Lens advice for my Nikon D200

[Donna Ryan]

Hi - I am just starting out as a child portrait photographer and have alot to learn - and some gear to aquire. I would really love some advice about which lens to purchase.

I will be shooting in studio and on location at the local park. Style wise, I only really like a selective focus - a shallower depth of field and therefore try and shoot wide open as much as possible - the only problem being - I mostly shoot fast moving and erratic subjects (toddlers). Therefore I usually have heaps of reject images based on fuzziness.

I bought the 50mm 1.4 and have had much more success with focus as it is faster than my old glass, but I need something with a longer focal length. I know the 85mm 1.8 is great but my 2 concerns are: feel like I need variable focal length for the park, and maybe 85mm isn't different enough from the 50mm in focal length.

My other two lenses are: AF 24-85mm 2.8-4 (seems very slow to focus on a moving subject - rubbish compared to my 50mm). THE OTHER IS 4-5.6mm AF 70-210. Very old and seems slow but just found it and haven't really used it alot.

I am only interested in Nikon lenses. Money isn't an issue - I just want the right lens. Love the 70-200 2.8 but a bit concerned about weight.

What do you all think I should get?

Long posting I know.

Thanks

Donna

[SavedByZero]

All fast glass is heavy glass.

[Seymore]

Well... I have the 50/1.8, 60/2.8 micro and 85/1.8 and find they all have their purposes. But even though I would suggest the 85/1.8 (http://www.smugmug.com/photos/112072183_nhCkv-M.jpg) for selective DOF (http://www.smugmug.com/photos/112072287_ecypX-M.jpg), I really like the DOF for the 60 (http://moorefoto.smugmug.com/gallery/1318579_8o3PC). But please note that as a general rule, I prefer my subjects to be a bit less mobile and the 85 shots are very low light situations and wide open.


HTH...

[Tee Why]

Nikon 135mm f2 DC.
Mainly made for portraits IMO.

[Donna Ryan]

Thank-you all for the feedback. I am renting a couple lenses tomorrow to see which ones work best for me.

[carrollb]

Thank-you all for the feedback. I am renting a couple lenses tomorrow to see which ones work best for me.
Donna, I would recommend the AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 17-55 f/2.8G IF-ED (http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2147/AF-S%20DX%20Zoom-NIKKOR%2017-55mm%20f/2.8G%20IF-ED.html). I've linked you to the Nikon site for more information but this lens has proven to work very well for me shooting portrait and bridal shots.

[Phil_L]

The Nikkor AF 85 f 1.4 D is a classic Nikon portrait lens.

I have seen some amazing portraits with beautiful bukeh done with it.

It is apparently sharp wide open for narrow DOF.

I have the 85 f 1.8. It is also a good lens, but needs stopping down a bit to get sharp, which might defeat your artistic intentions.

The AF-S 70-200 f2.8 is also a good candidate.

If money is no object, get both or substitute the 135 f2 for the zoom. :D

[Mitchell]

What did you rent?

I'd be happy to make some suggestions. I love spending other people's money!

For children's portraiture on the move, I'd go with the Nikkor 28-70mm, f2.8 and the Nikkor 70-200mm, f2.8 VR. These are both fantastic lenses with enough speed to keep up with all kids. They both are wonderful wide open which will give you nice bokeh and good background separation.

[Ed911]

If money is no problem, upgrade to the D300...for moving objects...there is no comparison. I used to shoot a D200 for kids...and had a lot of rejects...then I got the D300...same good quality and then some...plus a lot more keepers.

Like my pro photographer friend said, between the D200 and D300, it's not about better quality pictures, it's about more of them.

I wouldn't have put this in, if you hadn't said money was no object.

[Donna Ryan]

Thanks for all your feedback. It is so interesting that you say that I will have a higher percentage of good images with the D300. I suspected this was true. Sadly, when I say money is no object I actually mean that I have spent the last year saving up $1800 so that I can get whichever lens is best for me - even the 70-200.

So I rented the 70-200 and itis beautiful BUT I interact alot with the kids when shooting and often shoot with one hand, get on the ground get up again, throw a ball etc - I would have to change styles if I got this lens. I just rented the 105mm macro. I suspect it may double as a great portrait lens - does anyone have any experience with it and portraits?

[schmad]

Donna, I would recommend the AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 17-55 f/2.8G IF-ED (http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2147/AF-S%20DX%20Zoom-NIKKOR%2017-55mm%20f/2.8G%20IF-ED.html). I've linked you to the Nikon site for more information but this lens has proven to work very well for me shooting portrait and bridal shots.


Donna, I too use the 17 -55mm lens. It rarely leaves my camera. It is heavy.

[photographilia]

Thanks for all your feedback. It is so interesting that you say that I will have a higher percentage of good images with the D300. I suspected this was true. Sadly, when I say money is no object I actually mean that I have spent the last year saving up $1800 so that I can get whichever lens is best for me - even the 70-200.

So I rented the 70-200 and itis beautiful BUT I interact alot with the kids when shooting and often shoot with one hand, get on the ground get up again, throw a ball etc - I would have to change styles if I got this lens. I just rented the 105mm macro. I suspect it may double as a great portrait lens - does anyone have any experience with it and portraits?

105 Micro is supposed to be good for portraits. A bit long on a D200 though.

The classic Nikon portrait lens is the 85 f/1.4. For shallow DOF like you mention, you'll find little (nothing) better.

If you like zooms as you imply, you have a couple choices:

the new 24-70 f/2.8. Heavy, but stellar. Expensive.

the slightly older 28-70 f/2.8. Heavy again, but was considered stellar up until the lens above beat it. Used: about $1100.

the even older 35-70 f/2.8. Used to be called Nikon's sharpest lens. It is a push-pull zoom, so if you hate that forget it (zoom doesn't creep, though). The nice thing is that it's relatively cheap: $325 buys it used. You could buy it and an 85 f/1.4 and still have $500 left over (to upgrade to a D300 :wink ). I happen to own one (sample below). One caveat: if you put a bright light anywhere near the frame, this lens flares badly, unlike the others above.

http://photographilia.smugmug.com/photos/73476156_UZTie-M.jpg