New Portrait Lens for D300

[longside1]

Hi Guys,

I'm now in receipt of my new D300 and boy am I chuffed to bits1

After upgrading my camera I now looking to get a good quality prime lens for portrait work, to do my camera justice!

Ideally I would plump for Nikon glass but at the moment it's out of my price range.
After doing a bit of research i've discovered this Sigma lens:

Sigma 150mm f2.8 APO Macro DG EX HSM

It's appears to have very good reviews and I'm assuming it could also double for portraits.

Does anyone have any experience with this lens or could they reccomend an alternative?

Many thanks!

[Stephen A]

Originally Posted by longside1

Hi Guys,

I'm now in receipt of my new D300 and boy am I chuffed to bits1

After upgrading my camera I now looking to get a good quality prime lens for portrait work, to do my camera justice!

Ideally I would plump for Nikon glass but at the moment it's out of my price range.
After doing a bit of research i've discovered this Sigma lens:

Sigma 150mm f2.8 APO Macro DG EX HSM

It's appears to have very good reviews and I'm assuming it could also double for portraits.

Does anyone have any experience with this lens or could they reccomend an alternative?

Many thanks!

Hmm... weird, I don't shoot portraiture very often but I really like my Nikkor 50mm F/1.8... not really sure why you would shoot portraits with a fixed focus 150mm, seems counter intertuitive to me.

Anyways, I like the 50mm for it's speed and bokeh... and the price tag - $130ish

[longside1]

Thanks for the response Stephen.

From what I can gather the sigma lens I mentioned, although a macro, can also be used with excellent results for portrait work due the ability to set a very large aperture for blurring backgrounds. Due to it's Macro abilities the camera would also be great for picking out fine facial details from the people faces etc.

I also mentioned that I was after a good quality lens for my camera aside from Nikon glass which is I'm assuming is a point you missed.

What does seem "weird" is why anybody would buy a high quality camera like the D300 only to fit it out with a very cheap lens like the one you use.

Going back to my original question, has anyone had any experience with the sigma lens for portrait work or could they recommend a good affordable alternative.

[DWThomp]

I would think the 150mm would be a little long for portrait work, especially with the crop factor. If you're looking for primes only, I would think either a 35mm, 50mm, or 85mm would work better. My main portrait lenses are my 24-70 f2.8 and 85 f1.8.

[Stephen A]

Originally Posted by longside1

Thanks for the response Stephen.

From what I can gather the sigma lens I mentioned, although a macro, can also be used with excellent results for portrait work due the ability to set a very large aperture for blurring backgrounds. Due to it's Macro abilities the camera would also be great for picking out fine facial details from the people faces etc.

I also mentioned that I was after a good quality lens for my camera aside from Nikon glass which is I'm assuming is a point you missed.

What does seem "weird" is why anybody would buy a high quality camera like the D300 only to fit it out with a very cheap lens like the one you use.

Going back to my original question, has anyone had any experience with the sigma lens for portrait work or could they recommend a good affordable alternative.

Yeouch, I'm feeling a bit of a burn.

[Stephen A]

Originally Posted by longside1

Thanks for the response Stephen.

From what I can gather the sigma lens I mentioned, although a macro, can also be used with excellent results for portrait work due the ability to set a very large aperture for blurring backgrounds. Due to it's Macro abilities the camera would also be great for picking out fine facial details from the people faces etc.

I also mentioned that I was after a good quality lens for my camera aside from Nikon glass which is I'm assuming is a point you missed.

What does seem "weird" is why anybody would buy a high quality camera like the D300 only to fit it out with a very cheap lens like the one you use.

Going back to my original question, has anyone had any experience with the sigma lens for portrait work or could they recommend a good affordable alternative.

I was discussing this with the guys in the camera shop I work in, because I found it unusual. And after some thought and discussion I am very confused.

You call Nikkor (Nikon) glass cheap? I guess you mean the specific lens I mentioned is cheap, because it's a inexpensive lens? That would be wrong, you see it's actually a very high quality lens glass wise. It's just lower quality body material - the mount is plastic, and most of the body parts are (high quality) plastic - but plastic none the less.

Another neat feature about the lens I mentioned is that it's f/1.8 which means you get very noteworthy bokeh. It's a very highly rated on lens in communities such as Photodo, Photographyreview, Photozone, and also Amazon (admittedly not a photo community, but we all know people will buy anywheres to skirt on a few bucks).

But what makes me most confused is you talk about not putting cheap glass on your camera, then mention buying Sigma Lenses- which is not top-quality glass, whereas Nikkor is a well established Lens manufacturer.

And to add to this confusion you speak of doing portraits with a 150mm fixed focus, which would be VERY close, unless you weren't - which seems impractical. Also, have you seen the macro mode on that lens uses? It's for bugs, and coins... or eyelashes, if people dig that stuff.

If you don't mind the pricetag, Nikon also makes a 50mm f/1.4 which is a shade more expensive ($350)

[longside1]

Stephen,

I wasn't intending to "burn you" so apologies if I upset you. Also many thanks for taking the time to seek assistance for your retort with your work colleagues you'll have to thank them on my behalf.

Just to clear up a few matters, I don't consider Nikon glass to be cheap, this I thought would be apparent as in my first post I did clearly explain that I can't afford it! My reference to cheap was with regards the Nikon lens that you are using, and yes you are correct I classed it as being cheap due to the fact it is one of the most inexpensive Nikon lenses out there (give yourself a pat on the back for figuring that one!).

However, I have read the reviews for this lens you kindly provided and fully acknowledge your comments that optical attributes of this lens are very good and on that point I stand corrected.

With regards Sigma not producing top quality glass, I suggest you take the same time finding online reviews for the Sigma lens I suggested as you did finding reviews for your Nikon lens, you may be pleasantly surprised.

I don't know what your level of understanding is concerning portrait photography, but I can assure you mine is pretty limited. If you're unsure of the application of a 150mm lens for portrait work take some time to read the following article as it provides a good introduction on the use of longer lenses for portrait work:

http://shutterbug.com/equipmentrevie...ses/1206sigma/

Anyway, I enjoyed this discussion and will certainly look at the 50mm f/1.4.

DWThomp: Thanks for taking the time to comment I'll also take a look at the lenses you referenced!

[Stephen A]

Originally Posted by longside1

http://shutterbug.com/equipmentrevie...ses/1206sigma/

Anyway, I enjoyed this discussion and will certainly look at the 50mm f/1.4.

DWThomp: Thanks for taking the time to comment I'll also take a look at the lenses you referenced!

Excellent article, I hadn't considered the compression and the wider frame of cropping - which, with the exception of compression, I usually avoid.

I'm still not so sure about the distance, as I don't think I could do that without losing my patience... and I guess the idea of shooting portraits with what would be on film a 225mm a little unusual, but it does seem like an excellent quality lens.

[Panascape]

Nikon 85mm f1.4. Just picked one up last week and it is unbelievably sharp and is great for portrait work.

[Mucker]

You better be doing a lot of outdoor portraits if you're going to be using a 150mm prime lens on an APS sized sensor, because otherwise you'll be shooting from another room indoors. That lens is really built to give you more working distance while shooting macros. I have a 105mm prime nikon, which was considered a good portrait length on full frame/film, but I'm almost out of the room when shooting anything other that headshots on my digital. I'd go with an 85 or 50 mm prime for portrait work now.

Also, the lens you listed retails about 600 bucks, you could get a faster piece of nikon glass in a 50 or 85mm length for 1/2 to 2/3's the price.

If you were just asking about sigma glass in general, I have a longer telephoto that's just fine, but a bit slow for my liking nowadays.

[amasum]

Hi All,
I know it's a late reply but I guess I'll still throw in my concern just in case someone replies. Now, I got a Nikon D300 and was really considering buying this lens. I love taking photos of flying birds and moving thinks like cars. How, good or I should rather say Useful is this lens for those kind of shots? I am no where near an expert about camera or lenses. Just a hobby and I just started playing with Digital SLR camera from couple of months before. Anyway, it would be great if you can suggest me about this. Also, (as I said I am nowhere near an expert, a freshie in photography you can call me) normally we see a minimum and a maximum focal value (i.e. 18-85mm) which means minimum focal length is 18 and maximum is 85 so that you can zoom in and out. What about this lens? Also, has anyone used this lens with any Nikon gear or with Nikon D300? I've found the following about this lens from the Sigma website (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...83&navigator=5) which concerned me a bit.

Corresponding AF Mounts SIGMA,
CANON,
NIKON (D),
FOUR THIRDS
* Nikon mount of this lens is not equipped with an aperture ring, therefore, depending on the camera model some functions may not work.

Has anyone faced any problem with Nikon Gear. A response will be will be highly appreciated.

[duaness]

Longside,

Congrats on the new D-300...Buy a lens you can afford and start shooting. If you want to become a better shooter, you have to shoot. If what you can afford is a Sigma lens, thats what you need to have. I can make great images with a cardboard oatmeal canister, a pin hole and 4x5 Tri-x.You can also look into used lenses online at KEH.com, Adorama.com, or anywhere for that matter. I wouldn't shoot people/portraits with a 225 mm lens which is what the 150 is on a D-300. It flattens perspective too much...not great for face/head&shoulders shots. Ideal "look" for portraits is 85-105 as you get a little foreshortening without a real flat look. Multiply the focal length of the lens you are looking at by the 1.5 factor to get the true length of the lens on the D300. Stay with a 85-105 equivalent and you'll be happy.

Duane Salstrand is an RIT grad and has had his own commercial business for 23 years shooting for ad agencies & clients such as MacGregor Golf, American Express, Glaxo Pharmaceuticals, Pratt & Whitney.

[Greenmantle]

While I've not shot this on a sub-full-frame camera, I really like shooting the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 on my D3 in nightclubs and during gigs as it's sharp, bright, very fast (ultrasonic focus) and the bokeh is very smooth. It's also well built and my only gripe is the paint coating on the body wore off quite quickly. I picked up mine for AU$400 second hand from another shooter who didn't see its uses on full frame when he bought the D700.
On a full frame it's still usable for specific styles, as the vignette is produces is so very soft.

If you're keen on the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8, see if you can hunt down a mint condition one from before the plastic fantastic glass was introduced. I have had one since the 80s when I shot on a Nikon FM2 and it's now often at home on the D3. Being metal it's a bit more robust than the new cheaper ones, mine survived more vicious heavy metal gigs (stagedivers/thrown bottles/fight dancers ect ect) and still shoots razor sharp shots.

[4personnen]

Long time ago I had this 85mm f 1.8 on my FA (I said long time ago!)
And bloody hell that was good!

[Greenmantle]

Originally Posted by 4personnen

Long time ago I had this 85mm f 1.8 on my FA (I said long time ago!)
And bloody hell that was good!

I've tried the 85mm f/1.8 on an old Nikon D70 and loved it, not as good as the exceptionally smooth f/1.4 but still very nice.

[4personnen]

I guess the 1.4 was a bit out of my league :-)

[photoshoppath]

Thanks for sharing this wonderful post

[4personnen]

Glad you like it (one must spend one's spare time usefully)

[gene51]

Hi Longside1,

I hope you enjoy your D300 as much as I do mine. If you are doing portrait work, I'd suggest, as others already have, that a shorter focal length, in the 50-85 mm range, would be more appropriate.

I own the Sigma 150 macro and aside from the working distance issue, the bokeh in my opinion is not what you'd want in a portrait. The best way to describe is would be to say that the out of focus areas have "edges" that are more contrasty and would be distracting.

The Nikon 50 mm 1.8 is a very good choice if you are on a budget, although it is a little soft in the edges and corners when used wide open. This should not be an issue for your intended use. The 1.4 version would be a better choice if corner/edge sharpness is an issue. The other lens that could work would be the Sigma 50 1.4 which is actually sharper than the Nikon and has equally smooth bokeh. Be aware that this lens does suffer from focus shift as you stop down, somewhat more so than the Nikon. Again, if you are shooting wide open or close to that it should not be an issue.