Reading mode: Light Dark

70-300 vr for portraits?

Go to last post
M

mukNY

Well-known member
Messages
151
Reaction score
6
Location
New York, NY, US
I would be interested to know if anyone has used the 70-300vr for portraits, especially on DX. I have seen lots of good sample images of wildlife, air shows, etc, but for some reason it does not seem to be popular for portraits, which surprises me a bit considering the focal length. I have a 85 1.8 as my primary portrait lens, but am looking to add a zoom that goes beyond that and can also e used for more candid portraits. Unfortunately the 70-200 is out of my price range and I haven't heard great comments about the 3rd party 70-200 2.8s.

If you have any experience, or images that you can share, I would really appreciate it.

Thanks!
M
 
Like most amateur-level zooms, this one is pretty slow compared to a prime or pro-grade zoom. Most portraits look best with the background out of focus.

Shorter lenses provide a less-formal look, IMO. Going past 85mm (if you are shooting a DX) may not give you what you want, although this issue will almost certainly bring people out of the woodwork.

A 60mm f/2.8 macro lens may give you what you want (again, I'm assuming a DX camera), even though it's a stop or so too slow to be a real portrait lens. You want a lens that is razor sharp on the eyes and yet blurry on the background. I would ignore the many comments about a macro lens being too sharp for portraits.

Tamron has a 60mm f/2 portrait lens that might be interesting.

If I had an 85mm fast lens on a DX camera, I would say I'm well equipped for portraits.
--
Adrian
 
70-300vr is OK for portrait, although I don't like it's bokeh that much.

Also, the aperture is getting smaller as you zoom up. The DOF sometimes is more than you want to.

Since you have 85mm prime, I bet you will mostly use 135-200mm range for this 2nd lens.

If your camera has internal motor, the nikkor AF 180mm prime is another alternative to 70-300vr. Yeah, it's focus is slower than 85mm in low light, but it's not a biggie for portrait shooting.
 
Thanks for the response. I have both a 50mm and a 85mm 1.8 which cover me for almost all portrait situations. In an ideal world, I would like to add a 17-55 and the 70-200 to the primes, but at this point, I cannot justify such an investment. Sometimes, I would just like to have the flexibility of more reach and would like to play with the effect of more compression.

Of course I realize the limitations of the slower lens. However, I noticed that I take a lot of my portraits b/w f4 and up.
 
I'd suggest you take a look at the Tokina 50-135 if you want a zoom for portraits on DX for around the price of the 70-300. It has an AOV (FL equivalent) range that is about equivalent to a 70-200 on FX, and f/2.8 is a definite advantage over the slower 70-300 for portraits to get better background blur. It has no VR and no AF-S, but for portraits you can use a tripod if you need to, and the screwdriver AF is fine for this application.
--
Jim Kaye

'I believe that the electronic image will be the next major advance. Such systems will have their own inherent and inescapable structural characteristics, and the artist and functional practitioner will again strive to comprehend and control them.' -- Ansel Adams, 1981
 
quadcore said:
70-300vr is OK for portrait, although I don't like it's bokeh that much.
Click to expand...
70-300VR bokeh is not one of its strongest point. It's rendering is too nervous and harsh for me.

What you see mostly from the 70-300 is the oof background rendering and not really fine and beautiful bokeh as seen in a "dedicated" portrait lens.
 
Of course it is. As are many other Nikon lenses. Choose the focal length of lens you need for perspective and don't lose any sleep over what you read on these boards. Most Nikon lenses are more than adequate. I have used just about every lens Nikon has made and my everyday bag now has a 20mm, an old 28-105mm, and a 70-300mm. On a D700 or D3, that covers most everything I shoot, ads, catalogs, magazine articles, and I can carry it around comfortably. The point is, don't worry so much about equipment. Learn to see through the camera and how to process your images.
--
http://danrouthphotography.blogspot.com
http://www.danrouth.com
 
Thanks. Of all the great advice I have received here, this is the most helpful. I do have quite a bit of overlap in the lower area (18-105, 85/1.8). I basically would have 3 lenses covering 85mm. I see you also have a 105, so that is a bit more reassuring. In general, I prefer primes, but on the long end, they just don't make too much sense to me.

Thanks again!
M
 
mukNY said:
mukNY wrote:

In general, I prefer primes, but on the long end, they just don't make too much sense > to me.
Click to expand...
IMHO it makes a huge difference between primes and zoom on the long end. do the following if you can rent some lenses to play with:

Try to shoot 200mm f/2 VR, and 70-200mm f/2.8 VR2 under the same lighting.

Try to shoot 200-400mm, and 300mm VR at 300mm focal length.

Try to shoot 135mm DC, and 70-200mm VR2 at 135mm focal length.
 
Sorry, I think I wasn't clear. Of course the image quality of a prime is superior. Just for me, the flexibility of a zoom makes more sense for long lenses - especially since I do not use them too often.

M
 
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