50 mm f/1.4 Nikkor as portrait lens?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Any opinions about using the above with a D70s for interior casual
portraits without flash? I have plenty of other lenses, including the
18-70 kit zoom and several macros, but no lens faster than f/2.8.
Alternatives could be the 50 mm f/1.8 or 85 mm (don't remember if
f/1.8 or 1.4), or possibly even a fast 35 mm. I am planning to buy
second-hand Nikkor AF-G or AF-D only, because there seem to be
relatively plenty in second hand shops here (Tokyo).

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article
<42e1eaf2$0$21378$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, "[BnH]"
<b18@[at].invalid> writes
>You might want a wider lens for interior snaps. A friend of mine uses 17-35
>lens for interior purpose.
>50mm is around 75mm in 135 media, and its quite tight.
>
>regards, Bob
>
>"Deedee Tee" <abuse@localhost> wrote in message
>news:i7k3e1hrphevcpdjq2p71ird01oi2s5jfo@news.alt.net...
>> Any opinions about using the above with a D70s for interior casual
>> portraits without flash? I have plenty of other lenses, including the
>> 18-70 kit zoom and several macros, but no lens faster than f/2.8.
>> Alternatives could be the 50 mm f/1.8 or 85 mm (don't remember if
>> f/1.8 or 1.4), or possibly even a fast 35 mm. I am planning to buy
>> second-hand Nikkor AF-G or AF-D only, because there seem to be
>> relatively plenty in second hand shops here (Tokyo).

You should find the angle provided by a 50mm lens on a 1.6 crop factor
DSLR giving the equivalent to a 75mm lens on 35mm film is about right
for portrait use. A 17-35 is too short unless you stand a long way back
and crop the image with its intendent loss of detail; with short lenses,
as you know, the sitter's nose tends to look unflatteringly big.
--
Ian G8ILZ

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article
<42e2057b$0$21356$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, "[BnH]"
<b18@[at].invalid> writes
>
>"Prometheus" <Prometheus@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>news:sELLVocY$f4CFwnn@newbrain.demon.co.uk...
>
>>>"Deedee Tee" <abuse@localhost> wrote in message
>>>news:i7k3e1hrphevcpdjq2p71ird01oi2s5jfo@news.alt.net...
>>>> Any opinions about using the above with a D70s for interior casual
>>>> portraits without flash?
>
>> You should find the angle provided by a 50mm lens on a 1.6 crop factor
>> DSLR giving the equivalent to a 75mm lens on 35mm film is about right for
>> portrait use. A 17-35 is too short unless you stand a long way back and
>> crop the image with its intendent loss of detail; with short lenses, as
>> you know, the sitter's nose tends to look unflatteringly big.
>
>So you are saying its fine to use 50mm lens on a Nikon DSLR [ 1.5x crop
>factor ] for interior shots as mentioned by the OP ?

For "portraits" as SPEIFIED by the OP; yes. Interior non-portrait shots,
as you assumed, then no. Have you ever tried taking portraits with a
wide angle (or even normal) lens, good for a laugh maybe, but not very
flattering, and unlikely to result in any repeat requests for portraits,
causal or otherwise.

--
Ian G8ILZ

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

[BnH] wrote:
> You might want a wider lens for interior snaps. A friend of mine uses
> 17-35 lens for interior purpose.
> 50mm is around 75mm in 135 media, and its quite tight.

For portraits, as Deedee noted, that 50mm on a typical dSLR is just
about right for most people. Of course photography is an art and not a
science, so what is "ideal" for me may be all wrong for you.

>
> regards, Bob
>
> "Deedee Tee" <abuse@localhost> wrote in message
> news:i7k3e1hrphevcpdjq2p71ird01oi2s5jfo@news.alt.net...
>> Any opinions about using the above with a D70s for interior casual
>> portraits without flash? I have plenty of other lenses, including the
>> 18-70 kit zoom and several macros, but no lens faster than f/2.8.
>> Alternatives could be the 50 mm f/1.8 or 85 mm (don't remember if
>> f/1.8 or 1.4), or possibly even a fast 35 mm. I am planning to buy
>> second-hand Nikkor AF-G or AF-D only, because there seem to be
>> relatively plenty in second hand shops here (Tokyo).

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia duit

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Deedee Tee <abuse@localhost> writes:

> Any opinions about using the above with a D70s for interior casual
> portraits without flash? I have plenty of other lenses, including the
> 18-70 kit zoom and several macros, but no lens faster than f/2.8.
> Alternatives could be the 50 mm f/1.8 or 85 mm (don't remember if
> f/1.8 or 1.4), or possibly even a fast 35 mm. I am planning to buy
> second-hand Nikkor AF-G or AF-D only, because there seem to be
> relatively plenty in second hand shops here (Tokyo).

It's quite a reasonable choice. It's a decent focal length for
portraits (on a 1.5x crop factor camera like the D70s), and it's
fast. I use my 58mm f1.2 NOCT lens for tha application on my Fuji S2
fairly frequently, and it works well for me.
--
David Dyer-Bennet
Recovering from server meltdown! Email and web service on www.dd-b.net
including all virtual domains (demesne.com, ellegon.com, dragaera.info,
mnstf.org, and many others) is rudimentary and intermittent.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 23 Jul 2005 19:38:57 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@dd-b.net>
wrote:

>Deedee Tee <abuse@localhost> writes:
>
>> Any opinions about using the above with a D70s for interior casual
>> portraits without flash? I have plenty of other lenses, including the
>> 18-70 kit zoom and several macros, but no lens faster than f/2.8.
>> Alternatives could be the 50 mm f/1.8 or 85 mm (don't remember if
>> f/1.8 or 1.4), or possibly even a fast 35 mm. I am planning to buy
>> second-hand Nikkor AF-G or AF-D only, because there seem to be
>> relatively plenty in second hand shops here (Tokyo).
>
>It's quite a reasonable choice. It's a decent focal length for
>portraits (on a 1.5x crop factor camera like the D70s), and it's
>fast. I use my 58mm f1.2 NOCT lens for tha application on my Fuji S2
>fairly frequently, and it works well for me.

Thanks to everybody who answered. AF Nikkor 50 1.4 D it was, since no
one pointed out obvious faults with this lens. Second-hand without
obvious blemishes for about 21 US$. The shop had three to choose from,
but one rattled slightly when shaken and another had a slight play in
the focus ring. This is probably my second cheapest lens ever for a
Nikon DSLR (the cheapest was a Sigma catadioptric 600 f/8 for 14$ in
prime condition, from the same shop - Map Camera in Shinjuku). Another
buy was the Nikon PB-6 bellows for 6$ including the matching slide
copier. I have seen 4x prices for a second-hand PB-6 in other Tokyo
stores.

The Nikkor 85 1.4 D was around 60$, but a bit too big and heavy for
me. A few Noct 1.2 were available, but only in AI and somewhat over
100$ if I remember right. No 35s faster than f/2 were in sight.

I have yet to see a Nikkor UV 105 anywhere at any price - this seems
to be a red herring.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <42e2057b$0$21356$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, b
18[at]ii[dot]net says...
>
>
>"Prometheus" <Prometheus@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>news:sELLVocY$f4CFwnn@newbrain.demon.co.uk...
>
>>>"Deedee Tee" <abuse@localhost> wrote in message
>>>news:i7k3e1hrphevcpdjq2p71ird01oi2s5jfo@news.alt.net...
>>>> Any opinions about using the above with a D70s for interior casual
>>>> portraits without flash?
>
>> You should find the angle provided by a 50mm lens on a 1.6 crop factor
>> DSLR giving the equivalent to a 75mm lens on 35mm film is about right for
>> portrait use. A 17-35 is too short unless you stand a long way back and
>> crop the image with its intendent loss of detail; with short lenses, as
>> you know, the sitter's nose tends to look unflatteringly big.
>
>So you are saying its fine to use 50mm lens on a Nikon DSLR [ 1.5x crop
>factor ] for interior shots as mentioned by the OP ?

I think that the OP was referring to "interior" portraits, and not interior
shots. BUT, I could have missed something.

Hunt

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <dc1c3g13bv@news4.newsguy.com>, Hunt <noone@hunt.com> writes
>In article <42e2057b$0$21356$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>, b
>18[at]ii[dot]net says...
>>
>>
>>"Prometheus" <Prometheus@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
>>news:sELLVocY$f4CFwnn@newbrain.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>>>"Deedee Tee" <abuse@localhost> wrote in message
>>>>news:i7k3e1hrphevcpdjq2p71ird01oi2s5jfo@news.alt.net...
>>>>> Any opinions about using the above with a D70s for interior casual
>>>>> portraits without flash?
>>
>>> You should find the angle provided by a 50mm lens on a 1.6 crop factor
>>> DSLR giving the equivalent to a 75mm lens on 35mm film is about right for
>>> portrait use. A 17-35 is too short unless you stand a long way back and
>>> crop the image with its intendent loss of detail; with short lenses, as
>>> you know, the sitter's nose tends to look unflatteringly big.
>>
>>So you are saying its fine to use 50mm lens on a Nikon DSLR [ 1.5x crop
>>factor ] for interior shots as mentioned by the OP ?
>
>I think that the OP was referring to "interior" portraits, and not interior
>shots. BUT, I could have missed something.
>
>Hunt
>
Nope, you missed nuffink, the persistent top poster repeatedly
demonstrated the intellectual prowess of a top poster.