Portrait shots with a macro lens ?

[bouloss]

hi everyone
its my first post

I have a nikon d70 and i want to get a macro lens and a portrait lens

i have been reading around and it seems i can get a 2 in 1
Sigma 105 EX DG macro F2.8

Will the portrait shots look better , similar or worse then a 85mm 1.8d nikkor?

I wanted to get both. Or maybe the sigma will do both perfectly.

thanks
paul

 

[blurblock]

hi everyone
its my first post

I have a nikon d70 and i want to get a macro lens and a portrait lens

i have been reading around and it seems i can get a 2 in 1
Sigma 105 EX DG macro F2.8

Will the portrait shots look better , similar or worse then a 85mm 1.8d nikkor?

I wanted to get both. Or maybe the sigma will do both perfectly.

thanks
paul

Depends, but with a crop factor of 1.5x, your 105EX will have a view space of 158, for 85mm you will have a view space of 128mm, you will have to take those into consideration.

Anyway, depending what you want for your portriat, whether to throw a lot of background out of focus, if you do, a lower minimum aperture will be good.

But seriously speaking, with the crop factor, I guess the best option might be a Nikkor 50mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4 (A-IS or Non A-IS is no matter, they are equally good) or a 50/60 mm Macro (May it be Sigma 50mm Ex DG or Nikkor 55 / 60mm micro).... it will give you a view space equalivent of 75 - 90mm

 

[espn]

Urm, using AI-S or AI lenses on D70 will have no metering, no autofocusing.

 

[marcwang]

I second the TAMRON, which have one of the best bokeh in the business. Or a used 80-200f2.8 could be a good alternative.

 

[blurblock]

Softening is often not much of an issue. You can either use a Softening filter for softening or you can ask a professional studio to print the picture for you with a softener.

 

[bouloss]

so what ever macro lens i pick tamron or sigma or nikkor i could do portrait

the deal is do i need a 85mm 1.8D lens which they call a portrait lens

or i can stick to what ever macro lens and do portrait with ?

thanks again for all your replies

 

[Witness]

u could use a macro lens as a portaits juz fine...

blurblock....i tink u are missing the point here when u say tt a 50mm would suffice....the reason y ppl get a 85mm (portrait) lens is because of distortion

take the same portrait at 28mm,50mm,85mm and crop it to almost the same size and u will see wat i mean....at 28mm, the ears will look far away from the nose....at 85mm is prob the best...

FOV is not really impt here...its coz properties of lens dun change even with cropping factor...

for bokeh...i tink prob the nikkor will be better....in terms of contrast too....but theres not harm in getting a tamron 90mm di...

cheers..

 

[Witness]

I second the TAMRON, which have one of the best bokeh in the business. Or a used 80-200f2.8 could be a good alternative.

i would like to know y i see so many ppl using 80-200 for portraits these days...if u shoot at 80, wun it be the same to use a 28-80??

anyway...wat about places where there are space constraints or situations whereby u want full body shots???

wat happens then???

juz to clarify my newbie doubts ...thanks....

 

[AJ23]

i would like to know y i see so many ppl using 80-200 for portraits these days...if u shoot at 80, wun it be the same to use a 28-80??

anyway...wat about places where there are space constraints or situations whereby u want full body shots???

wat happens then???

The quality is different.

Try shooting with a 80-200mm/70-200mm f/2.8 and compare with 28-80mm, you should see the difference.

If need full body shots, change to a suitable lense? Get a 28-70mm or 24-70mm?

 

[Witness]

quality....i dun really understand...coz when i shoot my portraits i normally do so at WA...full body shots ...

when i do move over to half portraits i use the 80 end.....so wats the diff???

 

[AJ23]

quality....i dun really understand...coz when i shoot my portraits i normally do so at WA...full body shots ...

when i do move over to half portraits i use the 80 end.....so wats the diff???

What I mean in quality is the picture colour/contrast, details and bokeh.

As an extreme example, take 85mm for example, the quality of the picture is different for say 24-120mm VR, 85mm prime and 70-200mm VR, even if the picture is taken at 85mm focal length.

It's a bit hard to describe, try the 3 lenses, look at the output and u'll see.

Again, I am not saying the must use those 80-200mm lenses for portraits or whatever, I am merely thinking of the reason for using 80-200mm. At least for me, the reason for using a 70-200 or 80-200 for portrait shots is the quality of the image.

As far as I am concern, I choose the right and best lense for my usage. But that purely IMO. Others may differ.

 

[Witness]

quality of image.... sharpness??? okok...i will go compare my tele to my mid zoom soon....

honestly it has to depend on wat tele or wat mid zoom u are using also rite...

cheers...

 

[AntZ]

quality of image.... sharpness??? okok...i will go compare my tele to my mid zoom soon....

honestly it has to depend on wat tele or wat mid zoom u are using also rite...

cheers...

Yes. Pls compare the quality, you might be missing a lot!

 

[AJ23]

quality of image.... sharpness??? okok...i will go compare my tele to my mid zoom soon....

honestly it has to depend on wat tele or wat mid zoom u are using also rite...

Yes, sharpness also, I've missed that out.

And you are right, it depends on which tele-zoom or mid-zoom too.

 

[Witness]

so its subjective lo..... will go and try anyway... if quality is almost the same then i dun see the point in carrying the weight....

wat i feel is tt alot of ppl when i comes to portraits no need think ...straight away take out tele....wat for...??? no pun intended...

 

[nemesis32]

Yes, sharpness also, I've missed that out.

And you are right, it depends on which tele-zoom or mid-zoom too.

AJ.. i think for tele-zoom, it's more of the nicer DOF or bokeh thats the main reason why a lot of people shoot using 80-200. Shooting at f5.6 at 200mm and 28mm at f5.6, we will see that eventhough it's at f5.6, the shot taken at 200mm will have nice bokeh whereas the one at 28mm will be messy as the background will still be highly visible.

ALso, ideal focal length without distorting the features of the face etc is usually between 85-135mm, which is covered by 80-200.

Final reason is alot of people use the lens for outdoor shoot, which can be crowded, hence the pulling power is very useful.

 

[Witness]

yup...i concur with the 5.6 at 200mm part....i have shot f8 at 300mm to good results to compress the backgrd.....

the pulling power thing....now i understand...so wat someone told me is true...perhaps its the model shoots with too many ppl thats causing this stigma..maybe i am juz too used to shooting alone... thanks everyone.. will try to put my telezoom to good use ,,, hehe

cheers..

 

[espn]

It's also perspective difference that would be achieved with different zooms and primes.

 

[blurblock]

blurblock....i tink u are missing the point here when u say tt a 50mm would suffice....the reason y ppl get a 85mm (portrait) lens is because of distortion


cheers..

I know why, but the reason why I tell him that is because I want to caution him on the 1.5x telephoto effect only. The perspective does not change though.

Meaning if he want to take portarit with a DSLR, he will have to stand further away from what a full frame SLR users would be.

 

[bouloss]

thanks for the reply.
you guys went on and on

Well on xmas i was going for the 70-200 F2.8 HSM Sigma
i guess i can take nice portraitrs too with this one

so conclusion for now
a Tamron 90mm DI or nikkor micro 105mm would be good for both macro and portait ( nobody is recommending the sigma )