[Dutchie]

Ok I am just thinking and looking around. As I like doingportrait most, and use my nifty fifty a lot in the house. I can do with a little more view sometimes. Not sure how to explain it, but getting the babies face and part of the body on the viewfinder is sometimes not enough, when I'm standing nearby her. And I think the 85mm 1.4 would do me well. But I've seen a lot of people on here going on about the 17-55mm as well for portrait. Lowlight is very important as I do not have much light coming in at times like autumn/winter.

Now I do not have a clue how to calculate it all. But is there much difference (apart from that the 17-55mm is a zoom).

[Dave]

The 17-55 is f/2.8 at widest aperture, vs f/1.4 of 85mm you mention.

I only had the 50mm f/1.8 at the time, but I was so impressed wit the 17-55 I sold the 50mm. The 17-55 gives you so much more versatility, as you will find it becomes your main lens.

You could go for the 50mm f/1.4 if you really want that shallow depth of field (as about 1/3 price of 85mm vsn), or just buy the 85mm f/1.8.

Re light, I wouldn't worry too much about that, as with the D300 you have such excellent noise control. I used to use the D200 at ISO800 with no probs & occasionally at ISO1600. You should be able to use 1600 & 3200 accordingly with D300

ISO1000 with 17-55 on D200, natural light :-

[Dave]

This may also help :- http://www.pixalo.com/community/phot...lens-6647.html

[Dabhand16]

You have the Nikkor 105f2.8, and I think that ought to give you the closer portraits that you want. Hoffy said that he uses his sigma 105 for most of his portraits, and I think you would agree that they are excellent.

You could try your 18-200 at 85 mm as a comparison in the focal length, but looking at your lenses, the 17-55 is the one to go for. It will be more versatile than the 85mm which is (in focal length) very close to the 105.

[VinnyP]

If you want more reach then the 17-55 will not add much more. It's a lovely sharp lens and does a good job but the 50mm is of course better in low light and can throw a background out of focus. The 85 gives more reach and naturally the 1.4 or 1.8 is again better in low light and in reducing the effect of distracting backgrounds. I have the 85mm 1.8 and it's a great lens. The 1.4 is legendary but I have been hanging on hoping for an AFS version with improved optics for a long time now. Nikon is making an announcement in Copenhagen tomorrow. If this doesn't include a new pro 85mm then I'll get the AF-D version. Either way the 85 1.8 will be up for grabs sooner or later.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Dutchie

Not sure how to explain it, but getting the babies face and part of the body on the viewfinder is sometimes not enough, when I'm standing nearby her.

Do you want to see more of the body , or a tighter crop of the face ?

[Dutchie]

I want to see more of the body. So I think I need to go down in mm. Cause the 105mm is tighter and by the way an excellent lens. Wouldn't change that for the world. So an 85mm wouldn't give me more but less, or am i wrong?

You see, when I do a session with Jasmin. I need to sit close to her so I can get her attention better. And with my 50mm I can only get her face and shoulders on. But as babies do, they move a lot, and so I need more space.

[VinnyP]

In which case yes the 17-55mm would be an excellent choice. If you are worried about the Maximum aperture for the light then consider the excellent (if you get a good sample) Sigma 30mm f1.4 or Rob a bank and get a used 28mm 1.4. First choice so long as it is good enough in low light should definitely be the 17-55 or equivalent as it would be versatile and allow really good framing options.

[Dabhand16]

The 85 will give you a wider angle than the 105, but I can't quite understand qhat you are trying to achieve.

You see, when I do a session with Jasmin. I need to sit close to her so I can get her attention better. And with my 50mm I can only get her face and shoulders on. But as babies do, they move a lot, and so I need more space.

If with the 50 you can only get her face and you need more space, the 85 will require you to move further back, but you say you need to be close to get her attention

I still think the difference between the 85 and 105 is not great, and don't forget that portraits are better when taken with longer lenses.

[Dutchie]

Yes Dabs. The 85mm would be no good to me then. I thought 50mm and then go up to 85mm gives me bigger view. But it is the opposite Well you know, it just says enough on how much I know about it

17-55mm would do in this case I imagine.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Dutchie

17-55mm would do in this case I imagine.

You won't regret it

[Dutchie]

If I would sell my 18-200 and nifty fifty. Would I have cover enough for allround pictures and portrait? Cause I've got the 70-300 as well, only it's a tad heavy though to use as all round lens. Not to sure whether I would want to part from my nifty though.

[Dave]

I see the 18-200 as a lens you use if you don't want to carry 2 or more lenses. If you are able to carry say a 17-55 plus 70-300 around, then sell the thing. Keep the 50mm until you play with 17-55, at which point I give you a couple of months before you sell the 50mm due to lack of use Saying that the nifty is only worth £50, so maybe it's worth keeping

[Dutchie]

Well it's something to think about. I tend to carry 2 lenses around at the moment. That is my beloved 10-20 super wide angle and the 18-200mm. But have to admit, I do love the 18-200mm, cause it's a good allrounder.

It is just that little bit more flexability that I miss for portrait photography.
And the lens I leave at home more and more is the 70-300mm as it is the most heaviest lens.

[Dave]

Another option is to sell the 70-300 then & keep the 18-200. I have different combinations of lenses for different shoots.

Landscapes : Sigma 10-20, Canon 24-105
Sport : Canon 70-200 F4, Canon 100-400
Portrait : Canon 24-105, Canon 50mm f/1.4, Canon 85mm f/1.8

[Dutchie]

Yeh I'm more tempted to do that, cause in the future I would like more zoom as in 400mm at least. At the moment I already got 200mm, and so the 300mm is only 100mm extra.

Isn't there anyone who has the 80-400 nikkor. I can't find any reviews on it at pixalo either.

[Dutchie]

I'm definitely going to sell the 70-300. Just have to find the dosh now to get myself a second hand 17-55 decent priced. Full price is way out of my league.

I would still like to know if anyone has the 80-400? As future wishlist would be either the 70-200 or 80-400.

[Dave]

I did a lot of research on the 80-400, but was not impressed with AF speed. I waited for about a year for a VRII version to come out, but in the end gave up

[Dabhand16]

Originally Posted by Dutchie

Just have to find the dosh now to get myself a second hand 17-55 decent priced. Full price is way out of my league.

MPB have a 17-55 listed

[Dutchie]

Originally Posted by Dabhand16

MPB have a 17-55 listed

I know. keep on looking, but I need to get some more dosh together. Can't keep on spending forever