d60 lens options
 

I am currently in the market to purchase a new lens that will be suitable for both portrates in semi small rooms/studio, and small product macro photography and maybe the odd insect.

Buget is 350 to 400 pound.

I've done a little research and it seems a prime lens seems to fit the bill.....is this correct?

I have found some that look suitable, but im unsure which focal length i need?

here are the ones i've been looking at:-

http://www.simplyelectronics.net/mai...etcurrency=gbp

http://www.simplyelectronics.net/mai...etcurrency=gbp

http://www.microglobe.co.uk/catalog/...gital-cameras&

Also are these all compatable with the d60?

Thanks in advance

Lee

All those are compatible with the D60.

For portraits I would say the 60mm is a little too short, anything between about 80 and 135mm will do the trick.

Depends on the style of portrait work intended. For head/shoulders, then yes, 80-135 is a sensible range. For fuller length portraits, you'll need 60 or even wider - and a correspondingly larger studio space.

Thanks for the comments guys....would a 60mm not be ok if you moved closer to do the head and shoulder shots, or would you be to close?

I think Alex may have forgotten the crop factor which is 1.5 for a Nikon D60.
So the 60mm becomes a 90mm in 35mm film terms, the 90 becomes a 135mm and the 105mm becomes 152.5 if my mental arithmetic is correct.

so a 60mm would be about right?

Oops, Mike is right.

Ok i have just found this lens and it seem suitable and has good reveiws. Will this do what i want?

http://www.simplyelectronics.net/mai...d=5849&sd=cont

Does anyone have this lens?

That is the so-called standard lens, at 50mm it's not a wideangle and it's not a telephoto either. I think this is 50mm in 35mm frame (I think), so for portraits it's too short.

It would be a 75mm equivalent which is a little short for head and shoulder portraits though fine for longer shots. It will not focus particularly close so not good for any macro. If you want a 50mm I would go for the far cheaper f1.8 version unless you particularly want to get into low light photography.
With your criteria I reckon I would go for the 60mm macro as it would give more flexibility for indoor portraits than the 90 or 105, be very good for small product macro though perhaps not as good for insect shots as the longer lenses as you would have to get physically closer to the subject which would scare them off more. Mind you I read your post to say that the insect stuff is not your main interest so that would not overly concern you. After all in the day of film ;) we mostly shot at 100mm for macro and got excellent results.

For head/shoulder portraits, I find myself using the Sigma 105 most of the time as it allows me to get the right framing without crowding too close to the model. It also gives quite a narrow angle of view when used from a reasonable distance, which in turn makes it suitable for a smaller studio as there's little background to intrude.

Wait a min -- the Canon EF 50mm f1.8 standard lens is a 50 in 35mm format or in digital? If it's digital does it mean that the standard lens has grown by 25mm?

Where has Canon come from all of a sudden? He is looking for Nikon fit lenses! Any way all lenses are quoted in 35mm terms so for the Nikon the 50 becomes a 75. The Canon 5o becomes an 80 on a Canon crop body as Canons crop factor is 1.6 due to it's sensor being slightly smaller than Nikons.

Back to Duncans point. I think that any of the three lenses originally mentioned would do an excellent job, my thought about the 60 was merely that in an indoors setting which is perhaps a little cramped it would give more scope for longer portraits. The downside is as you say that you would have to be closer to the subject for head and shoulders which might put some sitters off. It all depends how big his studio is, how about a compromise and go for the 90? :)

Thanks for the advice guys its been so helpful. I think im going to get the nikon 60mm when i've raised the funds.

I was wondering though, with a maximun aperture of f/2.8G will i be able to get a nice blur effect. Is the depth of field narrow enough. A couple of the other lenses ive looked at have a f1.4 which does seem pretty shallow.

Should be reasonably shallow depending what you want. I see on camera price buster that the Nikon 50 f1.8 costs £97 new so you might be able to pick one up cheap second hand and this will give a shallower DOF thanks to the 1.8. Another advantage would be if you found that 50mm (80mm effectively) was way too short for your needs then you would know the 60mm macro would probably be too short as well and go for one of the others. Mind you, assuming your camera has a standard zoom that would tell you as well.

Ok that sounds like a good idea. Would the 50mm f1.8 be ok for the macro work i need to do? as well as the portrates.

Unfortunately no.

A 60mm lens, at portrait type distances, with f/2.8 you'll be quite shallow enough DoF. I'll be surprised if you're not working at smaller apertures to increase the DoF if you want to get the whole face in focus.

Note to Alex: a 50mm lens is a 50mm lens, is a 50mm lens. The focal length of the lens does not change, regardless of which camera it is fitted onto.

I think the 60mm sounds like the one.....just checked and the 50mm for 97 pounds doesnt autofocus on the d60, plus it wont do the macro work either so i guess its unsuitable.

Anyway thanks for the help guys.