Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

What Should I Buy

  • 16-04-2008 8:07am
    #1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,459 ✭✭✭


    I have a Nikon d300 and d40x.

    Nikon AF-S 18-70mm f/3.5-4.5G IF ED DX
    Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 ED-IF AF-S VR DX
    Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G VR IF-ED
    AF-S VR NIKKOR 300mm f/2.8G IF-ED

    I usually shoot just sports but really want to get to grips with portraits (I have two very willing and angelic models) so what do I need, was thinking about a Nifty fifty should i get the AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.4D
    or the AF NIKKOR 50mm f/1.8D and a flash gun either a SB-800 AF Speedlight or SB-600 AF Speedlight Unit.

    Basically i want toknow if the price difference between the 1.4 and 1.8 and the 600/800 is worth the difference.

    Thanks for your help!


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭eas


    My opinon is that

    1) the 50 1.4 is not worht the extra over the 50 1.8 (unless you REALLY need the extra speed)

    2) the SB-800 is worth the extra over the SB-600.

    Seeing as how you don't seem to shy away from expensive glass, the 85 1.4 is my recomendation for a d300. Unlike the 50 1.4, the 85 1.4 is much better than it's 1.8 brother. It also seems to have come down in price since I bought mine.

    I don't have any first hand experiance, but I'm guessing the new 60mm micro will become a very popular portrait lens.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,459 ✭✭✭Dodgykeeper


    I dont shy away from expensive glass because i make a few bob from the sports stuff but the wallet and the wife both say enough is enough so the 85mm 1.4 is out of the question.:):)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭eas


    If budget is the ultimate factor than I think you should get the 50 1.8, no question in my mind about that.

    I'm not sure of it's price, but out of curiostiy I just cheked Bjorn Rorsletts review of the 60mm micro -

    "The newest of the members in the long line of Micro-Nikkors also happens to be the best of them all in optical terms. Images are super sharp already from f/2.8 and keep their bite up to f/11, from which point a graceful decline kicks in. The f/22 result is very acceptable, but the f/32 isn't on the D3."

    "Colours are rendered vividly saturated and image contrast is high all the way up to f/16."

    http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_spec.html


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,037 ✭✭✭quilmore


    your 70-200 2.8 vr should be good enough for portraits, I've used the 80-200 2.8 for some time and is great, I've sold it now and now I'm chasing the 70-200 vr :D

    I have the 50 1.8 and it's quite good too for portraits but in cases you'll have to be too close to your model and that can interfere with what they're doing (specially kids)

    I've had the sb600 for 3 years and now I have a sb800 for some time
    they are both very similar and I haven't seen any difference between the two that makes me think of the different they have in price

    the sb800 will recharge quicker than sb600, but for not sure if that's so important when taking portraits
    the sb800 will zoom a bit more than the sb600, but that's theory, in practice I haven't seen any difference on my pictures


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,788 ✭✭✭jackdaw


    I dont shy away from expensive glass because i make a few bob from the sports stuff but the wallet and the wife both say enough is enough so the 85mm 1.4 is out of the question.:):)


    :D:D .. I know how you feel!!!!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,459 ✭✭✭Dodgykeeper


    Where in Spain r ya jackdaw?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13 Boatsman


    Hi,

    Just like quilmore mentioned before 70-200mm should do just fine. Also good point there, that with 50mm lens you have to be closer to your model. No problem with experienced models but some that just starting may feel intimidated if you step to close ;)

    I am using 50mm 1.8 and I am happy with it. For portraits I think its just fine.

    Well, 85mm 1.4 would be the best. My frined is using it and results are just perfect... but the price is a killer :eek:;)

    good luck


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭eas


    my 2cents

    the quality of the 70-200 is great for portraits. The downside is that it's too big, heavy and awkward (not to mention intimedating) to be using as a full time portrait lens.

    A small, light prime is the tool for the job, especially for children.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,459 ✭✭✭Dodgykeeper


    Thanks for all your advice, will now go to Photfest with a Shopping list and see what meets my budget!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,459 ✭✭✭Dodgykeeper


    Am now the proud owner of a 50mm 1.8 and an SB 800, got both of them for less than 500 euro at photofest today from Berminghams.

    Now to learn hor to use them!


  • Advertisement
Advertisement