What type of photo's would you take with a Nikon AF NIKKOR 50mm F1.8D standard lens ?
Firstly I must tell that you have an amazing and most versatile lens with you. 50 mm are also called normal prime lens, because the magnification you see in the viewfinder is same as human eye in real world. I guess you have an APS-C (DX) size type dslr.If yes then it makes a fantastic portrait lens with effective wavelength of 75mm with is near perfect for portrait. Also it goes all the way to f1.8 which will give you a fantastic buttery smooth Blur background on tight headshot you always wanted to take. Due to its very large aperture it will allow you to take great pics even in low light situations. If you have full frame camera then it's an all purpose lens for walk around , street photography , mild portraits , low light photography list is endless... I this is the cheapest lens with excellent optics but 50mm 1.8D will not autofocus on entry level NikonDSLR e.g D3xxx,D5xxx series body for those bodies go for AF-S 50mm 1.8 little expensive but totally worth. Otherwise another prime you can choose is AF-S 35mm,1.8 DX also has excellent optics.50mm is the most versatile focal length in camera history for 35mm format camera. If you ask a pro if they are allowed only one lens for everything then 9 out of 10 will choose 50mm. Some of my images from my Nikon 50mm,1.8 and Minolta 50mm,1.7..@Enjoy
Nikon 80-200mm F2.8 AFD vs 85mm F1.4D vs 105mm F2 DC?
I have the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8, and it does do pretty well for portraiture, but you have to have a bit of distance. Photographers like Joe McNally are using 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses to shoot portraiture. You may need to use a remote flash though as you might not get that close. Here is an example photo of limited DoF that I took with that lens: http://www.althephoto.com/concepts/bokeh... In this example, the subject was fairly close - 8ft or so, and the background was quite a bit further away, so any lens will provide better limited DoF under those conditions. But the longer the focal length, the more limited the DoF can be. And oddly enough, this has resulted in too shallow of a DoF in some situations with this lens. So you have to pay attention to what is in focus when you are using 200mm and f/2.8. Here is an example of the same lens, 100mm and f/2.8. I tried to photograph the butterfly on the hat, but the camera focused on the hat. The DoF was so shallow that the butterfly was not in focus. This was an impromptu photo without me taking the time so set it up, but in a portraiture environment, that would not be a problem as you can take your time to dial everything in. http://www.althephoto.com/concepts/baddo... I cannot comment on the others as I don't have them. But I do have the Nikon 50mm f/1.8;but I prefer the 80-200mm for portraiture.
I need a Nikon lens for portraits, should I take a 50mm 1.8g or a Tamron 70-300mm?
If you have a cropped sensor, I'd say the 50mm is the best value for your money and it takes beautiful portraits with nice bokeh. It does well in low light. I have the 50mm f/1.8 and love it. On a cropped sensor it gives you an effective focal length of about 75mm on Nikon and 80mm on Canon which is a good focal length for portraits. The 85mm on a cropped sensor would give you 127/160mm which isn't that great for portraits. However, if you have a full frame camera, the 85mm would be terrific, it's the classic portrait lens, though considered more of a specialty lens.
Should I buy the Nikon D750 with its kit lens (24-120mm) or body only?
Assuming the additional $300 isn't going to cause any other problems/hardship, I would get the lens. The 24-120 lens in the D750 kit (here in the US) is the AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR, which is currently selling (new) for $1096.95 (Amazon, B+H, etc), so you're getting a good deal on the lens price in the package.Looking at your current lenses, the DX 18-105mm isn't going to be all that useful on the D750 (so either keep for use on your older DX camera(s) or sell), and the 50 1.8 is nice, but isn't important to consider when thinking about the 24-120 (since they are so different in purpose/use)Your 24-70 2.8 does cover a lot of the same range as the 24-120 (and with better optical quality and an additional stop of light gathering f/2.8 vs f/4), but this lens does give you the additional 70-120mm coverage, plus VR across the whole range, which could be useful in many situations. Also the 24-120 is considerably smaller and lighter than the 24-70, so may be more convenient for travel, walking around, or any situation where you don't want to carry the additional weight or multiple lenses.Finally, it seems like used AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR lenses are regularly selling for $500+ on ebay, so if you decide you don't need the extended (70-120mm) range and/or can't live with the optical quality trade-offs (vs your 24-70 2.8G), you should be able to easily sell it off without losing anything (and probably making a little profit -- effectively reducing the cost of your D750 camera body)tl;dr: get the lens kit (at +$300)
How good is Nikon 85mm f/3.5G AF-S DX ED VR Micro Nikkor Lens for macro photography? Are there any other good lenses below Rs. 50000 for macro?
Nikon 85mm f/3.5 is very good lens for macro photography, cost about ~40k. But Nikon 105mm f/2.8 is much better and bit expensive (~55k) than the previous one.But there is good & cheaper alternative to both of these, with comparable quality to both Nikkon 85mm & 105mm, and that is Tokina 100mm f/2.8, which costs around ~25k.~Photography with Manoj
What is a good lens for Nikon D50 for baby portraits?
But if you really want to you can get the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 D IF autofocus prime telephoto portrait lens. This fast lens is top of the line and you don't have to get right in the baby's face. It will blur the background nicely if you set for aperture priority and use a wide open f/stop like 1.4 which will produce a shallow depth of field focus. The nicely blurred background is called good bokeh. But you can achieve much the same result in a similar way with the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D autofocus prime lens for about $275 - you just have to stand a little closer. These are great low light lenses and can be used without a flash indoors with a tripod. The low f/stop number means the widest open aperture (greatest light gathering) and prime lenses are better than zooms for this purpose.
Which Nikon lens is recommended as your first professional one if you mainly shoot jazz concerts and portraits, a 17-55 mm lens or a 70-200 mm lens?
What body do you have? The 17–55 f2.8 is the DX equivalent of the FX 24–70 so a very capable multipurpose lens.The next point is where will you be standing. The 55mm will come up short very often unless you are centre stage front or actually on it. The 70–200 would be better the rest of the time. Problem is if you're too close it won't be wide enough.The issue as I see it, is you're talking low light photography. You might be even better off buying the 35mm f1.8 if DX or 50mm f1.4 FX. Then adding the 85mm f1.8. They aren't ‘Pro’ lenses but in this case image quality will be good enough and give better aperture options.If it had to be between those lenses the the 70–200mm would be my choice. The 17–55mm is getting a little long in the tooth and while VR doesn't freeze motion of the subject. The longer shutter speeds you may need could do with VR assurance.