 BetterPhoto Member |
re:a recommended lense Hello....I love this site....thankyou ! .....I have a question about what lense would be the best value and give great results with more flexability...I have a Nikon N-80 and it is new, so just have the 28-80 lense that came with. I wanted to know what lense would allow great clarity and better quality for scenery and portrait work...my 2 favorite categories. Also, what film allows the best color? I have been using the Kodak, but some of the pictures seem drab...I had to go through customs...would not hand check for a recent trip and I was concerned that the color and quality was affected. Thankyou so much !! Happy picture taking !! Linda
|
|
|
|
||
|
Piper Lehman |
Hi, Linda. I think most would agree that your next lens should be a telephoto zoom--maybe something in the 70-300 range. This would give you great coverage along with your 28-80. Since you like doing portraits, the 70-300 will give you what you need since most would advise using between 80 and 135 for portraits. Your 28-80 will do nicely for scenics. As for film, I suggest trying out some different filters before quitting on Kodak as a whole. If you aren't using a polarizing filter, I strongly suggest getting one. It will boost your colors if used correctly. You can also try a UV/haze filter to cut through to the truer colors. Try different speeds and some of the pro films if you aren't happy with your results. Going through customs probably didn't hurt your film, but it's possible depending on the speed--the faster the speed, the more susceptable they are to problems at the airport.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Joan Bellinger |
Linda, You may want to try Fuji Reala and Fuji Superia. The Reala has given me beautiful skin tones. The Superia has done quite well with outdoor scenes. Both have vibrant, bold colors. I use both with my SLR and zoom cameras.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John A. Lind |
Linda, Along with the films that Joan mentioned, try a roll or two of Kodak Portra 160 NC, or Fuji NPS (also ISO 160) for your portraits. They are professional portraiture films, optimized for skin tone rendition and color accuracy, with less saturation and a wider latitude than general purpose films (such as Reala and Superia). These two films are the ones most used by professionals for portraiture and wedding photography. They can be used for scenics (landscape and architecture) but in color negative most prefer the higher saturation and contrast of the films Joan mentioned (or Kodak's Royal Gold). -- John
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tom Darmody |
Linda- Lenses: You didn't mention what kind of portrait work you were interested in. For studio, or photographs you have the time to set up Id recomend a 90mm or 105mm prime. The objective of portrait photography is to fill the frame with your subject. Both of those lenses will adequetly do that with very little to no distortion. If your interested in doing candids. I recomend a zoom. Your 28-80 is quite capable. The Nikon 80-200 2.8 is also a good choice. It's on the pricey side, but you can find third party models(Sigma-Tokina) used in $400-500 range. It's fast and will give you very crisp clear photographs on the fly. film: For landscapes Fuji Velvia 50 or Provia 100F (RDP III). They will give you a sharp photograph with very fine grain and great saturation. For sunny situations you have the latitude of about four stops. If you prefer print film try Agfa HDC 100, very sharp and small grain. For protrait Fuji NPH 400 or the NPS 160. By far the absolout best skin tones. For street or candids in hard light with a moving subject try Fuji NHG II 800, you can pull it to 400 or push it to 1600 with decent results. In any case I would stay away from the Kodak consumer films (Royal and Max). They are designed for point and shoot zooms with small apatures. The best advice that I could give you is to go buy a bunch of different films and try for yourself. Tom
|
|
|
|
||
|
Piper Lehman |
Tom, I certainly agree that prime lenses are preferable to zooms for image quality, but not everyone can afford a 28 or 50mm, plus a 90 or 105mm, plus a telezoom for candids. Let's face it, you'd have to spend a fortune to get your money's worth and to cover all the focal lengths needed for the kind of work Linda wants to do. I suggested the 70-300 telezoom because it's usually the second lens any photographer buys. I do love my prime lenses--they are wonderful, but my favorite lens is my 28-105 macro because it covers most of my needs, and I can get away with a lighter load when going out to shoot. I don't know about you, but if I have to lug a 30lb camera bag over my shoulder every time I take my camera out to shoot, then I'm not shooting as much as I could be or should be. Having to take my 20lb mongo tripod along every time I leave the house (because I can't afford a carbon Gitzo at the moment) is bad enough! LOL
|
|
|
|
||
|
Tom Darmody |
Piper- I kind of see where your coming from on this. The original question was, "[I] wanted to know what lense would allow great clarity and better quality for scenery and portrait work." The two biggest factors in that being, glass and film. If the 70-300 works for you, that's great. I just think that's it a poor choice for the purpose that Linda described. You can do prime on a budget. There are some pretty decent 3rd party lenses out there. If you dont need AF you can manual and save even more money.
PS 30 Pounds! My God, what do you put in there? LOL
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||