Best lens for portraits

CaptainPendulum

Hi,

I have a Nikon D40 with 18-70 and 70-200 lenses. Have 2 young kids and want the best lens for portraits. I like a bit of depth of field so often go with the 70-200 lens but the photos aren't quite as sharp as I like. I generally use availabe light (with the pop-up flash if the camera needs it).

Would I be better buying a fixed length lens and if so can anyone recommend a good mid-range price one?

Thanks.

DaireQuinlan

Which version of the 70->200 ? It should be acceptably sharp wide open regardless. Maybe if you're shooting in available light you're not allowing for a sufficient shutter speed to compensate for camera shake. Reasonably priced primes that AF on the D40 aren't common, the 50mm f/1.4 AFS would probably be your best bet, and would be a nice short telephoto on a DX camera. Another alternative would be the 85mm f/1.8 but that won't AF on your camera. Honestly though, user error aside, that 70->200 ought to do the job perfectly well unless there's something misaligned in it.

Madis

With Canon the best of the best for portraits is 85 mm 1.2 L (very expensive) but answering your question yes, you should get fixed focal length for portraits because of the sharpness and I suppose overall quality.

Not sure about Nikon's lenses but look anywhere between 50 - 85 with f1.8 or 1.4 (you don't really need 1.2) and you should be fine.

Just found a "cheap" one for about 500 USD - it's 85 mm f/1.8D
http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/1931/AF-NIKKOR-85mm-f%252F1.8D.html

Nforce

Best Portrait lens for your D40 would be the Nikon 35mm AF-S f/1.8...think it's around €250 ish.

If you don't mind using a manual focus lens a cheaper option would be the Nikon 50mm AF-D f/1.8.

Madis

I wouldn't go below 50 mm for portrait.

There are two 60 mm lenses (one from nikon, the other one from tamron) and Nikon users seem to be happy with them.

Nikon 60mm
http://www.pixmania.ie/ie/uk/817998/art/nikon/af-s-macro-nikkor-60-mm-f.html

Tamron 60mm
http://www.pixmania.ie/ie/uk/3258242/art/tamron/sp-af-60mm-f-2-0-di-ii-ld.html

CabanSail

I agree with Daire (it's easier than disagreeing and being proven wrong on a minor technical point ) that the lenses you have should be of sufficient quality to get very good results. If your images are soft then it's more likely to be your technique.

Can you post what settings you are using and maybe some photo's which have problems. If the Exif is available then people here should be able to assist you.

Madis

True, exif would help a lot to understand why is your 70-200 not working for you.

You probably know this but with a lens that size you shouldn't use any slower shutter speed than 1/200th sec. Rest of the settings you can change around that (ISO and f stop)

zerohamster

I would recommend the Sigma 50mm f/1.4, it is available in HSM for Nikon mounts (I have the canon mount).

Also in camera centre they have it at the cheapest I have seen online anywhere bar in china but thats not including customs so its a deal.
Normally anywhere I have seen the 50mm f/1.4 and 30mm f/1.4 the 30mm is much cheaper but in camera centre it seems to be the opposite and the 50mm is a much sharper lens.

The depth of field is stunning for portraits and stopped down it is very sharp.

Heres the link

CaptainPendulum

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

. Maybe if you're shooting in available light you're not allowing for a sufficient shutter speed to compensate for camera shake.

Thanks for all the replies and this one in particular. I think that's it. I'm setting the camera on auto but trying to catch a 2 year old is perhaps too much in-doors. Will try chosing a faster shutter speed and leave the aperture to the camera .

Sorry, not a believer in posting family photos on the web but thanks for offering to take a look.

Might put a prime lens on the Xmas list all the same!

DaireQuinlan

CaptainPendulum wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies and this one in particular. I think that's it. I'm setting the camera on auto but trying to catch a 2 year old is perhaps too much in-doors. Will try chosing a faster shutter speed and leave the aperture to the camera .

Sorry, not a believer in posting family photos on the web but thanks for offering to take a look.

Might put a prime lens on the Xmas list all the same!

You could try firing off a few shots in the same manner as you'd normally try and catch the little monsters, and post them up. I know what you mean though, as my son went from flat on his back to crawling then running and jumping around all over the place I had to go through several iterative increases in AF technology and faster and faster lenses. And I STILL get soft and blurry shots

Put the camera into aperture priority and open up the aperture to it's widest, whatever it is. That'll result in the highest shutter speed possible for that aperture and ISO set on the camera. If you're still getting low shutter speeds you'll have to crank up the ISO to compensate.

As a very last resort you could use the on-camera flash. I never use mine on the cameras that have it, if I'm using flash I'll take it off camera and bounce it off the ceiling or something.

CaptainPendulum

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Put the camera into aperture priority and open up the aperture to it's widest, whatever it is. That'll result in the highest shutter speed possible for that aperture and ISO set on the camera. If you're still getting low shutter speeds you'll have to crank up the ISO to compensate.

Thanks for that. What's the max ISO you would set if you wanted to print enlargements to 12x16? Also, for 12x16 enlargements is there any difference in the amount/appearance of grain in colour v B&W ?

DaireQuinlan

CaptainPendulum wrote: »

Thanks for that. What's the max ISO you would set if you wanted to print enlargements to 12x16? Also, for 12x16 enlargements is there any difference in the amount/appearance of grain in colour v B&W ?

No real idea, sorry, I don't shoot digital. I'm sure there are other people here who'd have a good handle on it though.

CaptainPendulum

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

No real idea, sorry, I don't shoot digital. I'm sure there are other people here who'd have a good handle on it though.

Thanks anyway. From my days shotting film I didn't go above 400 so think I'll stick with that as a starter.

Madis

When it comes to ISO and entry level DSLR's you don't get very good quality going over 800.

Best quality comes from 100-400 but if it's a case of low light conditions you can try 800. It's different for all cameras but I'd suggest to try and see. Print out few shots ranging ISO from 100 - 800 and see the difference yourself.

I'm using Canon 5D mk II with all the L (glass) lenses and I get good quality even at ISO 3200 or max 6400. But again, that's what 5d mk II is well known for.

charybdis

CaptainPendulum wrote: »

Thanks for that. What's the max ISO you would set if you wanted to print enlargements to 12x16? Also, for 12x16 enlargements is there any difference in the amount/appearance of grain in colour v B&W ?

Film grain and digital noise aren't as equivalent as some would have you believe. Digital noise isn't evenly distributed throughout the tones of the image like film grain is, it is more apparent in darker areas of the image. To print at a certain size does not just depend on the ISO used, it depends on the camera you used, how the image was exposed, the tonal values in the image, how it was processed, how it was printed and personal preference.

Chroma noise is the typically more objectionable form digital noise takes and, as the name would suggest, it's something you only need to worry about in colour images. It's a fairly common practice to convert noisy images to B&W as they tend not to show the ugly discolouration and desaturation that excessive chroma noise causes.

CaptainPendulum wrote: »

Thanks anyway. From my days shotting film I didn't go above 400 so think I'll stick with that as a starter.

I recommend you set your camera to an ISO as high as needed to get a good exposure. An underexposed image shot at a low ISO will be far noisier then a well exposed image taken at a high ISO.

CaptainPendulum

charybdis wrote: »

I recommend you set your camera to an ISO as high as needed to get a good exposure. An underexposed image shot at a low ISO will be far noisier then a well exposed image taken at a high ISO.

Thanks for that - learning loads today!

CabanSail

I think we are getting closer to the solution now. The term Portrait normally implies that the subjects are sitting for you. Getting shots of kids like you've described is closer to Wildlife Photography!

Understanding exposure and your gear will help the most.