and I don't want quality to suffer from strongly back lit scenes.
I have the 50mm/f1.4 AF-D but it has some focus issues so I'm thinking about replacing it.
Any suggestions/sample images?
-
Micro Nikkor 60mm AFS, AF-D or 55mm Ais Ai would be a good start
-
Zeiss Milvus 50/2 (not the former 50/2 MP), or Voigtländer 58/1.4 (avoiding wide open and close range at the same time; for portraits you are more likely to choose f/2.8 - f/5.6 so this should not be an issue).
Otherwise 50/1.8G if you need AF. Tamron 45/1.8 might also be an option, if the shorter FL suits you.
-
Both Erik and Airy said it, 60 AF-S micro or the 50/1.8G. Bargain lenses.
-
I have the AF-S 60mm Micro and use it for portraits and many other things like sports photography of runners (unbelievable but the AF can handle it).
-
AF-S 60/2,8 micro, AF-S 50/1,8, both could be found in
themy bag quite often.
-
Whatever you do NOT buy the 45P ;D
-
Thanks for your inputs.
How much improved is the AFS 60mm vs the AFD?
Is it the worth the extra $300 price difference on the used market?
Then how is the AFS 50mm 1.8 vs the AFS 50mm 1.4?
I suspect the 1.8 is better shooting into the light?
Whatever you do NOT buy the 45P ;D
But I thought you loved that lens!?!
-
Thanks for your inputs.
How much improved is the AFS 60mm vs the AFD?
Is it the worth the extra $300 price difference on the used market?
Then how is the AFS 50mm 1.8 vs the AFS 50mm 1.4?
I suspect the 1.8 is better shooting into the light?
But I thought you loved that lens!?!
Oh, I do, oh I do. 45P is my love <3
If you want to shoot portraits, just get yourself an 85/1.4, let's not beat about the bush :)
You can shoot it in the sun, but because of its longer focal length, I doubt that you will ever have the sun in your way :)
-
the best AF 50 I have is the 50mm f/1.4 ART :o :o :o
the best MF 50 I have is the 50mm f/1.2 Ai-S ::)
for really important shots where I cannot miss the focus, i use the 50mm ART.
-
AF-S Micro 60/2.8G focuses blindingly fast, which is advantageous for the portraiture. Otherwise, the humble AF-S 50/1.8G is hard to ignore. I've used my 50/1.8G extensively and never really felt its bokeh is harsh.
-
the 50/1.8G is what i would prefer instead of the 50/1.4G :o :o :o
i know a 2 photographers who sold their 50/1.4G and went back to the 50/1.4D because the AF was so slow and the performance was so-so
-
i know a 2 photographers who sold their 50/1.4G and went back to the 50/1.4D because the AF was so slow and the performance was so-so
Rick, thanks for the info. Yes, I do find that the standard and wide AF-D lenses are very quick to focus. You only need to be careful not to touch the focus ring that turns at an unexpectedly strong torque. :o :o :o
-
Charlie expressedly mentioned resistance to flare as a criterion which is more important to him than AF. This requirement was taken into account when I responded. I know that the three mention lenses are well behaved in this respect. The 50/1.2 also has excellent IQ but I am less sure about flare, not having performed systematic tests. Also, I wonder about the 60/2.8 since I do not own it.
-
I haven't had any problems of flare or ghosting with 50/1.8G, which is supported by this review also:
http://www.lenstip.com/308.9-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_50_mm_f_1.8G_Ghosting_and_flares.html
In comparison, 50/1.4G (which I haven't used) suffers in this respect:
http://www.lenstip.com/162.9-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_50_mm_f_1.4G_Ghosting__flares_and_transmission.html
-
Zeiss 50 Makro-Planar (perhaps no longer available new).
-
Definitely not if flare is an issue : it increases on stopping down - that's why I moved to the Milvus 50/2. In the presented "use case" (portraits ==> short range ==> shallow DOF relative to subject size), stopping down will occur for sure, hence my warning.
-
I love the 1.8/50G for its IQ. But its bad mechanical. So I think of replacing it with a 1.4/58G as soon as I find a good used one
-
Definitely not if flare is an issue : it increases on stopping down - that's why I moved to the Milvus 50/2. In the presented "use case" (portraits ==> short range ==> shallow DOF relative to subject size), stopping down will occur for sure, hence my warning.
Not my experience. Mine produces very nice sun stars. I assume the optical formula didn't change going from ZF to ZF.2, but mine is the earlier version.
-
I (still) have the ZF*2*, and it is known for having different coatings compared to the older ZF. I think Lloyd Chambers mentioned, on his website, that the former were better. Anyway he also stated that against-the-light performance was very good, which is not my disappointing experience (on stopping down).
Otherwise it is a good portrait lens (and a good allrounder) by I do not regret the upgrade.
-
I will second the 85 f1.4
-
Elsa, Frank mentions 58/1.4G.
-
Akira, Jakov mentions 85/1.4 :D
-
Akira, Jakov mentions 85/1.4 :D
;D ;D ;D ;D yes I did mean the 85 not the 58 (not that I would mind one...)
-
Charlie, isn't 50 a little short for portrait work? Just curious.
I like 85 or 105 for the few that I do. Get an older Nikkor 85/1.8. Sharp when you need it. Fast enough to soften portraits just a bit if you need that.
-
;D ;D ;D ;D yes I did mean the 85 not the 58 (not that I would mind one...)
Akira, Jakov mentions 85/1.4 :D
:o :o :o
-
Charlie,
Distance from portrayed subject should be at least 1.5m (5ft) in order to avoid "deformation" (that however also depends on the onlooker's perspective, and therefore on the medium - print, screen, projection, etc.). That's just a thumb rule. PLease consider that subjects generally feel more comfortable and behave more naturally when at a longer distance.
By the same thumb rule, a 50mm would frame at least head + upper body (vertical framing) or head + chest (horizontal framing), or maybe slightly less if you cautiously keep the head not too far from the center (once again, to avoid perspective playing nasty tricks), and crop away part of the "overhead" later.
So a 50mm is still OK if "portrait" does not mean mugshot, but upper body shot - Mona Lisa & al.
If you were my neighbour, and not knowing more about your precise intentions beyond your initial post, I'd lend you my Voigtländer 58/1.4 with confidence; these "8 additional millimeters" would be most welcome. The 50/1.8G would be the next best candidate if money and versatility matter, but Andrea is right, it is a bight short.
I can only imagine the "use case" which is not detailed. If it is outdoors (backlight = seashore or similar), stepping back is easy, and a (much) longer FL won't hurt. 180mm-300m or so.
If it is indoors (subject placed near a bright window), stepping back may become difficult, but usually 2.5m-3m would be available. 50mm remain interesting for, say, nude shots, not for traditional head + shoulder portraits - 85mm FL is much more suitable then (on full frame !).
Getting a 85/1.8 is a good idea (they may be cheap), or possibly the old proven 105/2.5, but once again the "flare" issue with backlit subject needs caution. The 105/2.5 is rather good, but not the best here. Results are okay-ish for shooting organs in churches (with windows around and - Gof forbid - behind), but some PP is often required to limit the veiling flare. Those church conditions are however harsh and uncontrollable, so maybe indoors with gaze curtains it would fare better.
I do not know about the flare behaviour of the various 85/1.8. Under more conventional conditions, the old 85/1.8 AF-D is excellent from about f/2.2.
Ah and finally - if you are shooting DX, divide all FLs quoted above by 1.5. In such case, go for the 50/1.8G.
-
Airy kind of said what I agree with. A longer lens renders a better image in terms of distortion (or whatever the correct english word is) It gives you a more rounded image. There are some articles on the web to show you what a portrait looks like with different focal lengths. For me - the 50mm is still too short to render the best portrait.
this article : http://jakehicksphotography.com/latest/2015/10/26/50mm-vs-85mm-which-is-the-best-focal-length-for-portraiture - I think explains exactly what I mean to say. (sorry my english aint as great as I wish for)
-
By the way- a successful, contemporary French photographer calling himself "JR 28mm" published hundreds of portraits shot with guess what - a 28mm on a full-frame Canon. His style is unusual for sure.
-
Interesting link, Elsa. Another subject for meditation: when painters do portraits, what is usually the distance from their subject? The answer may apply to photographers too...
-
Interesting link, Elsa. Another subject for meditation: when painters do portraits, what is usually the distance from their subject? The answer may apply to photographers too...
mmm I dont think so - I dont think a lens renders the same as the eye?
On the other hand - have you ever seen an artist sit on top of a subject? I actually think they need the distance because the need the right perspective.
-
Well, perspective is a matter of distance to the subject and nothing else...
-
Airy - maybe I am using the wrong word? Sorry I cant think of the right word here :-[
-
Elsa, I think we agree - I'd be very surprized if painters would place their easel at less than 2 m even for painting a head, unless of course they would be terribly short-sighted or plagued with an eye condition (see Degas, Monet, and others...).
Most paintings I saw depicting a painter while painting showed significant space between painter and subject. That's just my vague memories though, and does not replace systematic observation.
-
Yes I agree :)
-
Thank you for your inputs everyone.
I suppose I should have defined myself more thoroughly. I'm speaking to environmental portraiture. All lenses are portrait lenses as far as I'm concerned and the portraits I am referring to would be any picture where it is a collaboration between the sitter and the photographer. Pictures where the one being photographed is not collaborating, a candid if you will, I often considered a portrait. Portrait is a very broad term, the traditional headshot is not necessarily what I am referring to. I'm not always pointing my lenses into bright lighting but don't want there to be much issue when I do.
I know no best or better focal length for portraits, only different. I do have and use the 70-200mm & the 105mm AFD micro lenses though my most used portrait lens is the 24-70mm, for its versatility. 35mm & 50mm primes are lenses I use when I don't want the bulk of the 24-70mm or when I want the character of those. My favorite portraits at the moment come from getting up close and personal with the 35mm f1.4 ais. Natural acting is not necessarily the best for portraits, uncomfortable and quirky expressions are welcomed, being close can invite that.
Portraits on the wider side of things.
The first 2 are 35mm, all are 60mm or wider.
(http://charliechipman.com/media/original/_DSC6826-Edit.jpg)
(http://charliechipman.com/media/original/_DSC1421-Edit-copy2.jpg)
(http://charliechipman.com/media/original/allie-02-Edit.jpg)
(http://charliechipman.com/media/original/_DSC4743-Edit.jpg)
(http://charliechipman.com/media/original/Dean--Lexie2455-Edit-copy1.jpg)
(http://charliechipman.com/media/original/_DSC2025-Edit.jpg)
(http://charliechipman.com/media/original/Simone_Laura_508-Edit.jpg)
-
Well, then 50/1.8G or possibly 58/1.4G.
-
So your only real question was target at flare resistant.
All of these posted portraits are top notch! Where the back ground really adds to the image Beautiful and lovely! I'm a big fan of environmental portraits ;) Especially seeing your work.
To many of the persons commenting on this thread with advice; I also consider most focal lengths for portrait lenses, I have shot portraits from300mm to 6mm - Forget the rules about 85-135mm are portrait length lenses,,,
-
There are indeed no "rules". I did not push them so far into the wide angle direction, but yes, down to 24 mm for individuals (no mugshots of course)... and 500mm on the other end (mirror lenses: Tamron, Nikon).
I also understood that flare was the issue here, hence my tips. I have never used the 58/1.4G but in a shop, but being a night lens I guess it will also cope with backlighting.
P.S. the piano guy and the red haired lady are outstanding.
-
Your portraits are fantastic!
You don't need a new lens, just continue to do whatever you have been doing thus far and treat yourself with an 85/1.4 to complement your 35/1.4 nicely :)
-
I saw that in your posts Airy! ;)
And yes if I should pick a favourite it would be the girl with the freckles and red hair! Straight on, a little to the side, soft backdrop and seductive eye contact.
-
Well, perspective is a matter of distance to the subject and nothing else...
Helloooooooooo Airy
I just luv to disagree with you 8)
1- Shooting people being it portraits or HS or FBS is done with most focal lenses generally from 24mm to 300mm. I shoot a lot of 24 and 28 and 50 and 85 and 200........and lately the 105/1.4 with the proviso that it is either too long or too short.
An 85mm or 50mm touted on the internet amplifier is just noise. You shoot based on what you can achieve and the shoot objectives.
2- Perspective: Maybe you wish to elaborate as to what and which type of perspective you are making your statement that it is distance related.
Perspective is angle - depth and elevation related........you could call depth or more correctly the Z axis a kind of "distance" if you wish to be generous with the definition.
Are you talking about One Point Perspective? Two? Three?........?
Painter distance to subject is only relevant in the angle of view.....so obviously, a painter cannot take a FBS with being too close to the subject.........however, you could do that in photography.......theoretically.
As for which lens introduces flare or not, I am not the wiser as I introduce flare in post. Flare seems to be the new trend lately.
-
1 - we agree. However "legends" such as 85mm-for-portrait do not come up for no reason, good or bad.
2 - one point perspective, seen from the photographer's eye. For a given distance, FL changes mean framing changes, but perspective (angle of view, relative apparent size of objects) does not change. So it is safe to recommend a "safe distance" of at least 2-3m for "neutral" portraits, and choose the FL according to the desired framing (avoiding excessive cropping too). Getting closer means indeed that the viewer will notice geometric "deformations" that may be part of the intent - e.g. big nose or long legs - but if not intentional, they'll mostly turn out to be bad.
Maybe the 85 or 135 "legend" has also to do with technology - limitations of viewfinder cameras, or weight and quality of "long" lenses. With the 300 PF on board, I only hope to get more opportunities to use it for portraits.
concerning flare, I generally do not care much, except when shooting organs against the light, one of my usual shooting circumstances. In such case it is critical. Few reviewers test flare thoroughly. As far as I am concerned (i.e. little), I only know about the flare propensity of those lenses I do use for organ shooting purposes - FL range is then from 20mm to 58mm, exceptionally 105. With longer lenses, I hardly get into situations where flare could become an issue, so I care much, much less.
-
When an animal with binocular vision looks at another animal they are most likely thinking about food, sex or combat. This might have something to do with a kind of taboo on starring at another person? Why would a 180/2.8 or 300/2.8 be a more voyeuristic sort of lens in this context? Why is it alright to stare at a woman on the catwalk but it's not alright to stare at the very same woman on the street or in a cafe, etc.? Why is it alright to look at the same woman, yes with both eyes if you are in conversation with her? How do social norms affect our perception of proper perspective in the human face? What is the distance across a small circle of friends? What's the distance across a dining room table, person to person, face to face when people are in conversation after a meal?
Dave who going to bed shortly after a long day of driving.
-
Well, perspective is a matter of distance to the subject and nothing else...
. With due respect, but one flat subject can't create any perspective... You have to include closer and farer points of your subject, in your calculation, as well as distances between all of subjects inside your field of view (or lens's one). LZ
-
To Charlie - One of the best psychological portraiture series what I have ever seen... Doesn't matter what lens was in use, all of them used artistically! Even if I or someone else knows which lens for each person, we can't repeat. It's unique! Well done, really! LZ
-
Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 Nokton is really good.
Zeiss' Milvus and Makro-Planar 50mm is also a great all around lens.
If you want a rather cheap one, the 50/1.8 or 1.4 MF lenses from Nikon are great too, just make sure it's converted.
-
Charlie, you are so good at this stuff! Love these enviro-portraits. And now understand your need for a 50. 8)
-
With out further ado... :)
So your only real question was target at flare resistant.
All of these posted portraits are top notch! Where the back ground really adds to the image Beautiful and lovely! I'm a big fan of environmental portraits ;) Especially seeing your work.
Yes, mostly. Flare resistance and I didn't mention it but character is important as well.
The 50/1.4 AFD is a fine lens though it flares and has a tendency for CA that I could live with out. I let a friend borrow it and they turned the focus ring with out switching the manual focus switch on the camera and it must have stripped the focus helicoid of the lens. Sometimes it has trouble with auto focus in the near range now. There is a scratch on the front element and the filter threads are damaged. Its old & beat up and I'm still happy with it for the most part, but also interested in alternatives when the time comes to replace it.
I love the character of the 35/1.4 AIS wide open and up close, it sometimes looses its charm when the aberration induced soft focus effects appear at medium and further focus distances, unless stopped down of course.
-
Micro Nikkor 60mm AFS, AF-D or 55mm Ais Ai would be a good start
Still stands then,,, ;)
-
Still stands then,,, ;)
Right.
Your portraits are fantastic!
You don't need a new lens, just continue to do whatever you have been doing thus far and treat yourself with an 85/1.4 to complement your 35/1.4 nicely :)
Thank you sir. An 85mm would be nice, but I've been eyeballing that 135mm DC thanks to you're musings with it!
-
Right.
Thank you sir. An 85mm would be nice, but I've been eyeballing that 135mm DC thanks to you're musings with it!
Charlie, you will need both the 85/1.4 AF-D and 135/2.0 DC, and then you will NOT need the 105/1.4 :D
-
Great portraits, Charlie.
Apart from what already have been said, I like the 55mm f/1.2 and the 80mm f/2.8 also for portraits. (In addition to the Voigtlander 58/1.4 and the 85/1.4)