Nikon 80-200 2.8 for portraits?

KonradK · Sep 5, 2002

Hi all. I'm interested in this lens (Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8D ED) for nature photography but would like to know if I can get double use out of it as a portrait lens at the 80mm end. I'm also planning on the 35-70 2.8D, would that be a wiser choice? Or any recommendations?

Thanks in advance...

Tommy Martin · Sep 5, 2002

It makes a very nice lens for portraits in the 100 mm range.

--
Tommy

b52 s · Sep 5, 2002

I have both lenses. I like the 80-200 as I feel its slightly sharper than the 35-70, and its zoom range is greater. However, the 35-70 is a great general purpose, lightweight lens comparatively. That why I carry both! I also use a 20-35D f2.8 for greater coverage -- all of these lenses are keepers.

b52 s

Swampfox · Sep 5, 2002

One caveat . . It is a rather large, heavy lens.

jacques · Sep 5, 2002

Hi,

I bought one second hand, one of the older models with sliding zoom ring, it realy is excellent at all f values and I think at the lower f numbers it will be very fine for portraits. It's heavy at first, but you will feel it's behaving very well balanced and you can use it hand held at low shutter speeds as well, but you need a bit time to get familiar with it.

In case you can find one second hand in excellent condition, you will feel the joy of using it, just a great lens,

jacques.

b52 s · Sep 5, 2002

Forgot to mention that the 80-200 is hefty and quite conspicuous compared to the 35-70 (about 2.5x size). Should not be an issue in a studio setting and nature.
b52 s

Ed Nazarko · Sep 5, 2002

i find the 80-200 a great portrait lens, but soooooo damn heavy. i use the 28-70 2.8 for portraits generally.

Robert Walker · Sep 5, 2002

I assume you're using the D1 series or the D100. I have both lenses, and find that they are wonderful lenses. I usually takes photos of my son, and find that the 35-70 offers the best distance. However, the 80-200 is great when I'm out in the yard. IMHO, the 35-70 would be the best bet for portraits. Go ahead and get the 80-200 also... (my 2 cents)

Bill Hughlett · Sep 5, 2002

Both are outstanding although I find the 80-200 to be more versatile for the work I do. With portraits in softer light I generally use it mounted to a monopod for stability - it's pretty darn heavy!

Bill

Doug Boutwell · Sep 5, 2002

The 80-200 2.8 is a fantastic lens, and will serve you well for portraits. Do bear in mind that it's got the FOV of a 120mm lens even on the short end, and on the long it's a whopping 300mm. While lens choice for portraiture is a highly personal and stylistic decision, bear in mind that 120mm for most people would basically be a head and shoulders lens, and that it won't focus all that close (but still close enough to fill the frame with a person's face). Although some fashion and portrait photographers use really long telephotos in the 35mm format, even in the 200+ range, It's up to you what style you want, what aesthetic you are after, and what kind of method you want (longer lenses = greater working distance)

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/dougboutwell/d100_images

Andrew64673 · Sep 6, 2002

I love the look at 200 and f4- 2.8 for portraits. Outside of course, you need space.

I find 70mm a bit short for my liking even on a DSLR, althogh indoors at weddings I need to use a 50 because of space restrictions.
a.

James Haskell · Sep 6, 2002

Anybody done group portrait lately?

I was shooting a two-person full-length portrait, and the 35-70 was too NARROW! Had to pull out the 17-35/2.8. Unbelievable.

James

KonradK · Sep 6, 2002

Thank you all for your replies.

It looks like I'll be going ahead as planned with the 80-200. I understand the need for greater working distance, but does that restrict use in a smaller studio? How many feet are we talking about for a head and shoulders?
Thanks again...

KonradK · Sep 6, 2002

Seems like I'm set on the 80-200 now (ordered!). I'm still debating with myself on the 35-70. I need to fill that range with something as I have the 15-30, and now the 80-200 end, covered. I know my 24-120, um "travel" lens won't cut it.
And yes, for D100. Thanks for the reply...

Philip K · Sep 6, 2002

From a purely technical standpoint the Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8D ED would make an excellent portrait lens. However, from a practical standpoint it is a poor choice if you are taking a significant number of portraits of non-models.

Most people are somewhat camera shy. This is true even if they are asking you to take their portrait. I find that the Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8D ED is such a large lens that it scares the hell out of most subjects. It intimidates them. This is even true with the 28-70 f/2.8D.

People are willing to accept these lenses from professional PJ’s as they are not taking portraits and these lenses are tools of the trade. Also, this does not apply to photographers working with professional models.

A photographer needs to make the subject feel at ease. I find this works best using a camera with a prime lens. It doesn’t seem to call attention to the camera.

My favorite is the Nikkor AF 85mm f/1.4D IF or for a limited budget the f/1.8D. An AF DC 105mm f/2D or AF DC 135mm f/2D is also an option.

Bottom line, use a prime for portraits as you make your clients feel at ease and as an added benefit you also have the higher quality optics (over a zoom).

Philip

Ron Frank · Sep 6, 2002

Hmm,

I've shot a couple hundred weddings using both Hassy gear, and Nikon (mostly F4s). Take a large camera, attach a stroboframe bracket, a flash (sometimes my Sunpak 622...big!), and any lens, and you have a rig that is BIG.

In your view that will just scare the heck out of anyone I shoot? Not based on my experience, which is extensive, and with mostly non-professionals .

The 80-200 is likely my favorite portrait lens. In fact since one can put some distance between the camera and the subject with that lens, often if shooting candids, the subject is not even aware I'm shooting them.

Based on this post the idea camera would be a minox as the subject may not even be aware you have a camera?

On my D1x the 80-200mm is a big long for some shots. But other than that I'd say it's a GREAT portrait lens. As for not as sharp as primes, not always the case. The AF-S version rates a whopping 4.1 on Photodo. The 85mm f1:8D rates a 4. The 105f2.8D weighs in at 3.9 also below the 80-200mm. Not much difference, but the 80-200 OUTDOES many primes. One reason the 80-200mm f2.8 has gained legendary status.

Ron

Philip K · Sep 6, 2002

As good as the 80mm-200mm lens is it is still not as good as a prime no matter what Photodo says. No zoom will ever equal to quality of a well made prime. However, that wasn't the point of my post.

I also wasn't refering to wedding photography. In fact, I would include that with my original statement about photojournalists being able to get away with such a lens.

My bread and butter camera is still a Hasselblad system with prime lenses. I have never had a client make any negative comments about the size of the camera.

I use a Nikon N80 with the 28-105mm lens for Memory Mates. Last year I purchased the 28-70mm AFS lens and decided to use it complete with hood for a session. Several youth said that that was one large lens! It bothered them. Later, I used it in the studio with a non-paying subject (my 13 year old niece). She too made a comment about the "big" lens. It made her uncomfortable. She has often been a "test" subject for my experiments and she never was bothered my the Hassy. I have since purchased an 85mm f 1.4 and have returned to the 28-105 for Memory Mates.

I still believe primes are the best for portrait work.

Philip

BTW

Memory Mates are photo packages of sports teams, dance groups, etc. that include a individual portrait and team photo. Also, I ALWAYS use a lens hood and include that in considering size.
PK

Philip K · Sep 6, 2002

I am not a wedding photographer. Whether in the studio or on location my rig is simple. There are no brackets, no flash, etc. Just the camera, lens, and pocket wizard. The camera is usually on a tripod except for location assignments with children. The strobes, reflectors, and/or other light modifiers are on stands or held by an assistant. Lens hoods are essential for such photography.

Philip

Michael Hung · Sep 6, 2002

As others have said.. and I repeat.. it's a HEAVY combo.. I did it twice shooting models on F5+80-200/2.8+Stroboframe+SB28.. I thought I am strong.. but it wasn't a present experience. Other than the weight, the problem is the minimum distance is not very small.. I see the lens always in the "M_ " range, and a few times I have to stand back a bit..

Then one day I was thinking there must be a better lens.. and how stupid I was.. I already have it.. the 105/2.8.. and that's the one I am using ever since.. (Until I got the D100, which 105 is bit too long after x1.5).. May be I will use my new 24-85AFS (which I tested shooting together with the 105 on F5 on my last assignment..) or may be buy a fixed 85 prime..

35-70.. I have it too.. my primary wedding lens.. is too short for head and shoulder shots..

Michael

KonradK · Sep 8, 2002

Does anyone know what a good price would be for this lens? I see that many people paid very low prices (posted on photographyreview: $700-$800 earlier this year. Was there a rebate at that time? I can't seem to find it under $900...

Nikon 80-200 2.8 for portraits?

Well-known member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Active member

jacques

Guest

Leading Member

Ed Nazarko

Guest

Well-known member

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Leading Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts