 Desiree C. Preckwinkle |
Need to make a lens decision... 60mm or 85mm ??? I want to shoot portraits and then some macro as well. My choice is between the 85mm 1.8 which I will want for the portraits, and the other choice is the 60mm 2.8 micro nikkor- which I will use for macro, BUT am curious if I can get that lens first and use it for portraits as well untill I can afford to buy the other one? Any advice is appreciated. Thanks, Desiree
|
|
|
|
||
|
Ariel Lepor |
I think micro is REALLY close focus. I don't think you would be able to use it for portraits. But the 85mm, if you zoom in all the way with it and use manual focus to set it as close as possible, maybe you can use that as macro.
|
|
|
|
||
|
robert G. Fately |
Ariel, "micro" is merely Nikon's terminology for what other companies more correctly refer to as macro lenses. Desiree, if you want to do macro work, then you should go with the 60MM. It will definitely get you closer to your subject than the 85, but the latter will give you a bit more working room when working with a portrait subject. That is, if you want to fill the frame with the head and shoulders, you will need to get a little closer with the 60MM. In addition, the macro lenses (like the Nikon Micro 60MM are extremely sharp - perhaps too much so for portrature, where the subjects rarely want to see every pimple and pore on their skin. Some portrait shooters actually use diffusion filters (anything form a piece of nylon hose stretched over an empty filter ring to the B+W uber-diffuser that costs pretty bug bucks) over their non-macro lenses. Another consideration might be on the macro side - if all you'll be shooting are subjects you can get close to, the 60MM might be fine. But the 105 or 200MM micro-Nikkors (or the 180MM Sigma Micro) will allow you to obtain the same size image from a bit further away. That is, while the 60MM might give you a great life-size shot of the flower at 6 inches away, the 200MM micro will allow you to be more like 20" away. And that extra distance might mean better ability to place lighting in between (avoiding shadows cast by the lens itself) or keep that much further away from something icky. The advantage to the 85MM 1.8, beyond the greater workign distance to your subject, is the shallower depth of field, which means you can throw the background out of focus at f1.8 while keeping the subject's eyes etc. sharp. At f2.8, the shorter 60MM might end up keeping too much in focus. Sorry if that confuses things - but you might want to consider all of this before getting one lens.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
When you put the 85mm lens on your D70, the reduced angle of view will make it a bit tight for some portrait work. It would be fine for headshots, but you'll need more room to back up to fit a full-length shot or a shot of two or more people. Also, the 85mm lens would not be useful for macro photography. If you want to get one lens to cover both portraits and macro, go with the 60mm micro lens. Chris A. Vedros
|
|
|
|
||
|
Desiree C. Preckwinkle |
Thank you. Bob, very good points to consider. Now I am thinking twice. Chris, as Nikon stated that the 85mm lens is ideal for portraits but you said ....the reduced angle of view will make it a bit tight for some portrait work. It would be fine for headshots, but you'll need more room to back up to fit a full-length shot or a shot of two or more people.... so am curious what lens would you recommend for portrait work and also to fit two or more people?? Thanks so much. Desiree
|
|
|
|
||
|
robert G. Fately |
Well, Desiree, oddly enough, thanks to the 1.5 crop factor on Nikon DSLRs, you could probably do well with a 50MM lens (f1.8 or 1.4 or even - gasp! 1.2!) which would effectively have the same angle of view as a 75MM lens would on 35MM film cameras. I use the 85MM Nikkor for porraits - on my film body, and while I have used it for portrature on my DSLR it is on the long side. That said, there are folks who like to use the 105 or sometimes even 135MM focal length (w/35MM film) for portraits. In fact, Nikon makes to so-called DC lenses, for "defocus control", meant to be used for portrature - these lenses allow you to control to some degree the amount of defocusing (bokeh) in front of and behind the subject. The two DC Nikkors are 105 and 135MM, implying that portrait shooters (again, on film) often use these focal lengths for shooting people. Anyway, a 50MM lens (behaving like a 75MM lens) could be the ticket - and a lot less money, to boot. The whole thing about portrature lenses is that you want to give your subjects enough room - with too wide angle a lens you'd need to be "in their space" which doesn't make anyone comfortable, and that discomfort shows up in the shot. With small groups, though, you might not want to get that far away, so perhaps a 35MM lens (evvectively a 50MM on the DSLR) is something to consider as well.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Desiree C. Preckwinkle |
Thanks Bob. I was always confused about the crop factor... as I also have the N80 and was always confused why the frames fill differently when I switch cameras. So I am going to try the 50mm, which is what I was going to buy as well as the other. Sounds like it could work for now. So to get this straight... If I use a lens on my DSLR, then I would multiply the lens by 1/2 to get the real angle. Hence a 50mm lens 50x1/2=25 then add to 50=75mm?? Hope that made sense? Is there anywhere I can read up on this? Is this aspect ratio (I am confused on that as well) Thanks and sorry to ramble. Desiree
|
|
|
|
||
|
robert G. Fately |
Almos, D - the "crop factor" of 1.5 (which is true for all current Nikon DSLRs) means that you multiply the focal length of a lens by 1.5 to arrive at a close approximation of the "equivalent" lens when used on a film camera. So, a 50MM lens on your N80 ends up behaving like a 75MM lens when you put in on the D70. This is because the chip in the DSLR is smaller than the 24x36MM rectangle which is the exposure area of film. Aspect ration just means the relation of height to width - so a 24x36MM frame has a 1.5:1 aspect ratio. This means that without cropping you can get a 4x6 or an 8x12 print, both of which have the same aspect ration. As it happens, the chips used in Nikon DSLRs also have a 1.5 aspect ratio - it's just smaller than film in both directions (I forget the actual dimensions). This is as opposed to, say, the 4/3's ration that Olympus has touted. Hope that makes things clearer...
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
If you are getting the 60mm lens for macro work, then you probably don't need to get the 50mm lens also. The 60mm lens on your D70 will give an equivalent view of a 90mm on your film camera. Chris A. Vedros
|
|
|
|
||
|
Desiree C. Preckwinkle |
Bob, or anyone... Is there a difference between a lens for a digital camera vs. traditional film cameras? I am familiar with conversion for DSLR's when using a standard lens,, BUT if the lens says for digital cameras do you still need to convert?? Thanks, Desiree
|
|
|
|
||
|
Desiree C. Preckwinkle |
Chris or Bob. Back on talking about lenses. I want the standard 50mm, however wont that convert into a 75mm when I put it on my DSLR?? How can I compensate for this.... I want the 50mm 1.4? I dont have much room to work in and need the 50 rather than a 75mm...Any advice would be great. Thanks, Desiree
|
|
|
|
||
|
robert G. Fately |
Hi, Desiree - sorry I didn't see your esrlier question as well (I was travelling). Okay, first - a so-called "digital lens" of focal length 50MM is still going to behave like a 75MM lens when put on the DSLR with the 1.5 crop factor. Focal lenght is focal length - the important aspect is actually angle of view, and THAT depends on both the focal length as the image area. Let me give you an example: on a 35MM film camera the 50MM focal length give the 46-ish degree angle of view that humans percieve as "normal". But on a 2-1/4" roll film camera (like a Hasselblad, for instance) the normal focal length is 80MM - that give about the same angle of view. And on a view camera using 4x5 inch sheet film, the 150MM lens is "normal" length, again because the angle of view afforded by that focal length on that format is appropriate. Going smaller (imager-wise), for your DSLR with 1.5 crop factor you need a 35MM lens to get the same angle of view as a 50MM lens on 35MM film. In fact, I believe Sigma or someone came out with a 35MM f1.4 for just this purpose. And in short, that may be the answer to your second question. As for the other aspect of so-called "digital lenses" - since the DSLR has a smaller imaging area the lens does not need to project a large an image circle on the chip...which means the lens can be smaller. This also means that a "digital" lens (like the 18-200 AFS VR) used on 35MM film will tend to vignette toward the periphery - that is, darken. It's just not made to project a cone of light large enough to cover the 24x36MM film rectangle. A lens designed for 35MM film will of course work on digital because it just throws light beyond the edges of the CCD, but nobody cares. The other possible differece between digital lenses and film couterparts might be more coatings on the rear element. Because film does not reflect light as much as a CCD or CMOS chip does, lens makers did not bother to multi-coat the rear-facing element in the lens. But digital lenses are often coated on the back side to prevent flare inside the shutter box.
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||