sevencrossing said:
Thanks for the feed back

Casperwb - There was a typo in my original post. I do NOT want VR. All the macro work I have done to date, is with manual focusing but would love auto, if it works

Like you, this lens has been on my shopping list for a while ( along with a a super telephoto or zoom which I definitely cannot afford )

DutchNikon

Can't get to grips with paying £1,000 for a Sigma lens. I dont need f 2.8 or VR and 150 mm is not long enough for some applications I have in mind for this lens

sevencrossing

hang in there and keep looking like I do, one might just pop up in circumstances that you can afford, like finding cars in barns.

a little seceret, I have found good lenses being sold with old film cameras that no one wants because they are film and manual focus. and the folks that inherit them just want to get rid of it and make a little money.

keep any eye out.

good hunting

& don't let anyone on this forum know

boo

Well I doubt I would get the new version because I have the current 200mm micro. I see them making it a G lens, not that I plan to shoot a manual film camera any time soon but like the option.

I took this to the local aquarium and had a blast but I wasn't allowed to take my tripod in so I had to use a monopod in low light. Needless to say you really need a tripod for this thing or any other micro I would say beyond the 105. At that point VR and "only F4" will not matter.

Unless the optics in an updated lens gives me a winning lotto ticket or free gas for life, I doubt I would upgrade.

NR Admin speculated a little while ago that 200mm f/4 Micro could be one of the FX lenses to be released with the now presumably postponed D800.

http://nikonrumors.com/2011/10/14/more-rumors-on-the-two-upcoming-nikon-lenses.aspx/

Who knows? Maybe Nikon will end up updating this lens.

Hi all,

Two of my most used lenses are a 60mm f2.8 and a 105mm f2.8 Micros, both over 25 years old and terrific. They get used for a lot of portrait work, too.

If a 200mm came out I'd be tempted.

My best,

Mike

Thanks for the feed back

Casperwb - There was a typo in my original post. I do NOT want VR. All the macro work I have done to date, is with manual focusing but would love auto, if it works

Like you, this lens has been on my shopping list for a while ( along with a a super telephoto or zoom which I definitely cannot afford )

DutchNikon

Can't get to grips with paying £1,000 for a Sigma lens. I dont need f 2.8 or VR and 150 mm is not long enough for some applications I have in mind for this lens

On the 105mm, I used to use AF to get me in the ballpark and then I turn it off. So AF isn't really necessary, but it certainly helps when the focusing ring is such long throw.

seems like the people wishing for this revised lens really does not shoot macro/micro.

1] VR - this not effictive for macro shooting. get a tripod or monopod, the high magnification means that VR does not work, unless of course it is VR111.

2] AFS- auto focus, everyone knows that autofocus and macrophotography are not friends, most people do one of these things, set the lens to the magnifaction you want and then move the camera back and forth to obtain focus, or, frame and then use manual focus.

or do any of the above and then fine tune the focus manually.

the reason, the DOF is shallow, even at f8-11 or f16 the very thin DOF means that you still have to fine tune using manual focus, and then auto focus hunts back and forth driving you crazy. also, at 200mm the DOF becomes paper thin.

auto focus might work on a macro lens that is less than 50mm, I have not tried one of those, but their DOF is greater so it might work. can someone please comment on this.

th 200mm is on the list of one of the lenses that I would like to have, got to play with one and I have wanted one ever since, just not at the top of the list yet.

sevencrossing said:
So 2 years later, no new lens

All the reviews on say it is the bee knees, but foccuing is slow

I do want VR for Macro work, but what about focusing? How big a different would an
AF-S version

At the moment I use my 30 year old 50mm Micro with manual everything, fine in studio but not so good for bugs and bees

It would be used on a D700

Sounds like you could be ïn" for the new version of the Sigma 150mm F2.8 EX DG OS HSM APO Macro....

So 2 years later, no new lens

All the reviews on say it is the bee knees, but foccuing is slow

I do not want VR for Macro work, but what about focusing? How big a different would an
AF-S version

At the moment I use my 30 year old 50mm Micro with manual everything, fine in studio but not so good for bugs and bees

It would be used on a D700

jonnyapple said:
...and third, poster lives south of Dallas and you're encroaching on his senior portrait business. ;-)
Just kidding, poster. I like your suggestions.

Yeah that's right!!!

You don't want "to go to the mattresses" with me. lol

Thanks Jonny.

bmxdad said:
OK the topic is """ Senior Portraits Lens """ and you are all suggesting the sharpest possible glass, yes we have to get every little wrinkle shown in the best possible detail.

Or you could use a Nikon AF DC-Nikkor 105mm f/2D to soften focus

The DC lenses don't soften the focus, they give you control over how the de-focussed regions of the photograph appear. The area in focus with either of the DC lenses is incredibly sharp. Either makes a great portrait lens. But I would suggest a used 200mm F4 AI-s or a 300mm F4 ai-s since they are bother much cheaper and allow you to throw areas out of focus without having to shoot wide open.

poster said:
I strongly advise you to stay away from all of these expensive lenses, because first you are doing this for free, second you don't need them to get great results with a cheap manual flash and even a kit lens if you keep the aperture at the "sweet spot" for sharpness.

...and third, poster lives south of Dallas and you're encroaching on his senior portrait business. ;-)
Just kidding, poster. I like your suggestions.

Since you are doing this for free. Let's keep it extremely cheap.

You can use the kit lens, but keep the aperture at the ultimate soft spot to get good sharpness. Some people like portraits to be a bit soft etc. At least keep the eyes in focus.

Option # 2

Nikon 50mm 1.8- $130

But you have to manually focus. Shouldn't be that bad really. Unless your seniors are a wild bunch and can't stay still.

Vivitar 285HV- $80

Sync cable- depending on your needed length shouldn't be that much.

You can also go with wireless trigger like Cactus V2, which is probably better for you. It will cost you about $40

lightstand and umbrella or those 5 in 1 reflectors.- maybe $35 for a big 42 inch reflector disk and about $30 for a cheap lightstand. umbrella is about $20, but he disc reflector is perhaps more versatile in the the fact that you can bounce your flash off it or shoot it through.

**** Cheaper alternative ****

instead of a lightstand use a live human stand. Results may vary lol.

I strongly advise you to stay away from all of these expensive lenses, because first you are doing this for free, second you don't need them to get great results with a cheap manual flash and even a kit lens if you keep the aperture at the "sweet spot" for sharpness.

Learn how to use ambient light and your external flash.

NikoDoby said:
mb she means "seniors" as in high school seniors not senior citizens like me :^)

Ooops ...

mb she means "seniors" as in high school seniors not senior citizens like me :^)

For 800$ you could get AF-S 50 f/1.4 and SB-600, that will give you pretty much basic portrait setup on DX and you will want shallow depth of field for elderly people ...

I dont think you need a better lens than a kit lens if you are shooting outdoors. and a single flash can be good. This was taken with the SB800 on camera bounced off a white wall on the left. I think taken with kit lens.

VR's effectiveness depends on the situation, if you are shooting faster than 1/500, its useless. Also when you are on a tripod it serves no purpose.

Its really "only" for when you are shooting handheld at a slow shutter speed. is say "only" because for many thats most of what they shoot.

Given that you will have some basic controlled lighting, VR should not be a factor, but its nice.

As for flash, i really hated the pop-up flash on my D60, i tried to never use it. But have you ever used bounce flash before? Some good off camera light is a miracle worker. either by bouncing the on-camera light or by having other lights around. Its really MUCH easier than shopping 50 pictures in post.

clillja said:
It depends on what kind of portraits people are expecting. If they want a consistent studio look to publish in a yearbook, I think some sort of makeshift "studio" space to control the lighting and background would be helpful.

High school kids these days hate that boring studio portrait look. They want to be turned into a "reality" super star or be made to look like a character from Avatar or another of their favorite movie, etc.

So again persephonep, I wouldn't worry about getting a "pro" lens to shoot portraits for now. Learn your technique first. Then you yourself will discover what lens is best for YOU and your shooting style.

And I wouldn't call anywhere near Dallas a small town. So the working photographers in your area will definitely look down on you for offering free senior portraits. This is a very busy time for them. Just say'n

Wow... Thank you all for the feedback!
When it comes to editing, I already have Elements 9 and all of the computers at school have CS3, which my friend and I are fairly adept at and Cannon girl is practically pro with, so that's not much of an issue.
Neither are lenses that don't have autofocus, I much much much prefer manual, Canon girl is getting her lens at the end of the month, and my other friend is the one who taught me to shoot well in manual, so he's set.
However, some of the lenses suggested don't have VR, which I saw was very very highly recommended in some of the other boards. So is it okay to go without it, or would it be smarter to find a different model?
I'm pretty flexible on cost; anything up to $800 is feasible as long as it's totally worth it.
Sharpness over softness any day! I've never been a fan of the soft effect to begin with, but it can always be added later during editing, whereas sharpness can never be regained.
As for flash, I really really really do NOT like using it. If anything, I'll add a backlight during editing. Generally though it seems to detract more than add.
HaloZ, I hail from south of Dallas. Gotta love farm land, factories, train tracks and... not all that much else.
clillja, thank you so much for the rundown! It really helped. We're aiming to do environmental portraits- the 'your style' ones. I imagine the greater majority of these would be outdoors- at least, that's our goal.
Thank you all so much! The lenses all sound fantastic, and I'm checking each of them out now. Please, if you have any more comments or suggestions, keep them coming!

Oh, and what do the numbers and letters mean? Here's an example:

AF-S Nikkor 35mm 1.8G

AF-S - this is the type of focusing system - AF-S will work great on a D5000.

Nikkor - is Nikon's brand name for its lenses

35mm - is the focal length of the lens - this (along with other things) determines the field of view - how large things are in the picture. Small number = wide angle picture, fit a whole building in the frame. Big number = small angle picture - fit just a person or just a person's face in the frame. 35mm is a "normal" lens on a D5000, right in the middle, useful for a variety of jobs. It is not a "zoom" lens like the kit lens on the camera, which can vary focal length from 18-55mm. But it can do other things the zoom can't.

1.8G - this is the maximum aperture of the lens and the system for changing it. 1.8 is a large aperture (smaller number is larger aperture in this case) and used properly the lens can "blur" the background and make the subject "pop." 1.8G also means the lens gathers a lot of light - you can take pictures without a flash in much dimmer light! "G" is the system for changing aperture - again, your D5000 will work great with this type of lens.

This lens retails for about $200 and could be used to create beautiful portraits indoors or out.

Again - good luck.

It depends on what kind of portraits people are expecting. If they want a consistent studio look to publish in a yearbook, I think some sort of makeshift "studio" space to control the lighting and background would be helpful. This could be anywhere, and could be as simple as a couple of clip lights from a Lowe's- or Home Depot-type place and a nice piece of cloth hung up for a background. Go nuts with your kit lens, avoid using the flash on your camera and the results could be quite nice. High-school age folks can have skin-issues (acne, etc.) so be sure the portrait mode in the picture control menu. "Vivid" will accentuate every red blotch and eruption.

If they want "environmental" or informal portraits outdoors, a professional lens will be helpful to control the background, but not essential by any means. Again, think carefully about the light and background - a shady spot without harsh shadows (and no squinting eyes) - and a simple background. Outdoors, your on-camera flash can be useful if you "turn it down" a stop or so.

Good luck - it's a great community project and I wish you the very best! (And don't be surprised if you get a few paying job offers if you do a good job.)

Nah, a flash isn't NEEDED with portraits. You've got plenty of light outdoors or near a window. Besides the camera's built-in flash is enough for fill flash (gets rid of dark shadows around the face) or just use a silver or gold reflector to brighten up the face "naturally".

The only time an off-camera flash is helpful is indoors in low light to bounce off a wall or ceiling. But if you are on a tight budget you can do without it for now.

No one really mentioned it, but do you have a flash? I would recommend that highly for portrait pictures.

NikoDoby said:
Oh and don't hang out with canon girls, they're a bad influence :^)

Variety is a good thing, cameras or girls ;)