Best Portrait/macro prime in your opinion, around €400 [new or used]

Thecageyone

This is just something I want at some point, not immediately. I have some lenses to sell and a few small pay jobs would tot up the rest to allow me look at a nice prime. I'd love to get one that has 1:1 macro ability too, but it would be used mostly for portraits.

Been eying the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 and Sigma 105mm f/2.8.

What do you think is the best lens in this range? Preferred focal length for a portrait lens? is f/2.8 enough, or should I really be looking at f/1.8 - f/1.4 offerings? [most likely used]

Appreciate any suggestions. feel free to show some examples of your preferred lens if you like.

.Longshanks.

To fit a crop or full frame sensor?

DotOrg

Thecageyone wrote: »

Been eying the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 and Sigma 105mm f/2.8.
Appreciate any suggestions. feel free to show some examples of your preferred lens if you like.

i have the sigma macro 105mm and yes it's a great macro lens and produces lovely portraits too but AF is really slow for shooting portraits

i'd advise you to get an 85 f1.8 instead

Thecageyone

Sorry, cropped sensor [D90]

Very slow DotOrg?

The 85mm wouldn't have 1:1, far as I know, would it?

DotOrg

the sigma is slow in the sense of you wait literally a second for it to find focus

and you're right, the 85mm is rubbish as a macro lens, nowhere near 1:1

Thecageyone

Great portrait lens though? The 85mm. I've heard people rave about it but that might have been the 1.4 version?

Is it worth trying to get both in one and losing that extra stop of light?

pete4130

Thecageyone wrote: »

Great portrait lens though? The 85mm. I've heard people rave about it but that might have been the 1.4 version?

Is it worth trying to get both in one and losing that extra stop of light?

It's actually 2/3 of a stop.

Thecageyone

I never get stops right, I did check here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-number

And going on the first full stop table it suggests one stop between 2 and 2.8?

Either way, the f/1.8 would probably not make all that much difference on a prime?

charybdis

Thecageyone wrote: »

going on the first full stop table it suggests one stop between 2 and 2.8?

That's because f/2 and f/2.8 are one stop apart.

Thecageyone wrote: »

Either way, the f/1.8 would probably not make all that much difference on a prime?

Do you find that a third of a stop is much of a difference?

Thecageyone

I see, I read 2/3 as 2 3rds.

So it would be 1 and a third stops of light between 1.8 and 2.8? Of course I'd notice a difference but wondering if it's really needed, probably not. I'd most likely be happy with 1:1 over that extra bit of light

charybdis

Thecageyone wrote: »

I see, I read 2/3 as 2 3rds.

As you should.

Thecageyone wrote: »

So it would be 1 and a third stops of light between 1.8 and 2.8?

Yes.

Thecageyone

Ok, my brain is not functioning right now, you're saying 2 3rds = 1 + 1/3rd? I best get back to school so! I would have thought 1 and a 1/3rd = 4 3rds, not 2.

Anyway, so I settle on f/2.8 being fast enough, best lens for portrait + macro out there around that price?


Looking at the Tamron 90mm it extends fairly long for a prime!

charybdis

Thecageyone wrote: »

Ok, my brain is not functioning right now, you're saying 2 3rds = 1 + 1/3rd? I best get back to school so! I would have thought 1 and a 1/3rd = 4 3rds, not 2.

2/3 is two-thirds. 4/3 is four-thirds or one-and-one-third.

The difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8 is two-thirds of a stop.

The difference between f/1.8 and f/2.8 is four-thirds of a stop, which is the same thing as one-and-one-third of a stop.

Thecageyone

Cheers, got it now ... I think [Can you tell Maths was my weakest subject in school?]

eas

There are loads of great portrait lenses out there, but you're the only one that can decide witch one suits you.

I had the Nikon 85 1.4. Tremendous lens, but no good for me because I found the working distance uncomfortable for the way I shoot and sold it. How silly was I to shell out 1K on a lens only to realize after I'd bought it that I didn't like it? Very.

Personally I'll go for either the 50 1.4 or 105 depending on the situation, but that's me. You may find the 105 a bit limiting on a cropped sensor, particularly indoors.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Micro nikkor 85mm dx?

Thecageyone

I can't really decided without physically testing them, and chances are I'd be buying online.

What I want is a decent, sharp, portrait lens, that also does superb macro, is fast-ish and not overly noisey. Any of the good ones would probably do the trick, I just want to know if anyone has experience with more than a few? What did they find best and why?

The Nikkor 85mm micro is f/3.5, VR doesn't make up for the lack of a wider aperture, I like to shoot bees and butterflies in the summer.

Hugh_C

Not sure an 85 on a D90 will give a comfortable shooting distance for portraits. A bit too long, I think a 50'd be more useful. I have both on a crop frame and consistently use the 50.

Another thing, I have the old 85mm f/1.4 ais, beautiful lens, never use it below about f/5.6 to be honest.

Thecageyone

I suppose 90mm/105mm primes would be tight indoors. I have a 17-50 f/2.8 which I find pretty decent inside, I usually use bounced flash along with.

Anyone use a 60mm micro?

Borderfox

eas wrote: »

There are loads of great portrait lenses out there, but you're the only one that can decide witch one suits you.

I had the Nikon 85 1.4. Tremendous lens, but no good for me because I found the working distance uncomfortable for the way I shoot and sold it. How silly was I to shell out 1K on a lens only to realize after I'd bought it that I didn't like it? Very.

Personally I'll go for either the 50 1.4 or 105 depending on the situation, but that's me. You may find the 105 a bit limiting on a cropped sensor, particularly indoors.

I love the focal length of the 85mm, but in terms of macro the 100mm f2.8
(canon) is superb, anything in the nikon range should be excellent

Slidinginfinity

I've a D90 too. I think, with your specifications I would say get the 60mm f/2.8 micro from Nikon.
It will equate to a 90mm lens with the cropped sensor. which is a decent length for a macro and just a split hiar longer that an ideal portrait lens.

magicbastarder

Thecageyone wrote: »

And going on the first full stop table it suggests one stop between 2 and 2.8?

don't forget you've to square the numbers before calculating the ratio.

bogmanfan

I have the Canon 60mm f2.8 macro and love it.
It's a really nice portrait lens also, and gives you a good working distance indoors (not too close to the person, not too far away).

Thecageyone wrote: »

Anyone use a 60mm micro?

hmboards

Thecageyone wrote: »

The Nikkor 85mm micro is f/3.5, VR doesn't make up for the lack of a wider aperture, I like to shoot bees and butterflies in the summer.

I don't think you will need to worry about wide apertures as far as insect macro is concerned. You will be most likely be stopping down and using flash anyway to increase the DOF. Wide aperture would be nice for the portraits though.

Thecageyone

Yeah, I'm being a bit greedy wanting a kind of all in one prime. The wide aperture would be good for portraits and events, the 1:1 for close up stuff, and prime for sharpness.

The 60mm f/2.8 is looking the best option. I looked at videos on the tube for the Sigma 105 and Tamron 90mm, both look very sluggish focusing. They also extend a bit more than I'd like at 1:1. Only thing about the 60mm is it might be tough getting in close to insects and tiny creatures?

Semi-related, I came across this clip when looking them up. A wedding photographer basically just showing off his gear, inc. the Nikon 105mm macro. In the clip he says he never uses anything but 2.8 - I get that variable apertures would be not much use to him, but he says he can't understand why some people use 1.8/1.4 lenses. I suppose everyone is different.

I would kill for his kit though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKqLrnPHVRE

Borderfox

Thecageyone wrote: »

Yeah, I'm being a bit greedy wanting a kind of all in one prime. The wide aperture would be good for portraits and events, the 1:1 for close up stuff, and prime for sharpness.

The 60mm f/2.8 is looking the best option. I looked at videos on the tube for the Sigma 105 and Tamron 90mm, both look very sluggish focusing. They also extend a bit more than I'd like at 1:1. Only thing about the 60mm is it might be tough getting in close to insects and tiny creatures?

Semi-related, I came across this clip when looking them up. A wedding photographer basically just showing off his gear, inc. the Nikon 105mm macro. In the clip he says he never uses anything but 2.8 - I get that variable apertures would be not much use to him, but he says he can't understand why some people use 1.8/1.4 lenses. I suppose everyone is different.

I would kill for his kit though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKqLrnPHVRE

He must have very bright churches on his part of the world especially when they wont let you use flash

Thecageyone

That's what I thought too. And if he is using flash a lot, since he has 3 or 4 units, he probably does get permission, then he'll not be using 2.8 all that much anyhow.

Borderfox

Very sunny in Orlando

Thecageyone

True. the faster apertures would just be wasted on him really.

Squidgy Black

If you start choosing one now, you'll just die of GAS before you can save up to get it

I think 105 would be quite tight for indoors, especially on a crop sensor.

If you still have your 55-200, try and get the focal lengths roughly on it just to try it out, I think you'll find the larger focal lengths a bit tight.

Thecageyone

I've actually been doing that with the zoom Checking to see what would work nicely indoors, though it's not a massive issue. I have 17-50 covered already for in here, the prime would mostly be for outdoors, especially come late spring/summer.

I'm forever eying lenses I can't have, it's a sickness

dinneenp

I have my eye on a pentax 50mm f1.4 and 50mm f1.7. But never thought of looking for a macro and portrait lens..hmm
For indoors wouldn't anything longer be too long? Even indoors I found I had to step back a lot with my old 50mm lens.
I have two young kids, love portraits with bokeh/blurred background, like this http://m.flickr.com/#/photos/pacork/5126266265/
So I'm going to check for a two-in-one lens but imagine I'll end up going for the prime.
I sold my prime to buy a 17-50mm f2.8 but it doesn't replace my prime (like earlier poster, only realised this after buying it)
Pa

Thecageyone

In this month's Digital Photo they do a Macro lens group test [at least offerings in the 35 - 60mm 1:1 range] : [the magazine's rating in brackets for each, overall score after all tests]

Canon EF-60mm f/2.8 USM [*****]
Nikon 60mm f/2.8 ED AF-S Micro [*****]
Olympus 35mm f/3.5 macro [***]
Pentax 50mm f/2.8MCD FA Macro [***]
Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro [****]
Sony 50mm f/2.8 D Macro [***]
Tamron 60mm f/2 Di II LD Macro [***]
Panasonic 45mm f/2.8 Macro Leica Vario-Elmar [****]

Canon takes the Gold, Nikon the silver [though as the star ratings suggest, nothing between them really, their reasoning was because the Nikon has jumped up over £60 in price over the past year, so nothing to do with the quality]

That's the lens I want now, sounds perfect for my needs.

Just need the moolah now.