Need recommendations for Studio/Portrait Lens

[WayneF]

I always presumed the 24-70 would be more suited for indoor shoots compared to the 70-200.
Considering the many uses of this focal length, compatibility with TCs, looks like a no brainer.

You probably want both, but it depends on what you are shooting, rooms or portraits. You said FX and studio and portrait.

70mm on FX has a horizontal field of view of 28.8 degrees. That is 5.1 feet of field at ten feet. That is pretty wide for a portrait, you'd want to zoom in more. But it's too narrow for a group or a room view.

It is similar triangles, compared to 70mm, 140mm is half as wide, and 35mm is twice as wide. But it is not really about focal length, it is about field of view.

DX 70mm is 19.1 degrees, or 3.3 feet view at ten feet, useful for portraits.

 

[ShootRaw]

Thanks guys for the inputs..
I always presumed the 24-70 would be more suited for indoor shoots compared to the 70-200.
Considering the many uses of this focal length, compatibility with TCs, looks like a no brainer.

Are the Sigma/Tamron 70-200 close in quality to the Nikon?

The Tamron would be closest quality to Nikkor in this case..DXO Mark has Tamron 1pt up in sharpness to the Nikkor..And at $1500 it is a no-brainer

 

[gqtuazon]

As mentioned, the 24-70 is going to be a bit limiting as you won't be using the full range for portraits. The 85 will be limiting also, especially on Dx. Sounds like you may be going Fx down the road? For Fx, I'm with the 70-200 crowd, I've found the Nikon 70-200 f4 to be excellent for portraits on Fx, so much so that I sold my 85mm.

The newer Nikon 70-200mm f4 VRIII is actually a great and suitable option at half the price. I would get that lens instead if I didn't have the f2.8 lens in my arsenal. 24-70mm f2.8 might work for group shots inside and/or outside the studio with a DX camera but be cautious on the distortion if you go too wide.

 

[WhiteLight]

The newer Nikon 70-200mm f4 VRIII is actually a great and suitable option at half the price. I would get that lens instead if I didn't have the f2.8 lens in my arsenal. 24-70mm f2.8 might work for group shots inside and/or outside the studio with a DX camera but be cautious on the distortion if you go too wide.

Have been looking around for this.. Not many stores have it yet!
The pricing is totally awesome.. Over $1000 is quite a lot of money to save..
I do have a question though...
I am planning to get all the glass I need first.. And the last upgrade would be to do frame..
Would this be a little too much on dx? Or can I manage by taking a couple of steps back?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[WayneF]

I am planning to get all the glass I need first.. And the last upgrade would be to do frame..
Would this be a little too much on dx? Or can I manage by taking a couple of steps back?

It would "effectively" or "equivalently" be 1.5x longer on DX. Focal length does not change of course, but the cropped view does, so that 70-200 DX appears to act like 105-300 mm on FX (as compared to FX view using those numbers).

You can step back 1.5x farther for the same view on DX that FX would see. "A couple of steps back" works if you were four steps from subject.

DX gives a longer telephoto view than FX, considered an advantage for sports and wildlife. You can of course simply crop the FX to be 2/3 the width and height to mimic the same smaller view, but you lose 60% of the pixels when so cropping. But if the FX started with 24 megapixels (cropped to 10 megapixels), it would still be near DX starting with 12 megapixels (corrected math error).

The big advantage of FX (lens-wise) is wide angle. Put 18mm on DX and it acts like 27mm on FX. It is relatively much harder to get wide angle on DX, because the smaller format crops much of the width away.

But put 18mm on FX, and it acts like 18mm. Shows the full width view.

 

[aroy]

I looked up the 80-200 f2.8. This is a non VR D lens. Though it is quite an old design, it is built like a tank and has fast AF compared to the VR lenses.
Nikon India Private Limited - AF Zoom-Nikkor 80-200mm f2.8D ED -
Here is Ken Rockwell's review. Though most people do not take his advice seriously, I have found that his reviews especially about build and optical performance are spot on.
Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AF-D Review

 

[WhiteLight]

Well, since i started this thread, i've gone a full spin around what i need..
Especially considering the fact that i presently have only Dx bodies.
Though i thought i had finalised on the 70-200 (either a f/2.8 or mostly f/4), the fact that i would need to use this on a Dx body seems a little too long in terms of focal length.
The space i have in mind is not large enough to accommodate the 70-200..

That being said the 24-70 is expensive as hell.

so this is where am at a cross road---

first get the 24-70 & use it on my Dx bodies.
and wait.
then get the 70-400 (which mostly would be the f/4 as i don't really do any action/sports) along with a Fx body

or vice versa.

if it goes the second route (of the fx body & 70-200 first), i am not sure if the 24-70 would be as useful.

what do you guys think??

 

[Marcel]

I would consider the 24-120 VR II F4. It's a sweet lens and would give you constant f4, VR for when needed and just the right length for casual and studio work. And, it's an FX lens so if you ever go that route you have a lens to start with...

 

[Rick M]

What if you picked up the Nikon Fx 50mm 1.8g for now? It would be decent for portraits on Dx (75mm field of view) and it's there for you when you go Fx down the road. If you need anything longer you use the 105.

 

[gqtuazon]

Once you get a FX camera, you'll open up a lot of great possibilities and will end up with a different set of lenses that will suite your needs.

I'd say get a D600/D610 and go from there. You will quickly realize the lenses that we are suggesting will perform much better on a FX camera.

 

[fotojack]

For single subject portraits, I use a 35 and a 50 with my D200/D300. And my "studio" is 6' wide by 10' long. (This also doubles as my basement workshop) For closeups, I use my 18-55 or the 18-105, depending on what I want to see in the final process.

 

[WhiteLight]

What if you picked up the Nikon Fx 50mm 1.8g for now? It would be decent for portraits on Dx (75mm field of view) and it's there for you when you go Fx down the road. If you need anything longer you use the 105.

Exactly what I had been thinking Rick... All along I hadn't really liked the performance of the 50 as compared to the 35.. But studio shooting is a different beast and this could prove to be a sweet find

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[WhiteLight]

Considering most of the shooting to be done in a Studio environment with strobes that would give full control over the lights, would there be any need or benefit for a 2.8 lens?

 

[WayneF]

No benefit of shooting at f/2.8 of course, but the f/2.8 lenses are the really good ones.

 

[ShootRaw]

Fast glass for sure..

 

[wud]

I mostly use the 35mm (so fast!), sometimes the 50mm and then 105mm macro for close up portraits. Haven't used the 70-200mm yet.

And I'm on a fx, as you know.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk