Good lenses for Photo shoots?

[Shacklebolt]

I'm doing my first interview/ photo shoot for a magazine that I have thus far only written album/concert reviews for (along with a few sporadic photos). I honestly think I will do perfectly fine with my D80 with it's 18-135mm kit lens, so I'm not worried.

I don't know if it'll be a cover, but I do know that I want to do my level best. The band is electronic indie/math rock, so I'm not just planning on sitting them down and having them strike poses (although that might be some of it). I expect half of the shots to be moderately spur-of-the-moment ("Hey... so let's talk about the band's next plans... oh wait a second, let me take a picture of you. Sweet.") but perhaps some sit-down alright-guys-start-looking-like-hipsters-great-thanks shots as well.

I'm not planning on buying any new lenses for this, as I'm still learning the ins and outs of the ones that I have (and am perfectly happy), but, in an ideal world, with unlimited funds at your disposal, what lenses which you go into a shoot like this armed with?

 

[superted666]

Although ive not shot in that way professionally before i recently found when experimenting that for studio type shots its well worth finding your lenses sweet spot to really get the sharpest and highest quality shots.

Try stopping down a f4 lens or similar to f8/f9 and you should see the quality improve with less soft pictures.

Make sure you have a good light source for this!

 

[compuwar]

Between 2 and 4 off-camera flash heads and some diffusion of some sort will do more for your images than a lens. strobist.blogspot.com is a good starting point and http://www.dg28.com isn't bad either. FWIW, I prefer the Nikkor 35-70 AF-D for studio work, but if you're happy with the quality of your lens then time is best spent on the quality of your light.

 

[Westside guy]

Okay, I'm not a pro - so take this (or dismiss it) however you want. But I think the lens I just ordered, the new Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8, would be great for this sort of thing.

I know with the primes you gain another stop or so; but the thing is even the 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.4 don't look very impressive below f/2.8 - so if I had them I'd be hesitant to shoot wider than that. It's the same way with the 35mm f/2, which I do have - f/2.8 is as low as I usually want to go.

 

[onomatopoeia]

.

 

[ChrisA]

.in an ideal world, with unlimited funds at your disposal, what lenses which you go into a shoot like this armed with?

I'd worry more about lighting than about lenses. _Anything_ other than direct camera mounted flash.

Your 18-135 covers the range you might need. The reason to get another lens would be to ccontrol depth of field. But with some effort you can simulate a background blur in Photoshop but you can't fix lighting. Light make the image, well that and the subject.

I don't think sharpness matters a lot here.

 

[MurphyM]

Read up on the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8

The best photos I've taken of people are with this lens. It's fast and affordable.

Read more here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/5018af.htm

 

[zdobson]

Okay, I'm not a pro - so take this (or dismiss it) however you want. But I think the lens I just ordered, the new Nikkor 24-70 f/2.8, would be great for this sort of thing.

I know with the primes you gain another stop or so; but the thing is even the 50 f/1.4 and 85 f/1.4 don't look very impressive below f/2.8 - so if I had them I'd be hesitant to shoot wider than that. It's the same way with the 35mm f/2, which I do have - f/2.8 is as low as I usually want to go.

+1 on the primes. only go ahead and use f/1.4 or 2.0. They're there for a reason. Just use a little unsharp mask in photoshop.