Macro/Portrait lens for DX

13

Comments

  • Golf007sdGolf007sd Posts: 2,840Moderator
    edited April 2013
    Question of taste, I think...I would not do portraits on DX with 85....
    I agree it is a question of taste....and for me the 85 1.8G makes a great lens on a DX body. To see what I'm mean please have a look at this set on my Flickr account and judge for yourself. (Note: All portrait shots taken with the 85mm 1.8G)

    Cheers
    Post edited by Golf007sd on
    D4 & D7000 | Nikon Holy Trinity Set + 105 2.8 Mico + 200 F2 VR II | 300 2.8G VR II, 10.5 Fish-eye, 24 & 50 1.4G, 35 & 85 1.8G, 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR I SB-400 & 700 | TC 1.4E III, 1.7 & 2.0E III, 1.7 | Sigma 35 & 50 1.4 DG HSM | RRS Ballhead & Tripods Gear | Gitzo Monopod | Lowepro Gear | HDR via Promote Control System |
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    Why wouldn't an 85mm on DX be a good portrait lens? At 128mm equivalent it is only slightly wider than the pretty popular 135mm on FX. What am I missing?
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,487Moderator
    edited April 2013
    "What am I missing?" - Nothing. 135 on FX/85 on DX gives very nice perspective but you are a little further away which is what JJ_SO is saying he is not keen on I suppose. After Msmoto pointing out 'the nose' on one of my tight in portraits which was taken with a 50, I don't get that close anymore with it, Waist up and small groups it is great, but not tight in head and collar shots.

    I know what JJ is saying, the 50 is a nice close working distance with a model, but it is the image that counts. Examples:

    OK:

    http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee165/snapper1954/nikon rumours forum/APH_2550.jpg

    Not OK:

    http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee165/snapper1954/nikon rumours forum/APH_2557.jpg
    Post edited by spraynpray on
    Always learning.
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    edited April 2013
    As I already said, "a matter of taste". And - if one reads carefully - I didn't say, 85 or 135 is NOT a good portrait lens, I just don't use it for portraits with DX.

    @Golf007sd: Thanks for your link. To me an excellent example why I don't like 85 portraits on DX. Which are, as Ironheart pointed out, very similar to 135 - none of my favorite focal lengths.

    If I compare the shots in your link with the shots Msmoto showed from a wedding with 24mm, my attention goes always to the wide-angle side. I guess that's because

    I'm spectacle wearer and therefore I see sharper in close distances
    I like to see the surroundment, as I always try to enlarge my own viewing angle.
    I like to get an idea how close the photographer is to the subject. Confidence, trust, being open and willing to be photographed is what makes a difference between a portrait which grabs my attention and one which I just click over.

    I'm not saying, Msmoto made the better portraits, I'm not saying your's are not good in my eyes. I just try to figure out what makes me interested.

    @spraynpray: your samples are no fair comparison . They should have the same proportion from head to frame. You were very close with the 50mm. Give her head more space and it would be more pleasing.
    Post edited by JJ_SO on
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    edited April 2013
    My experience for people photos...not necessarily formal portraits, is to use a lens which will consider the facial structure of your subject and the comfort zone of the subject. Some folks on the street need more space. I have done portraits on FX from 24mm to 550mm.

    Facial characteristics can be minimized...large nose=longer lens, small nose, round fat face may need shorter lens to draw it forward. Lighting is probably as important as well.

    On crop sensor, I would use 50 to 100mm in general. And, as mentioned, the 85mm f/1.8...nice for portraits, and wicked with extension tubes for macro.

    However, on 4" x 5" format, we used to shoot portraits with a 210mm lens. This figures as 1.29 times the diagonal of the format.

    If we apply this to the DX mode what we see is possibly shocking. Using a 4 x 5 crop (16 x 20 mm) on DX, the calculations are a 33mm lens for portraits. Or a full DX frame (16mm x 24mm) the calculation works out to a 37.2 mm lens.

    So, who knows?
    Post edited by Msmoto on
    Msmoto, mod
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,487Moderator
    @JJ_SO: It is a perfectly fair comparison and it aligns with what I said so I think we will not agree on this. Here's more space around her head and like I said above, head and collar shots are not good with a 50 on DX:

    http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee165/snapper1954/APH_2555-2.jpg
    Always learning.
  • turnthedarncranksturnthedarncranks Posts: 116Member
    Holy cow! Lots to think about. I have confirmed the 105 is too much for now. So the question becomes whether to get a 50, 60, or 85. I am betting that when I am done figuring out the numbers I will end up with a 50 and extension tubes/screw on magnifying filters to use on the 181-05, with the 85 or 105 as my next purchase. But, we'll see . . .
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    edited April 2013
    @spraynpray: A fair comparison would be, if you're shooting with the same distance or getting the same scale of the model. Being farer away with an 85 and much closer with a 50 is not fair. What I mean is: In your samples you're using a non flattering distance for the 50. Result "big nose". And a more remote distance for the 85. Result "no bad proportion".

    But never mind, I'm as well not a very big fan of 50mm with DX.
    Post edited by JJ_SO on
  • SquamishPhotoSquamishPhoto Posts: 608Member
    edited April 2013
    As I already said, "a matter of taste". And - if one reads carefully - I didn't say, 85 or 135 is NOT a good portrait lens, I just don't use it for portraits with DX.

    @Golf007sd: Thanks for your link. To me an excellent example why I don't like 85 portraits on DX. Which are, as Ironheart pointed out, very similar to 135 - none of my favorite focal lengths.
    To me it doesn't sound like you're a very experienced portrait shooter. You seem stuck on ideas about lenses rather than understanding how to use them well. Lenses are about character and rendition, so the format means nothing. A shot with a 50mm on DX is just a crop of what it would have looked like on an FX sensor and same goes for the 85 and the 135. If you're saying you don't like them on DX then you're saying you don't like them on FX either since the crop is the only difference. You keep mentioning working distance; are you shooting in a small closet or bathroom because those focal lengths shouldn't cause insurmountable problems?

    Post edited by SquamishPhoto on
    Mike
    D3 • D750 • 14-24mm f2.8 • 35mm f1.4A • PC-E 45mm f2.8 • 50mm f1.8G • AF-D 85mm f1.4 • ZF.2 100mm f2 • 200mm f2 VR2
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    @SquamishPhoto: If you want me to take your comment seriously, it would be a good first step to think about your choice of words. I don't see many DX cams in your list of gear - so do I have automatically to assume, you've no experiences in DX and therefore generally doubt your post? Because that's what you did.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,487Moderator
    @JJ_SO: It seems from reading your posts that you don't understand (or perhaps know about) the difference that focal length makes to the apparent compression of perspective. Just the same as shooting a Landscape with a wide angle or a telephoto - the sun can look tiny or huge with a tree in the foreground the same size in both shots if you move your feet to keep the tree the same size.
    Always learning.
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    edited April 2013
    spraynpray, maybe you're the one who needs an update.

    Compression of perspective is nonsense. If you stay on the same place and keep the distance to your subject, you can crop a 14mm FX shot until it shows the frame of a 200 mm FX teleshot without any compression of perspective.

    crop out of 14mm
    image
    crop out of 35mm
    image
    220mm
    image

    Check the EXIF if you don't believe. Perspective is only depending on the places of the camera and the subject. NOT on a lens! Don't mess perspective with proportions. And don't question my understanding if you insist you made a fair comparison between 85 and 50 with your portrait shots ;)

    See for yourself - given the same frame, the differences between 85 and 50 are hard to find - and if she kept the same pose and you the same position, there would be no difference at all.

    image

    But it's an easy thing to copy this "perspective is lens depending" thing and go on in this error, isn't it? And now I'm off this thread, too many cracks, too few reflected knowledge... but one thing remains: if you like me to delete your picture from my server, please tell me, I don't want to be disrespectful to your copyright.

    Post edited by JJ_SO on
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    Oh, my, we get into these perspective/format/focal length/image size discussions........

    Perspective is simply how far away one is from the subject. It has nothing to do with image size, focal length, format, or whatever.

    As we do create different image sizes on our sensors, also different sizes, we get drawn into the idea the perspective changes with focal length. When, what is changing is the image size. And, the difference in shooting and creating different image sizes, this is responsible for different DOF. Thus, a longer focal length will give a larger image size no matter what the size of the sensor. And a longer focal length gives less DOF as a result of this larger image size.

    Squamish points out some very interesting ideas, however. The character changes with different lenses. An f/2 100mm Zeiss gives a different "feel" than an f/2.8 Nikkor 105, even though they are very close. The 200mm f/2....wow, cannot do this with an f/2.8 or smaller. Portraits are subject to very subtle differences. And, as best I understand, the only way to learn this is to shoot about a thousand of them and find out what works, and what does not.
    Msmoto, mod
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    Msmoto, I'm envy on your explanation skills, I wish, I could have written it so light handed. Thank you very much :) I think, I felt provoked - but don't believe it happened on purpose. Sorry.

    Of course it's a difference how a lens renders an image - but this is manufacturer dependant and not typical for a certain focal length, as far I understand it.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,487Moderator
    @JJ_SO: "I felt provoked" - you've got to stop that or internet life is hard. Nothing I said to you was intended to provoke. I have said this before here and I will say it again - the way written words are taken often has more to do with the way they are read than the way they are written.

    As for our discussion, I'm going to leave it there. I don't agree, I think you have missed my point.
    Always learning.
  • JJ_SOJJ_SO Posts: 1,158Member
    Ok, spraynpray, so be it: I don't saw much efforts to try a different way of explanation, but I read something wrong and tried my best to make clear what is wrong with "compression of perspective". I was not saying "you provoked me" - I think you realized that.
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,182Member
    edited April 2013
    @turnthedarncranks: Back in 2010, when I first got into macro photography I got this cool little device (which I still own) and it just snapped in front of my 50 1.4G lens. The name of the product it called Raynox DCR-250 Super Macro Snap-On Lens currently is cost about $79.00 on Amazon. You might want to give it a shot and see what you think.
    +1 on this gizmo .. I love mine so much I am considering restructuring all my lenses around this Raynox.
    My primary love in photography is macro and i have an 150 macro lens from sigma which is great. But since its huge and a prime(not too versatile) . I dont get to carry it around as much as I want to.

    The reason I am considering restructuring is bec the Raynox can clip onto a lens from 49 mm to 67mm so I am thinking of getting a whole set of 67mm filtersize lenses so that I can clip on this gizmo whenever I feel like macro!
    Just in case anyone else wants to do the same, some lenses that have up to 67mm and are thus compatible are
    * N 70-200 VR F4
    * N 85 mm F1.8
    * N 18-108VR,
    * N 18-70,
    * N 18-55VR,
    * N 16-85 VR
    * Tamron 28-75 F2.8
    * Tamron 17-50 F2.8
    * All the nikkor 50 mm , F1.8, F1.4 G etc..

    I wouldn't put it on anything less than 50 mm as it wont make much of a difference ..

    Some notable lenses that wont work easily with the Raynox (filter size bigger than 67mm) are
    * N 18-200 VR
    * Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 OS
    * N 70-200 F2.8
    * N 24-70 F2.8
    * N 28-70 F2.8
    * Tamron 17-50 F2.8 VC
    * Sigma 17-50 F2.8 OS

    I am sure there are others but I think that covers the most popular ones.

    So I am considering getting rid of my 18-200 and 150 for Macro + Portrait and getting the 70-200 F4 and the 16-85VR and 85 1.8G





    Post edited by heartyfisher on
    Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.

  • turnthedarncranksturnthedarncranks Posts: 116Member
    @Golf and @heartyfisher -- Do you find the Raynox preferable to magnifying filters? If so, why? Just ease of putting it on and taking it off? Or do you find the results better?

    Thanks!
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    B&H has it on rebate for the next two days, just $69.95. At that price, how can you go wrong?

    http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/275182-REG/Raynox_DCR_250_DCR_250_2_5x_Super_Macro.html

    (if you use this link, [NR] gets credit). I'm gonna buy it, together with the Kenko extension tubes I already have I should be able to take pictures of molecules :-)
  • tcole1983tcole1983 Posts: 981Member
    @SquamishPhoto: If you want me to take your comment seriously, it would be a good first step to think about your choice of words. I don't see many DX cams in your list of gear - so do I have automatically to assume, you've no experiences in DX and therefore generally doubt your post? Because that's what you did.
    Lol..Squamish takes some very awesome portraits and the 100 and 200 F2's are amazing lenses. If he doesn't know anything he pretends well at least. I don't remember you from the old forum so most of the old discussions have been lost, but some might know more than you think.
    D5200, D5000, S31, 18-55 VR, 17-55 F2.8, 35 F1.8G, 105 F2.8 VR, 300 F4 AF-S (Previously owned 18-200 VRI, Tokina 12-24 F4 II)
  • Golf007sdGolf007sd Posts: 2,840Moderator
    edited April 2013
    @turnthedarncranks: I have not used any of the filter like the Canon ones, but the Raynox is very convenient in putting on and taking off and work great. I think given it's cost, and opening up the door to macro photography would be a great way to start.
    Post edited by Golf007sd on
    D4 & D7000 | Nikon Holy Trinity Set + 105 2.8 Mico + 200 F2 VR II | 300 2.8G VR II, 10.5 Fish-eye, 24 & 50 1.4G, 35 & 85 1.8G, 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR I SB-400 & 700 | TC 1.4E III, 1.7 & 2.0E III, 1.7 | Sigma 35 & 50 1.4 DG HSM | RRS Ballhead & Tripods Gear | Gitzo Monopod | Lowepro Gear | HDR via Promote Control System |
  • heartyfisherheartyfisher Posts: 3,182Member
    edited April 2013
    @Golf and @heartyfisher -- Do you find the Raynox preferable to magnifying filters? If so, why? Just ease of putting it on and taking it off? Or do you find the results better?

    Thanks!
    The Raynox DCR250 is not "just a close up filter" most of the cheap close up filters are a single lense. so you will get chromatic aberrations, blur and other side effects at the edges of the picture. the special canon close up filters(500D) cost quite a bit more but are made up of 2 lense elements which are designed to fix CA etc. You can get them for various filter sizes but but if you have lenses of different sizes you will need more than one or use step-up/down filter conversion rings. really more fiddling than I want to deal with for a quicky macro.

    The Raynox DCR250 has an attachment that clips on to lense filters from 49mm to 67mm. The lens design has 3 elements that correct for the CA and other issues. the reason it is so cheap is because it is designed for 49mm lenses (the diameter of the lens is not very wide) so if you attach it to wide angle lenses it vignettes terribly. even on the kit lenses, say the 18-105, it will probably vignette from 18-35mm or more. On my 18-200 at 200mm it still vignettes at 200mm.. I need to stop down a bit but that really isn't an issue as when you want to Macro you usually want to use the smallest apertures(more DOF) and longest focal lengths(more macro) on your lenses anyway.

    Hope this helps..

    PS : There is one cool/curious thing I found when when using it on my 18-200 at 200mm. When you focus the lense, the closer you are you would expect the object to get larger .. but no, it doesn't with the DCR attached.. with the DCR attached the closer I focus the smaller the object gets.. I know the reason but can anyone guess why ? :-) Puzzle for the day!

    Post edited by heartyfisher on
    Moments of Light - D610 D7K S5pro 70-200f4 18-200 150f2.8 12-24 18-70 35-70f2.8 : C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.

  • dissentdissent Posts: 1,314Member
    @ Ironheart - Thanks for the link on the DCR-250. I've been doing a little shooting with the DCR-150 on my 70-300 VR and it is quite interesting. Was planning to get the other lens anyway, but I guess now is the perfect time.

    Yeah, the Raynox is nice with its' clip on feature. Rather easy to move between lenses. I supposed you could do the same thing with step-up rings, but the clip thing is easier
    - Ian . . . [D7000, D7100; Nikon glass: 35 f1.8, 85 f1.8, 70-300 VR, 105 f2.8 VR, 12-24 f4; 16-85 VR, 300 f4D, 14E-II TC, SB-400, SB-700 . . . and still plenty of ignorance]
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    @dissent I just ordered mine and saved the $9, plus free shipping (10 day super saver, so I guess I'll have to wait). I'll post some shots here when I get it.
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,487Moderator
    Question to the owners of the Raynox - does the small diameter make it harder for the camera to focus?
    Always learning.
Sign In or Register to comment.