Reading mode: Light Dark

17-55 2.8 or 85 1.4 and 35 1.8?

Go to last post
J

JL Davidson

Member
Messages
20
Reaction score
0
Hi, quick question which lens do you think would benefit me more.

The type of shooting I do is of my 3 month old son soon to be birthday parties and sporting events of him as he grows and a lot of indoor/outdoor family event pics. I know a lot of pregnant women who want me to take pictures of their bellies to print out 8X10s

my current gear is
D90

18-200mm (I bought cause i'm traveling to chicago for 16 days to visit the wife's family and wanted a sweet walkaround lens)
SB-600

What I like to do is take portraits and would like to do some available light portaits using candles(for birthdays) but can use flash anytime so i am not limited to just available light stuff its just what i want to try sometimes

So which should I get?
85 1.4 for creamy portraits and a 35 1.8 for indoor events
or 17-55 2.8 for flexibilty to do both and a little more?
 
The 17-55 is too short for portraits, even on crop bodies. It would pair nicely with my lens recommendations below, but in an either/or situation, I would pass.

My recommendation:

The 35 f/1.8 is a great choice. That is your inside the house, low light and candid lens.

Then you need a dual purpose portrait and kid's events lens. I suggest either the Tokina 50-135 f/2.8 or the Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 HSM II. Both are great. I love my Tokina and it does a great job keeping up with the kids. I would not use it for really fast sports however, so maybe the Sigma might be a better choice. Photozone and lenstip have reviews of both lenses.

That 85 f/1.4 prime is a top tier lens. However, you give up flexibility. I guess you can just use your 18-200 for everything else. Since I would love to have this lens myself, I have a hard time telling anyone not to get it, but the question really is how useful it is to you and what are you going to give up to get it? For me, I needed the flexibility of the zoom that can also do great portraits.

Catallaxy
 
well Thom Hogan thinks you are wrong. - here is a quote from his review of the Nikon 50mm f/1.4G

"Let me explain why a fast 50mm prime is still important in these days of zooms: for DX cameras, somewhere in the 50 to 60mm range is a perfect portrait focal length, and you generally want a fast lens to help provide control over depth of field (often you want to isolate a person you're taking a picture of from the background)."

so Thom thinks that between 50 and 60mm is the "perfect portrait focal length" and you don't - - - - - hmmmm I'll have to think about that

As to the OP, I own all of these lenses and if you are going to be shooting young subjects that are moving get the 17-55 and if you are only going to shoot posed portraits get the 85. in either case get the 35 for everyday use JMO
Catallaxy said:
The 17-55 is too short for portraits, even on crop bodies. It would pair nicely with my lens recommendations below, but in an either/or situation, I would pass.
Click to expand...
Catallaxy said:
Catallaxy
Click to expand...
--
Way more glass than any normal person needs :)
 
That depends of your definition of portraits. Full body, half body, shoulder and or head shots. For full and half body I'm OK with my 17-55 on my D90 and D200. For closer shots without being intrusive I use my 85 1.8 and/or 105 F/2 DC.



Cheers!
 
I use the 1755 for general use and the 85 for portraits.

If you are like me you will find very little use for the 35.
 
50 to 60mm is a great range for full body portraits. So in that regard, I am in agreement with Thom's general advice.

However when most people talk about portraits, they are usually talking about 3/4 length or less portraits and for that you need a longer focal length.

So to determine the best portrait lens it matters what type of portrait you are talking about. A 50-150 lens has the range to do a full body portrait and to do a head and shoulders portrait. At 17-55 lens is best for full body only, but will distort features if you try to use it for head and shoulders shots. So the 17-55 is less versatile.

To demonstrate the effects of distortion on facial features. Compare the 70mm shot to the 200mm shot (equivelent to 50mm and 135mm on DX). Which looks more pleasing to you? To me, the 200mm shot looks better.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=32413898
--
Catallaxy
 
It's the subject to camera distance that changes the perspective versus the focal length. However most of us get bogged down in the old "which FL is best for portraits?" debate. That includes me.

I prefer 12 to 15 feet distance for shooting portraits (I'll include my candids in that category too). And for me, that equates to 50mm for full body and 135 for head shots. It also works out that my Tokina 50-135 covers that range perfectly. I'm glad that I found a tool that gets me the look that I want without having to change lenses.

Others like different looks and have found tools that meet their needs.

--
Catallaxy
 
It is hard to find now but will fit the profile you stated. Wide enough for indoors, long enough for head shots. Fast enough to track the kids when they start to motor. A two year old is an athlete without training. You will not have time to change a lens. Add a wide angle prim, later a 70-200 f2.8 or a prim in the 105mm range depending on what you are doing and what the kids are doing when that time comes.

Of the lenses you picked I like the 17-55 and a 85 as backup. I am not convinced that 1.8 will not make due while I wait for a 1.4. (I currently have the 17-55 and love the lens).

Of the ones that everyone else mentioned the Sigma 50-150 sounds like a great choice. Add a wide angle for later. Then a long prim or zoom down the road.

My baby is just about to head off to college. I hope you enjoy the years with yours as much as I have. What a great journey.
John
 
I guess it all depends on what you are accustom to. For over 30 years before I got into digital I shot with a Leica M and always had 3 lenses a, a 35mm 1.4, 50mm f/1.4 and a 90mm f/2.8. that was it. the 90 was my head and shoulder portrait lens, the 50 was my everything lens and also full body portraits and the 35 was for landscapes. On a Dx camera these would be about the same as a 23, 33 and a 60 - so as you can see the 17-55 fits what I and most leica users have used forever

over the years I have known more professional photographers than I can count who have shot with 70 to 90mm lenses as their main head and shoulder portrait focal length on film - heck how many head and shoulder portraits do think wedding photographers using film have shot over all of the years using the long end of a 28-70 zoom?

on DX the 17-55 is longer 28-70 and requires you to stand further from your subject so what the heck

as a side not you may notice the 105 in my name - it is there because the 105DC is my money maker for studio work (I shoot children and babies) so I do understand the desire for working distance, but this is too long for adults as it flattens their features more than I like. perspective distortion goes both ways, I dont want big noses, but I also dont want flat faces either they lose their character , as to catching any kind of moving subjects I still grab the 17-55

Aint it great we can all have what we like best

--
Way more glass than any normal person needs :)
 
thanks for the replies I guess im going to experiment with the 18-200 a lil more to help me decide which focal length i can get the most use out of.
 
Dear JL,

I had a AFS17-55/2.8 and Sigma 50-150/2.8 as my main lenses, but for going light or low light or for shallow depth of field I used my Sigma 30/1.4 and Nikon AFD85/1.4 on my D300....a LOT! A lot more than I ever thought I would. In fact, the 85/1.4 often replaced my Sigma50-150/2.8 in my bag: it was lighter, smaller, and gave me shallow depth of field options; not to mention gave that wonderful creamy background blur.

For DX cameras, do not estimate how much range the fast aperature primes give you! Recently I switched to full frame and found the shallower depth of field of the larger sensor (about one stop) reduces my need for fast primes (except very low light).

If I was in your position, I would pick up the AFS35/1.8 or the Sigma 30/1.4 to get a feel for the shallow depth of field and low light potential before shelling out big cash for the Nikon AFD85/1.4....although, I would can totally stand behind that combo and recommend them highly.

I had the Tamron 17-50/2.8 and Nikon AFS17-55/2.8 while both excellent lenses, were my least favorite to use...and I am a zoom lens kinda guy! For DX, go for the fast primes for sure!

Cheers,
Alan
 
Catallaxy said:
50 to 60mm is a great range for full body portraits. So in that regard, I am in agreement with Thom's general advice.
Click to expand...
really? i use mine for head and shoulders or head shot only. must send it in to nikon to see if its broken.
Catallaxy said:
However when most people talk about portraits, they are usually talking about 3/4 length or less portraits and for that you need a longer focal length.
Click to expand...
Catallaxy said:
So to determine the best portrait lens it matters what type of portrait you are talking about. A 50-150 lens has the range to do a full body portrait and to do a head and shoulders portrait. At 17-55 lens is best for full body only, but will distort features if you try to use it for head and shoulders shots. So the 17-55 is less versatile.
Click to expand...
untrue. 85mm has been and will always be the classic portrait focal length, used by almost every one of the best portrait photographers...no facial distortion. the 17-55 is a fabulous portrait lens.
Catallaxy said:
To demonstrate the effects of distortion on facial features. Compare the 70mm shot to the 200mm shot (equivelent to 50mm and 135mm on DX). Which looks more pleasing to you? To me, the 200mm shot looks better.
Click to expand...
that would have nothing to do with facial distortion. the distortion is a result of the relative distance between the camera and a subject's facial features such as their nose relative to their cheek. that effect is meaningless after only a few feet.

--
dave
 
pixelman105 said:
I guess it all depends on what you are accustom to. For over 30 years before I got into digital I shot with a Leica M and always had 3 lenses a, a 35mm 1.4, 50mm f/1.4 and a 90mm f/2.8. that was it. the 90 was my head and shoulder portrait lens, the 50 was my everything lens and also full body portraits and the 35 was for landscapes. On a Dx camera these would be about the same as a 23, 33 and a 60 - so as you can see the 17-55 fits what I and most leica users have used forever
Click to expand...
now that's a great set of lenses! my 50/1.4D has been a bread and butter lens in my studio. prickly sharp at 5.6 and it is very flattering for portraits.

--
dave
 
Well, 1755 is usually siiting at the bottom of my bag as I don't shoot in event often, but I can guarantee you that 1755 is a must to have it attach as alway when shooting in event because it would help you save lots of time steping forward and backward. I don't own the 35mm actually, so I don't know the 35mm image quality, but it should be replacable by 1755

85-1.4 is a great len, I think it's worth to invest and this is highly recomend for portrait.

--
Nikon D90 / 1755 / 85-1.4 / 105vr
 
JL Davidson said:
Hi, quick question which lens do you think would benefit me more.

The type of shooting I do is of my 3 month old son soon to be birthday parties and sporting events of him as he grows and a lot of indoor/outdoor family event pics. I know a lot of pregnant women who want me to take pictures of their bellies to print out 8X10s

my current gear is
D90

18-200mm (I bought cause i'm traveling to chicago for 16 days to visit the wife's family and wanted a sweet walkaround lens)
SB-600

What I like to do is take portraits and would like to do some available light portaits using candles(for birthdays) but can use flash anytime so i am not limited to just available light stuff its just what i want to try sometimes

So which should I get?
85 1.4 for creamy portraits and a 35 1.8 for indoor events
or 17-55 2.8 for flexibilty to do both and a little more?
Click to expand...
The 17-55 is beautifully built, but also heavy and large. Why not 35 1.8 and the 85 1.8 as an alternative to the 85 1.4.
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
 
You should get the 17-55 for cheap second hand - great lens. With the remaining money on your budget get an 85 f/1.8. On the other hand - the 85 f/1.4 is one sweet lens.
 
Hard lens to use for kids candids as they move so much.

--

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“If you have something to add don’t be intimidated by the forum bullies. That way they win.”
 
I would get either the 17-55mm f2.8 or the 18-105mm f VR lens. The 17-55mm is faster for indoor use with a subject in motion but the extra reach of 105mm is also very handy. You can lose a shot by having to move closer with a 55mm max zoom setting. At its wide angle settings the 18-105mm is a f3.5 lens and only 1/3 of a stop slower than a f2.8 lens and the 18-105mm has VR.

Changing lenses more often means missed shots and more time spent cleaning dust off the sensor. The 17-55mm is sharper than the 18mm f2.8 and 14mm f2.8 Nikon primes so no need to buy a prime to get better IQ.

If I was going to get a 35mm lens it would be the Sigma 30mm f1.4 (picture angle is actually that of a 34mm lens so roughly the same as the 35mm f1.8). My Sigma 30mm f1.4 is sharper than my Nikon 50mm f1.4 and focuses just as fast.
 
The 35mm is a normal low light lens and great for natrual light, the 85mm is the same but is telephoto for head and shoulders. Staying 12-15 feet the 85 is nice if you want unobtrusive and no caught in the moment feelings from your photos.

I like using the 24-70 on my D700, cause I can get close and make you a part of what I am shooting, not like a peeping tom in the distance. I have a 17-35 on order that I will use as well. My son 19 months and I have the 17-35, 24-70, 70-200 and 105 to document his life and put him through college.

I could get away with either, just think of your shooting style. You can use the 17-55 for your candle lit shots, and use a mini maglight to help illuminate your main subject as needed. Why not get the 17-55 and 35 for when you think you need it or want to go light. Good luck and let us know what you decide.

Greg
 
Calson,

Can I suggest that when referring to variable zooms that start at f3.5 that it is almost worth considering them f5.6 constant lenses with a bonus of f3.5 near the wide end. So comparing the wide end of the variable zoom makes it look like there is very little aperture advantage when in fact over most of the zoom's range (often over half) the comparison is closer to comparing f2.8 to f5.6 which is a two stop difference.

With this in mind I have used my cheap 18-55DX as a f3.5 prime 18mm lens. That bonus f3.5 has been good enough to keep me from buying a wide angle f2.8 lens on DX.
calson said:
I would get either the 17-55mm f2.8 or the 18-105mm f VR lens. The 17-55mm is faster for indoor use with a subject in motion but the extra reach of 105mm is also very handy. You can lose a shot by having to move closer with a 55mm max zoom setting. At its wide angle settings the 18-105mm is a f3.5 lens and only 1/3 of a stop slower than a f2.8 lens and the 18-105mm has VR.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top