Next lens investment for portraiture

[Petelock]

Hi all,

I'm just starting out trying to make a go of earning some money off my portrait work and am wanting to upgrade some of my glass to warrant the paid for photography status.

My current gear is as follows:

Nikon D750
Nikon 24-85mm 3.5-4.5
Nikon 50mm 1.4
Tamron potato 70-300mm 4-5.6

Lencarta 400w studio kit
SB-800 (plus barn door/softbox and head bracket)

Clearly I need to upgrade some of the glass! Here's the shortlist:

1) nikon 85mm 1.8/tamron 85mm 1.8/nikon 85mm 1.4/sigma 85mm 1.4 (not released yet but new art version when announced)
2) nikon 70-200mm 2.8 vr2/tamron 70-200mm 2.8 vc

I'm going to need to purchase on a 24 month interest free credit route and wanting to drop a total of about £2000.

I'm considering the tamron 70-200, but the nikon is clearly the champion for quality and sharpness/focus speed etc. Given that it's portraiture I can see the benefit of the zoom investment to compliment my clients.

If I go with the zoom then I am likely going to need to go with a cheaper 85mm (hence the nikon 1.4 is out), but also want to wait until the new Sigma is announced in September.

What would be really helpful is for any feedback from owners of any of the above lens, or also the general advice from active paid portrait photographer's and their experience.

I have checked a number of reviews and comparison video's on YouTube etc, but would like some additional feedback before committing.

Many thanks

Pete

 

[Richdog]

The Nikon 85mm would be the obvious choice to me for a prime out of those you listed as it is a known fantastic performer and not too pricey. If you can wait and have a bit more budget then the Sigma Art 85mm will undoubtedly be a very special lens if the rest of the range is anything to go by.

I think while providing great IQ, the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 VRII would be a killer in terms of weight and fatigue to shoot with for long periods if not on a tripod for most of the time. The Tamron is a bit lighter but pretty heavy too I think. However that is of course at your discretion.

 

[Petelock]

The Sigma 85mm art is likely to be special I would agree and the main reason why I've held back on the prime. Cost will likely be the deciding factor.

The 70-200 lens appeal because of the lens compression at the longer focal lengths whilst retaining decent bokeh. You're right that weight is not something to overlook though. Clearly the Nikon wins in IQ etc, but at a £700 increase over the Tamron.

I appreciate the feedback though and wondered which portrait lens you are currently shooting with?

 

[Richdog]

The Sigma 85mm art is likely to be special I would agree and the main reason why I've held back on the prime. Cost will likely be the deciding factor.

The 70-200 lens appeal because of the lens compression at the longer focal lengths whilst retaining decent bokeh. You're right that weight is not something to overlook though. Clearly the Nikon wins in IQ etc, but at a £700 increase over the Tamron.

I appreciate the feedback though and wondered which portrait lens you are currently shooting with?

I did have a Nikon 70-200 VRII that I used to use for (non-professional) portraits and events, but I didn't enjoy shooting with it due to the size and weight, and it was never as sharp as I wanted wide open.

I since changed to Fuji, but if I had stuck with Nikon and wanted to try and make some money from portraiture I would just start with a cost-effective 85mm 1.8 and then you can see later if you still need a 70-200mm or not... not forgetting that the cost of such a lens will probably take a fair while to recoup.

 

[D.P.]

24-70mm + 70-200mm f/2.8 is my choice. I have the 85mm f/1.8, can't fault it but its much more convenient to have a zoom with equal image quality.The 70-200mm f/2.8 gives amazing subject isolation but you will need something wider as well.

Can't say the weight has ever bothered me for paid events, much lighter than the longer telephoto lenses. I usually have the 24-70 and 70-200mm on 2 bodies and have shot 6 hours before although most event are 2 -3 hours.


I definitely recommend the 85mm f/1.8 over any of the f/1.4 versions, just no need for that extra expense The light gathering potential is pretty minimal as digital sensors simply don't respond well to apertures wider than f/2.2, and in any case i find f/1.8 far too shallow most of the time.


Oh, and Nikon has just released a new 105mm f1.4 G lens if you are interested

 

[Richdog]

Can't say the weight has ever bothered me for paid events, much lighter than the longer telephoto lenses. I usually have the 24-70 and 70-200mm on 2 bodies and have shot 6 hours before although most event are 2 -3 hours.

2.25KG is a hell of a weight to hand-hold for more than a couple of hours... especially considering how specifically you hold a camera. It's a genuine strain on the old wrists.

 

[Petelock]

Oh, and Nikon has just released a new 105mm f1.4 G lens if you are interested

Yeah I saw that. Looked interesting, but I think that I am going to wait until the Sigma 85 1.4 art price is announced and then make the final decision on the prime route or zoom combo. From both of your's and Richdog's feedback though seems like the Nikon 85 1.8 is the smart choice for the prime!

2.25KG is a hell of a weight to hand-hold for more than a couple of hours... especially considering how specifically you hold a camera. It's a genuine strain on the old wrists.

True, but years of kickboxing has given me decent wrist strength!

 

[D.P.]

2.25KG is a hell of a weight to hand-hold for more than a couple of hours... especially considering how specifically you hold a camera. It's a genuine strain on the old wrists.

It has little to do with wrist strength, you support the lens with your left hand so your right hand is free to quickly twist dials and adjust buttons.

and it snot as if you have that specific camera up to you face for 6 hours straights. You are going to need a wider lens like the 24-70mm and in regular shooting you swap cameras and lenses around. A good should strap is also paramount.



As Id aid, i could shoot with the 70-200mm f/2.8 for 5-6 hours without it really bothering me much. Compared to my 150-600mm f/6.3 its pretty damn lightweight and balanced quite nicely when holding it with 2 hands.

 

[Petelock]

Before you guys come to blows, I'll drag this one back.

D.P. what 70-200 2.8 do you have and are you able to give me some feedback? Not sure on what you shoot with so if it's not Nikon then I appreciate that any non third party glass will kind of invalidate the question!

Thanks

 

[Richdog]

It has little to do with wrist strength, you support the lens with your left hand so your right hand is free to quickly twist dials and adjust buttons.

Of course it affects the wrists, don't be daft. It's why neck, back, shoulder and wrist injuries are the most common injuries among frequent photographers https://www.google.ch/search?q=dslr...ie=UTF-8#q=common+photographer+injuries+wrist

and it snot as if you have that specific camera up to you face for 6 hours straights. You are going to need a wider lens like the 24-70mm and in regular shooting you swap cameras and lenses around. A good should strap is also paramount.

As Id aid, i could shoot with the 70-200mm f/2.8 for 5-6 hours without it really bothering me much. Compared to my 150-600mm f/6.3 its pretty damn lightweight and balanced quite nicely when holding it with 2 hands.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, as I speak from personal experience with that exact camera/lens combo causing me wrist discomfort at events etc after a long day. And yes, I know how to hold a camera.

 

[D.P.]

I have the nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR mark 1, used on a D800. Currently it is used for some event shooting, otherwise it works well for landscapes. Sharp, good Bokeh, fast and reliable AF. I used it a little on a D90 with a 1.4xTC for wildlife but was just too short and nto really ny different to the 70-300mm VR,

 

[GTRacer]

For what it's worth, my favourite portrait photographers (Richard Avedon, Irving Penn, Alec Soth, and Sally Mann) all tend to use 50mm equivalent lenses. If you want to have a longer lens you already have that 24-85 zoom, plus you'll probably be shooting at 5.6 up anyway with lights, and that's where pretty much all lenses are equal. Get a few shoots under your belt and see how you get on, most of the photographers I know (mostly fashion/portrait guys and gals) use longer lenses about 5% of the time.

 

[Richdog]

For what it's worth, my favourite portrait photographers (Richard Avedon, Irving Penn, Alec Soth, and Sally Mann) all tend to use 50mm equivalent lenses. If you want to have a longer lens you already have that 24-85 zoom, plus you'll probably be shooting at 5.6 up anyway with lights, and that's where pretty much all lenses are equal. Get a few shoots under your belt and see how you get on, most of the photographers I know (mostly fashion/portrait guys and gals) use longer lenses about 5% of the time.

I've had great results with my 50mm equivalent too, and it's much more versatile. It won't replace an 85mm everywhere, but it does a damn good job. I just don't think I'd get enough use out of an 85mm to justify getting one.

The Fuji 56mm 1.2 is nevertheless damn tempting though. Must resist.