Ideal Glass for Photographing People?

[zetson]

Off-topic: I don't think I'll ever by a zoom lens ever again, except for the Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8. The primes are so small and easy to carry around and the quality is excellent, especially the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 and 35mm f/2. My next investment will be Tamron 90mm f/2.8, if applicable.

[PhotogMom]

Originally Posted by gomezef

This is the place to learn!

Primes are lenses that do not zoom. Now why in the world would you want that? For a few reasons:

1) Best quality. Since they don't zoom, manufactures can focus everything they have on image quality. Although now zoom lenses are catching up, photographers will always swear prime lenses produce the best quality.

2) Cheap(er). They are tons cheaper. Making zoom lenses are tricky so they up the price. But prime lenses are easy(er) to make, so they don't cost as much.

3) Fast. And by fast, I mean they have a low f-stop (a very wide apeture) so they can let a lot of light in, so you can shoot in low light conditions with faster shutter speeds, and they provide shallow depth of field (that beautiful blurring of the background) you see in pictures.

Primes rock! but they can't zoom, that's the only trade-off. Make sure you google terms you don't know, the internet, including this site, is filled with information. Good luck!

AHHH this is exactly what I have been looking for!! Thanks so much for this perfect explanation. I have been trying to figure out how to get those professional looking snapshots. I feel like I capture good images but they just don't have that crispness, or sharpness to them, or that frozen in time look that you see with professional photos.

I have a Sony A100, and now with your explanation, I am thinking this is what I should get???

http://www.adorama.com/ISO5014D.html
Sony 50mm f/1.4 a (alpha) Mount Digital SLR Standard Lens with Hood.

I take alot of pics of my son, and alot of indoors shots, so alot of it is close up, is 50 going to be too much for that? because the description of the lense says; "Mounted on the Sony a (alpha) DSLR-A100 camera, this lens provides midrange telephoto 75mm focal length (35mm equivalent)"

[SheSPawn]

being a portrait photographer I find that my nifty fifty stays on my camera the most. There are quite a few debates out there about the 1.8 vs the 1.4 and most say the 1.4 is not worth the extra money. I did find one, however, that had comparison shots and I can tell you that it most certainly is. The bokeh is much nicer, the colors are better and there is less fringe effect. For the life of me I cannot find this thread at the moment but I am also in a children's hospital and a lot of photog sites are blocked. That being said if you are shooting fast moving subjects as I do with children you would do well to invest in a 24-70mm f/2.8 as you will find it offers you the best opportunity to catch them in that magic moment. I unfortunately do not own one yet and I fully regret this fact more than you can imagine, it has proven to me that it needs to be in my bag. If you are shooting mostly outdoor, on location or in a larger studio an 85 f/1.4 would suffice and is such an amazing lens I cannot say enough incredible things about it. I actually built my business around the 85 and the 50 and if I didn't shoot so much at my client's homes or shoot children these two lenses would be just fine. I haven't touched my 18-200 since I have gotten my 50, the difference in image quality is staggering.

For an example here is a photo with the 18-200 VR it is heavily PP'd for Photoshop examples so forgive it but it still illustrates the clarity difference

*See next post 5 image limit*

Here is the 50mm straight off of camera wide open (f/1.4)



here is a clarity example of the 50mm SOOC not such a great photo but it best shows the amazing clarity of this lens (f/2.5)



Finally here is the 85mm

(f/2.8)


(f/1.6)


I tried to use all photos of my one daughter so you could make comparisons based on at the very least the same subject but I only have wide open shots of my baby so i threw that one is so you could see the difference even the small amount of aperture change can make (the f/1.6 vs 1.4)

I hope that helps a little with your decision

[SheSPawn]

Here is the 18-200 shot



and just for a full body example since I had to make a new post anyway, here is another of the 85 (soon to be my new favorite lens) (f/2)

[Saralonde]

Beautiful portraits, SheSPawn! I have the 50mm 1.4 (and yes, I think it is better than my old 50mm 1.8) and the 85mm 1.8. Love them both for portraits, but I am particularly fond of the 50.

[SheSPawn]

Thanks saralonde, I wanted to pick photos that actually showed the difference a lens makes. Being a visual person I always found that people showing me helped a lot. Honestly, the 18-200 looked amazing to me at first, but that 50, oh man. While the 85 is incredible and I use it more everyday, the 50 is relatively cheap, light, sooooo friggin fast and i can use it everywhere. if I could only own one lens, that would be it


ok I *think* this is the thread I am talking about, I had a friend look and it seems to be what i was thinking about, but it is blocked here so I can't actually see it

http://www.pbase.com/miljenko/50mm_vs_50mm

it shows visually the difference between the two if you navigate to the pictures of lenses from the tree view

[PhotogMom]

Thank you Kat for that wonderful explanation and visual examples, I too am very visual so that helped a lot.

[prrs4me]

Thanks Kat-that was very informative. And like Saralonde I like my 50 f1.4 better than the 1.8.

[johnnieob]

I use a Nikor 50 1.8 & find it works very well,fast,sharp,light. If i need more "power" I also have a Quantary 2x,works well with the "50".You loose about 1 F stop but still takes a great photo.
Nikon D40x 18-55 kit,55-200 vr kit,35-135 nikor mf,18-135 efs,50 1.8 quantary 2x,
SB 600 flash Gary Fong Light Sphere clear & Cloud with several tops,Fong pop up defuser,various filters tripods,& no clue as to what I am doing but having fun