i highly doubt iil do this but if i had a full frame id be set on a 50mm. maybe i should return the d5200 and blow another grand on the nikon d600? Lol
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Nikon 50mm Prime lens (1.4g or 1.8g) to big (tight FOV) for nikon d5200?
- Thread starter Chuck-Norris
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
i highly doubt iil do this but if i had a full frame id be set on a 50mm. maybe i should return the d5200 and blow another grand on the nikon d600? Lol
what do you think of the 40mm 2.8g lens? seems to be a good lens inbetween my 35mm and 50mm debate lol
Are you referring to the 40mm f2.8g lens for DX? If so, I believe this is, again, supposed to be a well regarded lens. Equivalent to about 60mm in FX terms, has macro, so could be fun to play with.
It may be between the 35 and 50, but think to yourself what you would use it for that the 35 you already have can't do? The focal lengths are pretty close, do you really want 2 lenses so similar, or would it be better to get something with a greater difference?
It's clear you want to buy another lens, and there's nothing wrong with that. In your original post you said you like group shots and portraits, both in and outdoor, and are looking for good bokeh and sharpness. My immediate reaction would be to go wider for a lens that can do both portrait and group, but that's just the style of image and photography I like, wide and close!
I would suggest, other than getting a zoom, you need a 2 lens set up. I would suggest the 50mm f1.8 for portrait work, and then something much wider for group shots. As you have a crop sensor, wide angle lenses are the problem. I don't believe there are many fast wide angle primes available for crop sensors. You need something that is about 28mm FF equivalent (maybe 35mm FF equivalent depending on your taste), so something like an 18mm. Sigma make a 20mm f1.8 DX which may be worth looking into, I don't know of it's reputation though. If you are happier with the 35mm FF FoV, there are several 28mm 1.8 lenses to choose from. The only other solution I can think of to cover all your wants/needs is the 17-55 f2.8 zoom, but this is much more expensive than any of the other lenses that have been mentioned.
It may be between the 35 and 50, but think to yourself what you would use it for that the 35 you already have can't do? The focal lengths are pretty close, do you really want 2 lenses so similar, or would it be better to get something with a greater difference?
It's clear you want to buy another lens, and there's nothing wrong with that. In your original post you said you like group shots and portraits, both in and outdoor, and are looking for good bokeh and sharpness. My immediate reaction would be to go wider for a lens that can do both portrait and group, but that's just the style of image and photography I like, wide and close!
I would suggest, other than getting a zoom, you need a 2 lens set up. I would suggest the 50mm f1.8 for portrait work, and then something much wider for group shots. As you have a crop sensor, wide angle lenses are the problem. I don't believe there are many fast wide angle primes available for crop sensors. You need something that is about 28mm FF equivalent (maybe 35mm FF equivalent depending on your taste), so something like an 18mm. Sigma make a 20mm f1.8 DX which may be worth looking into, I don't know of it's reputation though. If you are happier with the 35mm FF FoV, there are several 28mm 1.8 lenses to choose from. The only other solution I can think of to cover all your wants/needs is the 17-55 f2.8 zoom, but this is much more expensive than any of the other lenses that have been mentioned.
thanks for takig your time to post your input!
well the reason i was looking at the 40mm was it seemed to potentially fit the gap between a 50 (Which seemed to tight of FOV possibly) and to get sharper / more depth of field (bokeh) out of it more then the 35mm.
i wish nikon would slap a full frame sensor in there consumer end cameras, then id take the 50mm and be done with this! lol
also to answer your question regardining my 35mm, i managed to get a few offers on kijiji for my 35mm for $235. (i paid 200 LOL) i guess u could say i wanted to try a new lens
I have the 50mm f/1.4 but it is the "D" type not the "G". On a crop farm body the 50mm is a mild telephoto lens. For gental walk aroud photos the 35mm s more suitable. The 50mm is best for portraits.
The 50mm will have a more narrow field of view. It is not suitable for indoor group shots with a APS sized dSLR. Outdoors I guess you could always back off 20 or 40 feet to get everyone in. For these group shots you need more DOF and will want to stop down to f/5.6 or f/8. The $100 kit 18-55 is ideal for group shots. A 50mm lens at f/1.4 is such a tiny DOF that you must be very careful to focus on the eyes and not the nose or ears. You could never shoot two people at f/1.4 and have then both in focus.
I think that is something many people don't consider,, with a 50mm at f/1.4 you can't have the end of th nose and the eyes both in focus so many photographers will back off the about f/2 or something unless you really like that effect.
No days if yo like the background out of focus you can apply the Gaussian blur to the background in Photoshop.
ive read the 1.4 has 9 blades over the 7 the 1.8g has which increase quality of blur and such which was the other reason other than aperature. is the difference insignificant?
If this is true, then it seems like the 35mm 1.8G is what you should stick with.
Yes, a 40mm 2.8G macro (or micro, in Nikon-speak) would be between the 35mm and 50mm in terms of focal length (or field of view, if you prefer to look at it that way). But what are you sacrificing? Your maximum aperture is 2.8 instead of 1.8 with either the 35mm or 50mm. My thought is that, unless you need a close-focus macro capability, you are probably better off with either the 35mm (and taking a step forward) or the 50mm (and taking a step back).
There is absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to try a new lens. If the only way to do this is to sell your 35mm, then so be it -- there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, either. But you have to be realistic with your expectations.
It seems like what is important to you is being able to isolate your subjects, keeping them sharp in the foreground while blurring the background. I submit that you can do this with any lens if you have control over all of the variables. Look at the two samples that Attonine and milbournosphere posted. Attonine's was shot at 24mm and f/1.4. In that photo, it is probably the wide aperture that is contributing most to isolating the subject. But as Attonine notes, the depth of field is so shallow that the tip of the nose (in front) and the ears (behind) are not in focus. That doesn't matter, if that is the style of portrait you want. In contrast, milbournsphere's shot is at 50mm and f/10. But there is great subject isolation in that shot, as well. It isn't the aperture (in fact, the narrow aperture is what allows the entire subject to remain in focus from front to back), it is the relative distances between the camera, the subject, and the background.
Let me give another example. This is indoors on a 35mm at f/1.8:
Window Light by MCH-1138, on Flickr
Subject isolation here is influenced mostly by the aperture, but it results in a shallow depth of field. If I wanted to keep her nose and hair and ears in focus, I might have shot at f/4, but I would have needed to pull her away from the wall to keep the background blurred.
Is any of these three images "better" than the other? Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But my view is that all three are successful in isolating the subject from the background.
My $0.02 is that the first question you need to resolve is what focal length lens you want to achieve the type of photos that you want to make. If you are limiting yourself to primes (which I do not discourage), there are going to be tradeoffs. The ideal lens for an outdoor headshot is probably not the ideal lens for an indoor, full-length group portrait.
It is a different question if you are comparing lenses with identical or nearly-identical focal lengths (i.e., 50mm/1.8G vs. 17-55mm/2.8G @ 50mm, 50mm 1.8G vs. 50mm 1.4G, or even the 35mm/1.8G vs. the 40mm/2.8G). Then you can make more direct comparisons between sharpness and quality of bokeh (for a given photo where all other variables, including aperture, relative distances, etc. are held equal).
If you want to try a different lens, you should do so. If I were in your shoes (which I am not) and I really wanted to try something other than 35mm, maybe I would start with the 50mm 1.8G. I don't need the extra 2/3-stop, and any other differences between the 1.8G and 1.4G are not significant enough for me to justify the difference in price. I suspect that it will perform well in a number of areas, but I also suspect that you will find it wanting in terms of a too-narrow field of view for indoor group shots.
Finally, you have to be realistic in your expectations. When making a group portrait, you can't go too wide with your aperture, or else you will (almost) never be able to get everyone in focus. If you are making a group portrait indoors in a small room, this means you are going to have a very hard time -- with any lens -- trying to blow the background out of focus.
Attachments
Last edited:
Could be true, I have no idea, and I really think this is exactly the kind of thing you should be ignoring. I know the photographer/reviewer Ming Thien (sp?) has stated on his site that he dropped the nikon 1.4 lenses for 1.8, and he photographs expensive watches for magazines.
Reviews are all well and good, they give you a good starting point. There are photographers who really need these high performing optics. Photographers whose images will be blown up to 100ft advertising posters, photographers who deal with advertising, commercial products, scientific applications etc. However, I suggest you start to look at the work of photographers you admire, those whose images you would really like to capture yourself and try to identify what it is about those images that you like. I bet it will not be things like the quality of blur.
I have had the privilege to meet several Magnum photographers, World Press Photo award winners, a photographer who has had something like 40+ covers of Newsweek, a member of the In-Public collective, and none of them have ever talked about kit, bokeh, lenses or anything like this. They are all concerned about the image, what has been captured in the frame, emotions, the story.
It's nice to be able to have "the best". With something like photography, however, having the best doesn't necessarily make your pictures better. Yes, there are some applications where a feature of the camera or lens will be needed, but for the vast majority of the time, just take the picture!
Yes i am probably pulling off to many expectations. i can never get a shot like the photo you just posted! thats exactly what im trying to achieve in portaits.
heres a picture I shot of friends and it just doesnt seem to be sharp in the faces:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/24140175@N02/8524923309/sizes/l/in/photostream/
p.s - not sure how to link flikr photo to forums post lol
I can't see the EXIF data on your picture of the group, but it looks to me like you are focused on the woman and using a wide aperture (1.8?). The result is that, particularly the man on the left, but the others too are not in focus to varying degrees. Closing down the aperture a few stops would have solved this problem. I can also see the wall behind the group seems to be a fair distance away, therefore, closing the aperture would not have made any difference at all on the background blur.
I have just seen the EXIF data. 1/30 sec, too slow. A rule of thumb for handholding is try not to go slower than 1/60 sec. (of course rules can be broken!). This slow shutter, 1/30, will allow for blur because either the subject or photographer move. You could probably close the aperture to 5.6, or even 8. And I would pump the ISO to compensate, I am sure the D5200 has good enough high ISO for you to push it further. Although it may be nice to always have beautifully noise free images, again, I wouldn't worry too much about it, in this case what is worse, noise or subject blur?
I have just seen the EXIF data. 1/30 sec, too slow. A rule of thumb for handholding is try not to go slower than 1/60 sec. (of course rules can be broken!). This slow shutter, 1/30, will allow for blur because either the subject or photographer move. You could probably close the aperture to 5.6, or even 8. And I would pump the ISO to compensate, I am sure the D5200 has good enough high ISO for you to push it further. Although it may be nice to always have beautifully noise free images, again, I wouldn't worry too much about it, in this case what is worse, noise or subject blur?
Last edited:
I think Attonine nails it. This doesn't look like a lens sharpness issue, but a settings issue. It will be challenging to obtain a sharp overall image if handholding at 1/30 sec. And f/2.8 may be too wide for a group shot where the subjects are not all on the same plane (i.e., where are some are in front of or behind others).
At the time of this shot it was taken with the automatic flash off. looks like i shoould have taken more control?
it sounds like stepping a few steps back might have given the subjects more sharpness?
also i think ive been using the word portrait wrong now that i think about it, i mean taking pictures, close ups of more then one person (like the picture example u saw on flikr)!
You still needed a faster shutter.
A step back may have made the framing a bit nicer, a bit more comfortable, but this has nothing to do with the reason for the blur or effect sharpness in any way. Faster shutter, close the aperture a bit. Flash.......well this will open a whole separate can of worms. I never use flash, ambient light only, others will totally disagree.
I just want to give you a few things to look at regarding portrait work. Portraits can be very varied, and different photographers have very different styles and ideas regarding portraits. You can use google to look at images from the following:
Richard Avedon In the American West, truly fantastic piece of portrait work. He used a large format plate camera for these shots and apparently took over 100 plates for each subject!
Steve McCurry (who took the famous Afghan Girl photo reportedly using a Nikon 105/2.5)
Bruce Gilden, although quite controversial in his method, produces some incredible portraits which are probably the antithesis of people like Avedon and McCurry.
Although not known for being portrait photographers Chris Steel Perkins has some wonderful portraits in his work titled The Teds, and Sebastiao Salgado also has produced some truly marvellous portraits.
A step back may have made the framing a bit nicer, a bit more comfortable, but this has nothing to do with the reason for the blur or effect sharpness in any way. Faster shutter, close the aperture a bit. Flash.......well this will open a whole separate can of worms. I never use flash, ambient light only, others will totally disagree.
I just want to give you a few things to look at regarding portrait work. Portraits can be very varied, and different photographers have very different styles and ideas regarding portraits. You can use google to look at images from the following:
Richard Avedon In the American West, truly fantastic piece of portrait work. He used a large format plate camera for these shots and apparently took over 100 plates for each subject!
Steve McCurry (who took the famous Afghan Girl photo reportedly using a Nikon 105/2.5)
Bruce Gilden, although quite controversial in his method, produces some incredible portraits which are probably the antithesis of people like Avedon and McCurry.
Although not known for being portrait photographers Chris Steel Perkins has some wonderful portraits in his work titled The Teds, and Sebastiao Salgado also has produced some truly marvellous portraits.
This is why I have been trying to describe it as isolating your subject. I think the photo that you linked to can be viewed as a group portrait. Others may disagree. But the concepts are the same.
Could flash have helped? Maybe. Would taking a few steps back have allowed you to get all of the subjects into sharper focus? Maybe, but probably not. You have to remember that photography is part science and part art. For example:
Exposure = Light (available + artificial) + Shutter Speed + Aperture + ISO.
Increase or decrease any of those, without changing another, and you will change the exposure. That part is science. But what "exposure" is right? Is it what the camera meters? Maybe, maybe not. Which is "better," a shot made with 1/250 sec @ f/2.8 or a shot made with 1/125 sec @ f/4? It depends. Keeping light and ISO the same, the exposures will be the same, but you will have different depths of field. Maybe you need f/4 to get the entire subject in focus. Maybe you don't. Or maybe you don't want the entire subject in focus. That part is art.
Similarly, depth of field will be affected by the aperture that you shoot at, the focal length of the lens, and the distance from the camera to the subject. That part is science. If you poke around online, there are several depth of field calculators you can mess around with to see this in action. I keep referring to the relative distance between the camera, the subject, and the background because, for a given focal length and aperture, the closer the subject is to the camera, the shallower the depth of field will be, which is more likely to put the background out of focus. Conversely, the further the subject is from the camera, the deeper the depth of field will be, which means that the background (which is now also closer) is less likely to be out of focus. Again, that part is science.
But how much is enough? How much is too much? It depends on what you are looking for. That part is art.
Returning to the sample photo that you linked to, here are a few things that come to mind:
1. Depth of field -- to me, it looks like the two subjects in the middle are more in focus than the one on at camera right, who is more in focus than the one at camera left. There are a few things you could do differently to correct for this:
a. One is to stop down to a narrower aperture (maybe f/5.6). This will increase the depth of field. But it also affects your exposure, so you need to account for that.
b. Increase the distance between the camera and the subject. For a given focal length and aperture, this will increase your depth of field, but it probably would not be enough in this particular instance. It also affects your composition and may impact your ability to isolate the subject from the background (although, as Attonine noted, it probably wouldn't dramatically affect the background focus here).
c. Move your subjects. The closer your group is to being in a single plane (that is parallel to the camera sensor), the shallower the depth of field that you can get away with. Here, it looks like the subject at camera left is the closest to the camera, followed by the subject at camera right, followed by the two in the middle. If you wanted to shoot at f/2.8, you would have a much better chance of getting everyone in focus if they were all next to each other (although f/2.8 might still give you a too shallow depth of field).
b. Increase the distance between the camera and the subject. For a given focal length and aperture, this will increase your depth of field, but it probably would not be enough in this particular instance. It also affects your composition and may impact your ability to isolate the subject from the background (although, as Attonine noted, it probably wouldn't dramatically affect the background focus here).
c. Move your subjects. The closer your group is to being in a single plane (that is parallel to the camera sensor), the shallower the depth of field that you can get away with. Here, it looks like the subject at camera left is the closest to the camera, followed by the subject at camera right, followed by the two in the middle. If you wanted to shoot at f/2.8, you would have a much better chance of getting everyone in focus if they were all next to each other (although f/2.8 might still give you a too shallow depth of field).
2. Shutter speed -- the traditional rule of thumb is that, when shooting handheld, you should use a minimum shutter speed of 1/(focal length) to avoid blur resulting from camera shake, so for a 35mm, you would use a minimum of 1/30 or 1/40 sec. But on a crop sensor, the rule I use is 1/(1.5 x focal length), so for a 35mm, I would try to avoid shooting handheld below 1/50 or 1/60 sec. If your handheld shooting skills are like mine and could use improvement, you might go higher (for reference, the photo I posted was shot at 1/100 sec). If your subjects (and you) are stationary, as they appear to have been here, that probably gets you in the ballpark. But if your subjects were moving, you might need to go even higher (maybe 1/125 or 1/200) in order to avoid motion blur. Of course, any change to your shutter speed affects the exposure.
So let's say you decide to use a narrower aperture (say, f/5.6 instead of f/2.8) and a faster shutter speed (say, 1/60 instead of 1/30 sec). Maybe this allows you to get everyone in focus, but now you have lost three full stops of light, which you need to compensate for if you want to keep the same overall exposure. There are only two other variables to work with -- ISO and lighting. So you could keep the light the same and kick up the ISO (say, from 800 to 6400), or you could change the lighting (say by using flash, or maybe by turning your subjects around and using what appears to be the fairly bright available light that is currently in the background).
And, in general, none of that is dependent on your equipment.
Words to live by, in my book.
Last edited:
You have the right idea and there are many great tips from everyone I have to agree. That image you posted above, I would have shot that at F/8.0 - F/11 with 1/60 - 1/125 and then ISO settings to balance out ambient lighting. If you're not used to manual, use the Aperture priority setting (A) on the dial. that way you just set your aperture and keep an eye open for the shutter settings don't drop below 1/60sec when hand holding. As stated above rules are always meant to be broken but if you are looking for a sharp image with less noise on the D5200, ISO 1600 is pushing what I would feel comfortable with so anything from 100-800 is great to compensate for ambient lighting. If you're taking shots of one person, you can shoot with F/2.8 and have a great bokeh effect. As soon as you add more than one person, you need to change it up to F/5.6 - F/8.0 and add a third person F/8.0 - F/11 but you'll really need to keep an eye open for your exposures though, thats when you'll need to start pushing your ISO up and slowing down your shutter speed.
Overall, if you want sharp group images, your aperture is first priority, then shutter speed, and lastly your ISO im my mind. It's all subjective though. You seem like you're really passionate and right now, my opinion is minimal but I think the 35mm is a sharp piece of glass and you won't be disappointed if you work on the above tips. I'd pass on the 50mm and save the money to buy a 12-24mm wide angle or some other lens. 2 lenses are better than one lol
would the 40mm micro be still ok for that type of photography that im looking at as well as nikons 1.8g 28mm? (that itch to try a new lens is tempting lol)
and yes from all the posts ive been re-reading all day ( i do take everyones post seeriously and value there inputs), it seems its not really the lens but my ability to use the lens to there potential by learning to use the ideal settings (ISO, aperature etc) in certain environments to create the type of photos and quality I want.
Last edited:
The 40mm would work, but remember you would be going longer which will create space problems for the group when in a confined area. I believe the 35mm DX gives an FF equivalence of 53mm, the 40mm will give 60mm. I think you would be better served with the 28mm (FF 42mm?), I think it would give you a bit more breathing space and flexibility for framing.
There is an awful lot to be said for using only one lens, and knowing that lens intimately, to the level where you know exactly what you will see through the viewfinder. You begin to know exactly where to position yourself for the shot, you can frame things before you even raise the camera to the eye.
There is an awful lot to be said for using only one lens, and knowing that lens intimately, to the level where you know exactly what you will see through the viewfinder. You begin to know exactly where to position yourself for the shot, you can frame things before you even raise the camera to the eye.
think i can pull off good people shots and depth of field with the 28mm? i understand portrait lens are atleast 50-100 or something like that
A portrait lens is just a lens that you use to make portraits. A 28mm might not be considered a "traditional" portrait lens, but that doesn't mean that you can't make great shots with it (or any other lens). Similarly, you might find a 28mm distorts or exaggerates facial features a little more than a 35mm (or other longer focal length lens), but that doesn't mean that you can't make great shots with it.
You'll find it said (here on the forum and elsewhere) many different ways, but it isn't the equipment, it's how you use it. Sure, good equipment helps, and there certainly may be instances were you need a faster lens, better high-ISO performance, etc., but at the end of the day, it's what you do with the equipment that matters most. Check out the video embedded in this Strobist article. David Hobby makes some fairly amazing photos using a Buzz Lightyear camera designed for three-year olds and some cheap flashes. A bit off-topic, but I think it makes the point.
Poke around on the web (Google Images, Flickr, etc.) and see if you can find examples of portraits shot with a 28mm lens. Do you like them? Then maybe that's the lens for you.
Is there any way you can beg, borrow, or steal (although I don't encourage the latter) a cheap kit zoom lens for a few days? It seems like you have some idea of what you are looking for in terms of performance, but that you are still hunting in terms of the specific focal length you want. If you can get ahold of one, use the cheap kit zoom like a prime -- set it at 28mm and leave it there while you walk around for the day and take photos. At the end of the day, go back and look at your photos and see if you like that focal length. Were you able to frame the shots you wanted, or was it too restrictive? The kit zoom may have its limits (narrower max aperture, etc.), but you can use it as a tool to help refine what you are looking for. Maybe it's 28mm. Maybe it's 24mm or 50mm. Maybe you find that you really like wide-angle, and you'll find yourself looking at a 10-24, 11-16, 12-24, etc.
Last edited:
"People shots" is pretty general. You can pull off people shots with pretty much any lens. Cartier Bresson reportedly only used a 50mm lens for pretty much his entire life. Steve McCurry works with a 24-70 zoom these days, but has used a wide variety of lenses, including many zooms. Avedon, arguably the master portrait photographer of our time, has used a wide variety of cameras and lenses. As I have said before, look at other photographers' work, people you admire, people whose pictures you would really like to have taken. This will give you some idea of exactly what you are trying to do, and will allow you to narrow down how to do it.
I own 2 lenses, only. A 24 f1.4 (For Nikon) and a 28 f2 (Leica M Fit), and use FF cameras. I only take people shots. I really like the work of Bruce Gilden, David Alan Harvey, Koudelka, William Klein, Daido Moryama, Alex Webb, amongst others. So I look at these photographers' works and get inspiration and influence from them. They all use wide angle lenses, pretty much exclusively. This is the look I like, and I like the gritty subject matter, and to be in the action. I like to keep the aperture small (if possible) because I like to show the context that the subject is in, I like layered photos.
It is true that "classic" portrait lenses are considered to be 85-135mm. I find these lengths require a more staged portrait, and don't capture the candidness I like. I also don't want to spend any more money on photo kit! You certainly can get decent people shots with a 28mm 1.8, with the blurry background you like, is the FoV for you? Only you can determine this.
I own 2 lenses, only. A 24 f1.4 (For Nikon) and a 28 f2 (Leica M Fit), and use FF cameras. I only take people shots. I really like the work of Bruce Gilden, David Alan Harvey, Koudelka, William Klein, Daido Moryama, Alex Webb, amongst others. So I look at these photographers' works and get inspiration and influence from them. They all use wide angle lenses, pretty much exclusively. This is the look I like, and I like the gritty subject matter, and to be in the action. I like to keep the aperture small (if possible) because I like to show the context that the subject is in, I like layered photos.
It is true that "classic" portrait lenses are considered to be 85-135mm. I find these lengths require a more staged portrait, and don't capture the candidness I like. I also don't want to spend any more money on photo kit! You certainly can get decent people shots with a 28mm 1.8, with the blurry background you like, is the FoV for you? Only you can determine this.
This.
At the end of the day, the best lens is the one that makes you want to go out and use it to make photographs.
After long long long time of thinking, I decided to purchase the Nikon 35mm lens !
i sold it during the middle of this thread lol for 235 dollars missing lens hood.
then went to futureshop and priced matched it for 195 dollars. got my lens good back and the focusing motor sounds quiter too! lol