# Best lens for outdoor portrait photography under $600



## MrsLittle (Oct 22, 2011)

I am finally getting the D7000 for Christmas (body only) and I am stumped as to what lens I should pick up. I will be doing mostly outdoor family portraits and I am only budgeting for one lens. Please help, what lens should I get that is under $600?


----------



## shootermcgavin (Oct 22, 2011)

50mm 1.4 in my opinion...  Next would be 15-55mm 2.8.


----------



## MrsLittle (Oct 22, 2011)

That was the one I had in my "shopping cart" Nikkor 50mm 1.4g, but I was having doubts as I kept reading more articles. Wouldn't it be restricting without the zoom option?


----------



## MTVision (Oct 22, 2011)

Not really. You have feet so you can move where you need to be. Its fast, sharp, and good in low light


----------



## KmH (Oct 22, 2011)

Yep! Zoom with your feet.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 22, 2011)

you did say portraiture.. and you also mentioned a budget. Within those parameters, the Sigma 50mm 1.4 is probably your best option. A zoom will allow some versatility in composition.. but there are no zoom lenses in your price range that will produce pro IQ. If you increase the lens budget to around $1500, you might be able to get a decent zoom.

if you are planning on doing this professionally (which is what it sounds like) then you need multiple good quality lenses, multiple flashes, radio triggers,  lightstands, reflectors, possibly monolights an diffuser systems ($10,000 would be a good start)... and a lot of experience. You can buy most of those items.. but not the last one.

Family portraiture can be very difficult.. you have so many variables. Different subject heights, weights, shapes, shades, colors, luminescence, reflectivity, DOF, and attention spans. Moving this outdoors multiplies the issues.. with harsh light, flat light, dappled light, and light of many different shades and colors that you have to compensate for. 

You will also need to be very good at some editing package.. preferably Lightroom ($200-300) and / or Photoshop CS5 ($200-$600).. to help compensate for errors you make, and the inevitable goofs the subjects make.

Have fun....

(P.S.  don't forget legal liability, insurance, bonding, contracts, and a good business plan)


----------



## MrsLittle (Oct 22, 2011)

Thanks smartbutts! LOL. I made up my mind, zoomer feet it is. I was thinking of getting a lighting starter kit too, but not sure which to go with. I will be getting the SB 700 as an added flash though. Cgipson- any suggestions with a starter light kit? Umbrella or softboxes? Maybe a portable beauty dish....Thanks for the replys.


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 22, 2011)

It depends on your style of shooting. Buying lenses before you have the camera and have learned what you like and about shooting is not a wise idea. RARELY will you purchase now what you will want later. You don't know who you are yet and what you will want to shoot with. That results in money spent that wasn't so wise. 
For some of us that is primes, for others that is zooms. 
If you pick up anything with the camera pick up the 50mm f1.8. It's SUPER cheap and will give you a taste of a prime lens; a lens that can shoot in much lower light than most; a taste of sharp quality lenses and it will make working with manual much easier because it's aperture doesn't change like the kit lens does. Having it and the kit lens will also help you to define what YOUR needs are and how you like to shoot.
If you want to purchase one accessory that you WILL definitely use now or later I'd go with a speedlight instead of a lens. You'll need it indoors with your kit lens, you'll eventually want to master some pretty advanced techniques with it. A GOOD speedlight is a good speedlight and doesn't change with the style of the shooter. Nikon's flash of choice I THINK is the SB-900. The nikon shooters can tell you what is the next step down. That will put you darned close to budget or slightly over with the 50mm lens.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 22, 2011)

I cannot go with the 50mm...just no can do. Outdoor portrait photography, "best lens" under $600...it's not any 50mm lens...85mm/1.8 AF-D is your best bet for a single focal length lens. A 50mm lens has too wide of an angle of acceptance behind it....sure one can "zoom with the feet", but if the lens focal length is short, the lens still sees too wide of a background, and 50mm is too short.


----------



## shootermcgavin (Oct 22, 2011)

Get the Nissin Di866, it's a great flash and has the power of a high end Nikon for half the price!  You can shoot that through a umbrella or soft box or whatever you choose to down the road.  Actually I would first make sure the D7000 has wireless flash capabilities, I picked the Nissin based on it's wireless ability.  You literally click 2 buttons and it is set to work off the camera, very easy.


----------



## shootermcgavin (Oct 22, 2011)

Derrel said:


> I cannot go with the 50mm...just no can do. Outdoor portrait photography, "best lens" under $600...it's not any 50mm lens...85mm/1.8 AF-D is your best bet for a single focal length lens. A 50mm lens has too wide of an angle of acceptance behind it....sure one can "zoom with the feet", but if the lens focal length is short, the lens still sees too wide of a background, and 50mm is too short.



But with her camera wouldn't 50mm be nearly the same as a 85mm on your camera?  I think my D60 has a similar crop rate(not sure if that is correct term)  to what she is looking at and I need to be a good distance away to get a full body shot, I don't have an 85mm but I know my 100mm is way to far away.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 22, 2011)

Derrel said:


> I cannot go with the 50mm...just no can do. Outdoor portrait photography, "best lens" under $600...it's not any 50mm lens...85mm/1.8 AF-D is your best bet for a single focal length lens. A 50mm lens has too wide of an angle of acceptance behind it....sure one can "zoom with the feet", but if the lens focal length is short, the lens still sees too wide of a background, and 50mm is too short.



I agree.. but I was trying to stay in her budget.. and unless she gets lucky and finds a used 85mm really cheap.. that is outside the range.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 22, 2011)

shootermcgavin said:


> Get the Nissin Di866, it's a great flash and has the power of a high end Nikon for half the price!  You can shoot that through a umbrella or soft box or whatever you choose to down the road.  Actually I would first make sure the D7000 has wireless flash capabilities, I picked the Nissin based on it's wireless ability.  You literally click 2 buttons and it is set to work off the camera, very easy.



The D7000 has flash based Commander mode that works with Nikon Flashes... not sure if the Nissin will work with that.


----------



## jake337 (Oct 22, 2011)

Over $600 and manual focus but since it will meter on your d7000...

Nikon 135 F2 Ais Lens 

Nikon 135 F2 Ais Lens *72


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 22, 2011)

shootermcgavin said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > I cannot go with the 50mm...just no can do. Outdoor portrait photography, "best lens" under $600...it's not any 50mm lens...85mm/1.8 AF-D is your best bet for a single focal length lens. A 50mm lens has too wide of an angle of acceptance behind it....sure one can "zoom with the feet", but if the lens focal length is short, the lens still sees too wide of a background, and 50mm is too short.
> ...



That is definitely a consideration too. I, personally love the 85 on a crop sensor, but if you are shooting indoors and can't get far enough back? it will definitely frustrate and irritate the hell out of you until you don't like it. There are times on a crop that it just plain won't work well. Starting out with it might not be wise as the fact that it is so tight may frustrate you into hating it before you get a chance to love it.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 22, 2011)

jake337 said:


> Over $600 and manual focus but since it will meter on your d7000...
> 
> Nikon 135 F2 Ais Lens
> 
> Nikon 135 F2 Ais Lens *72



Good call.. but....uh... how far away do you need to be from the subjects (say 7 family members with dad being 6'-5", and mom around 220lbs) using a DX body?  

Lets add some small radios for communications to that list above!


----------



## jake337 (Oct 22, 2011)

MLeeK said:


> shootermcgavin said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel said:
> ...



Longer focal length lens attached to crop sensor bodies sucking indoors depends on your subject. I think they're great if you have kids running around! 6 foot human is a different story though...but since your talking about outdoor portraiture then I might go for something even longer perhaps.

Nikkor-ed 300 2.8 Ais Lens
http://www.adorama.com/US    410270.html


----------



## jake337 (Oct 22, 2011)

cgipson1 said:


> jake337 said:
> 
> 
> > Over $600 and manual focus but since it will meter on your d7000...
> ...



Yes true, but for some reason when I read portraiture I think single person for some damn reason.


----------



## Derrel (Oct 22, 2011)

A 50mm has a wider angle of view behind the subject than an 85mm lens. And no, a 50mm does not behave like an 85mm on FF.


Zooming with the feet does not give the same effect as changing focal length. I think the majority of Nikkor 50mm lenses have ugly bokeh. The OP's question was for outdoor portraiture, what is the best lens for a D7000, for under $600. I just do not agree with any 50mm lens being "the best lens" for portraiture,outdoors.


----------



## shootermcgavin (Oct 22, 2011)

I definitely agree with the 50mm being less than great for bokeh.  I just love that it's the cheapest lens I have and I use it as much or not more than any other.  I bought my 100mm for portrait but it's just too far away from the subject for me, the 85mm might not be.  Had I started with 85 or 100 I may be used to that distance and have a different opinion.


----------



## jake337 (Oct 22, 2011)

Also, you could easily get an 85mm f1.8 and 50mm f1.8 for under $600 alltogether so ya may as well get both eh!


----------



## Robin Usagani (Oct 22, 2011)

You said the best?  Well it is 200 f/2.  Over 5K though. Next would be 135 and then 85.


----------



## jake337 (Oct 22, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> You said the best? Well it is 200 f/2. Over 5K though. Next would be 135 and then 85.



I wish I had an extra 5k around.  You can always search for a nice used AIS version as well.


----------



## cgipson1 (Oct 22, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> You said the best?  Well it is 200 f/2.  Over 5K though. Next would be 135 and then 85.



Again, great lengths for portraiture... but family / group portraiture on a DX body... you will be standing a long way off!    I actually like using my 70-200 2.8 for a lot of people shoots... but that is way out of her budget.


----------



## MrsLittle (Oct 22, 2011)

Thanks for the replies. Sounds like 50mm will not be a good "go to" lens to fit all my needs- I understand that I will eventually need more than one lens to fulfill all my needs. As of now, I just have that D7000 body, I decided against the kit lens.

To get a fill for the majority of my photography uses: I have 5 kids and my husband is taller than 6 feet, so I will be needing something that can work under that scenario. I wish I had it in my budget to get the spectacular 85mm, but maybe someday soon when I prove that this is something I will be successful at. My dilemma is....is that I want to invest in only one lens for now- being used for photographing my family of 7 and friends. I suppose I can up the ante to 1000.

One lens only for less than a $1000, any suggestions on that? Again, I appreciate all your help and input.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Oct 22, 2011)

Buy a 50mm. 

Anyone who says that a 50 is a bad choice for portraiture, probably just doesn't know how to use one. 

I shoot alot of outdoor portraiture, professionally too, and the 50mm angle of view on Film/FF is my favorite. For location portrait shooting, I think it's a beautiful, versatile focal length that you can shoot all day with. 

Now I shoot mostly film, so if you put a 50mm on a little DX camera it's going to act a little different, but it will still be really nice. 

What I like about 50mm's over something like an 85 or 135:
The perspective is very close to what we see with the human eye.
The distance between me and my subjects is enough to be intimate without being invasive.
I can do full body/wider shots without switching lenses or being shouting distance away.
(except for the sigma) very small, light, and un-intimidating.
Generally have a really wide aperture, so you can destroy backgrounds easy and shoot in any light (f/1.2-1.8)
The Bokeh can have a distinctive, almost swirly character. 
IT'S CHEAP AND EASY. 


GET A 50MM! IT'S A GREAT FOCAL LENGTH! Here are some of my own examples, that I shot over the summer (on film of course):

Nikon F100 (Kodak Portra 400@200), Nikon 50mm f/1.4G @ f/1.4, straight off the flim scan, no PP:












Now you tell me that 50mm is a bad focal length for outdoor portraiture 

The 50mm f/1.8G is a tick sharper than the 1.4G and has faster/more responsive AF. The only reason to get the 1.4G is if you shoot film, shoot in the dark and need the extra light gathering, want a little bit better bokeh rendering, or bragging rights. I usually recommend the 1.8G. Hell, you could get a 1.8G+an F100 and still have a few hundred left over for film and processing!


----------



## MTVision (Oct 22, 2011)

You should've just gotten the kit lens so you could have seen what focal length you liked. You can always rent lenses to try them out before buying!


----------



## MTVision (Oct 22, 2011)

Sigma 85mm 1.4 is a little under 1000.00

I have a 50mm and my boyfriend is 6'6". I don't have five kids but I have used it for portraits with a bunch of my nieces and nephews (I had more than 5 in the portrait). 

I may be wrong but I think you are better off getting a 50mm for now because it's cheap, fast and it's a good lens to work on. Save your money until you know exactly what you want. 

After taking a bunch of pictures your kids are going to get PCS (photographers child syndrome) and refuse to sit for portraits anyways - or most likely.


----------



## jake337 (Oct 22, 2011)

If you can't tell yet I like prime lens, so as far as zooms go others may be able to help.

Well you can get the 85mm f1.4AF_D for under $1000
Nikon Autofocus 85 F1.4 D INTERNAL FOCUS (77) WITH CAPS 35MM SLR AUTO FOCUS TELEPHOTO LENS - KEH.com

Heres one messing around with mine.  Shot with mine from 8.4 meters or 27.5 feet.  I think I may have cropped as well.






But after stating the family of 7 and over 6' husband you may want to go a different route.  Do you mind manual focusing for portraits?  You could pick up an 85mm f1.4 ais and 50mm f1.4 ais for well under $1000.  Maybe even substitue the f1.4 for  the 50mm f1.2ais if you find one at the right price.  May be just a tad over $1000.  These will all meter on your d7000. 

85mm f1.4 ais
Nikon Manual Focus 85 F1.4 AIS (72) 35MM SLR MANUAL FOCUS TELEPHOTO LENS - KEH.com

50mm f1.4 ais
Nikon Manual Focus 50 F1.4 AIS (52) WITH CAPS 35MM SLR MANUAL FOCUS STANDARD ANGLE LENS - KEH.com

50mm f1.2 ai
Nikon Manual Focus 50 F1.2 AI (52) WITH CAPS 35MM SLR MANUAL FOCUS STANDARD ANGLE LENS - KEH.com


----------



## jake337 (Oct 22, 2011)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Buy a 50mm.
> 
> Anyone who says that a 50 is a bad choice for portraiture, probably just doesn't know how to use one.
> 
> ...



I'm now 100% investing in a film camera.


----------



## dots (Oct 22, 2011)

MTVision said:


> Save your money until you know exactly what you want.


  A 2/105 DC..and a Citroën SM


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Oct 22, 2011)

jake337 said:


> Sw1tchFX said:
> 
> 
> > Buy a 50mm.
> ...



AWESOME!


----------



## dakkon76 (Oct 22, 2011)

I went with the Sigma f/1.4 because it got better reviews than either Nikon or Canon. I couldn't be happier. While it's true that a prime is best for portraits... since you're new to DSLR's and will only have a single lens, I say go with a Sigma 17-50 f/2.8. This will give you a lot more versatility... and you won't be shooting outdoor group portraits below f/2.8 anyway.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Oct 22, 2011)

dakkon76 said:


> you won't be shooting outdoor group portraits below f/2.8 anyway.


135 shot at f/2


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 22, 2011)

MrsLittle said:


> Thanks for the replies. Sounds like 50mm will not be a good "go to" lens to fit all my needs- I understand that I will eventually need more than one lens to fulfill all my needs. As of now, I just have that D7000 body, I decided against the kit lens.
> 
> To get a fill for the majority of my photography uses: I have 5 kids and my husband is taller than 6 feet, so I will be needing something that can work under that scenario. I wish I had it in my budget to get the spectacular 85mm, but maybe someday soon when I prove that this is something I will be successful at. My dilemma is....is that I want to invest in only one lens for now- being used for photographing my family of 7 and friends. I suppose I can up the ante to 1000.
> 
> One lens only for less than a $1000, any suggestions on that? Again, I appreciate all your help and input.



That changes the game a little. You need a lens that can do EVERYTHING for right now and the 50mm isn't really it. And with a large family it will be tight on a full family portrait. It would most likely have to be taken outside in order to get everyone in it full body. And to get everyone in fully standing it would definitely put you way back... Probably more than 20 feet.

You will also need this lens to give you a little bit of a zoom if this is your one and only lens for the time being. Working with ONE prime lens is next to impossible when you're trying to find out who you are and what your style is. In that case... I would recommend a fast, mid range/wide zoom. 
Sigma makes a 24-70 f/2.8 OS that is looking pretty awesome under $1000. If you are REALLY having a hard time pushing up the budget Tamron makes a 28-75 f/2.8 that is very well loved. If you go with the Tamron I'd probably buy both the Tamron zoom AND the 50mm f/1.8. You'd still be well under a grand. The sigma is pusing up in your budget a bit more than the two of them together, but Sigma's OS is what canon and Nikon lenses refer to as IS or VR. It's also a better build quality. I've not USED one yet, but I hear tell it's supposed to be a pretty divine lens. 
I do know the Tamron 28-75 is a very sharp and incredible option for a budget, professional speed lens. It's build is not as hefty and solid as the Sigma and there is no OS/VR/IS option there.


----------



## MrsLittle (Oct 23, 2011)

Beautiful shots guys! What about *Sigma 85mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM; Nikon 18-200mm or Nikon 16-85 VR plus the Nikon 35mm 1.8 to keep me in my budget. ?*


----------



## Robin Usagani (Oct 23, 2011)

out of those 3, sigma will produce the best images.  It will be hard to take a pic of someone standing up indoor though with your crop body.


----------



## thereyougo! (Oct 23, 2011)

Personally I would go for the Sigma 24-70. It's a good focal range on a crop body and stopping down to f/4 you'll still get good bokeh. You'll also have greater flexibility at the wider end. Sigma lenses are reliable come with a good guarantee and produce sharp results. The 24-70 will allow you to experiment with your shots with less compromises. While 18-200 has even greater flexibility there may be barrel distortion to deal with and it won't be as fast as the 24-70


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 23, 2011)

thereyougo! said:


> Personally I would go for the Sigma 24-70. It's a good focal range on a crop body and stopping down to f/4 you'll still get good bokeh. You'll also have greater flexibility at the wider end. Sigma lenses are reliable come with a good guarantee and produce sharp results. The 24-70 will allow you to experiment with your shots with less compromises. While 18-200 has even greater flexibility there may be barrel distortion to deal with and it won't be as fast as the 24-70


Adding... The 18-200 isn't going to have the image quality of the 24-70 either. When you have a lens that covers that much of a zoom range there is quite a bit of compromise across the zoom to make the elements work together. You lose a bit of sharpness and even some color vibrance. It's ok for a vacation lens or maybe scouting, but it's not a real quality lens.


----------

