Thiking of buying the 35mm with the D600. Would this be a good match for portraits? Family, children, couples, etc?
2000789
Mindy,For kids couples etc, I love shooting with my 85mm not my 35 mm. 35 is great when traveling and might need a bit of a wider angle but the 85 is the best to get you a little closer than you would usually shoot and get great results.
2000790
This is an excellent prime lense that you can use for portrait work with pleasing results. It is also an excellent lense that you can use for landscape photos as well as low light photos without a flash.
2000791
It's not a typical portrait lens because it's wide and if you are too close to your subject you will get some distortion. Having said that I exclusively use this lens for portraits and love it. It's great for tighter spaces. (Typical portrait lens is 50mm).
2000792
Sure, that's a nice lens for most portraiture. If you're shooting up close to a particular individual, you may want a slightly longer lens - say the 85mm. If you get super close with a 35mm you'll get a slightly more prominent nose. The 85 will compress the features and flatten the face a bit, giving a nicer shot. For groups this is perfect.
356708
I am very happy with my D600. So many people do not recommend it simply because there are SO many people out there who are serious about their cameras and photography in terms of sheer numbers and the folks with negative thoughts are the generally the ones who post opinions. Two thoughts, if I had had the money, I probably would have gone for the D800 despite the added size and weight, and if you have a collection of DX lenses, you may want to upgrade to a camera you can use them on rather than the D600 which really needs full format FX lenses. Remember that good lenses are generally more important than the actual camera body for great photography. Finally, both the D600 and D800 are very complex cameras. You will grow very old before you have even begun to have used all of the features! :-)
986588
I think it would be a good choice. I use it on a D-700 (full frame), and it's a nice sharp lens with minimal perspective distortion.
155654
I'm 50/50 on it. There are a lot of plusses for the 35 (1.3 stops faster, shallower DOF, phase detect autofocus points on the entire frame, image stabilization), but one big negative (twice the price). It's also less sharp, but it's not soft by a long shot. If you shoot in very low light, fast subjects, or video, the 35 is the better choice. Otherwise, the 30 is an excellent deal.
1244448
This is one of the better Micro/Macro that I've work with. But for newborns ? Yes, it still darn good. It would be good for tiny hands, sleepy smiles, or good for Mom and babe together. It has a focal length that is a good all around use and I've had one of these macros in my bag since 1965. If your a Nikon shooter and your question leads me to think you are or will be, stick with this 60mm, you won't be disappointed.Your the one that the lens has to please and it's you and not the equipment that takes the picture/image.
709670
Honestly, the focal length, distortion (35mm has a bit more distortion but its unnoticable unless you correct it), depth of field...that type of thing. I got the 35mm because I wanted to be able to get closer to my subjects if I wanted to do macro-ish shots and portraits. Honestly, I would have both but the 35 suits me best.
794539
It depends on what your use would be. On a full frame camera(nikon d600,800, etc.) the 24 mm focal length is a great landscape lens and the wide maximum aperture makes this lens great in low light. This makes it a great lens for indoors and night shooting as well. However as a portrait lens the 24 mm focal length is not ideal due to the broadening of facial features that occurs on this wide focal length. The 35 mm is somewhat better as a portrait lens especially when used on a crop sensor camera(nikon d5200, 7000, 7100, etc) but doesn't offer the same wide field of view that would be helpful on broad landscapes. It depends on what your use would be. On a full frame camera(nikon d600,800, etc.) the 24 mm focal length is a great landscape lens and the wide maximum aperture makes this lens great in low light. This makes it a great lens for indoors and night shooting as well. However as a portrait lens the 24 mm focal length is not ideal due to the broadening of facial features that occurs on this wide focal length. The 35 mm is somewhat better as a portrait lens especially when used on a crop sensor camera(nikon d5200, 7000, 7100, etc) but doesn't offer the same wide field of view that would be... » Read More It depends on what your use would be. On a full frame camera(nikon d600,800, etc.) the 24 mm focal length is a great landscape lens and the wide maximum aperture makes this lens great in low light. This makes it a great lens for indoors and night shooting as well. However as a portrait lens the 24 mm focal length is not ideal due to the broadening of facial features that occurs on this wide focal length. The 35 mm is somewhat better as a portrait lens especially when used on a crop sensor camera(nikon d5200, 7000, 7100, etc) but doesn't offer the same wide field of view that would be helpful on broad landscapes. « Show Less
2069809
Sorry, I don't have wedding photography experience. But I think this lens is better for portrait of a single person. If you want to take group picture, you need to keep quite far away. For the aperture range, it depends on the lighting condition. Hope this helps
2069810
Depends on the size of the group and how far away you can get. Generally it would be better suited to portraiture than group shots. A 35mm or 50mm would be better suited to groups. Without looking at the lens I believe it goes from f1.8-f22. I rarely shoot at f22 as it can tend to be a little soft in most lenses also I don't need that much depth of field in a portrait lens. Hope that helps
809310
I do not have a FF DSLR, (I have a 50d and 10-22mm) but what I know is that they have the same field of view, so I think the 60D and 10-22mm combo will be great.
1668544
This lens would help with group shots. As always, a lot depends on the skill of the artist and the quality of the camera, but yes, it would be good.
1848181
The D600 is a full frame body; therefore, if you used the 17-50 on the D600 as a DX frame, no problem. If you used it as a fullframe 24mp beast, then you would have to choose the vingetting function the camera on high, and probably shoot greater than f8.A good lens would be the 28-75 tamron 2.8, as you can use this lens on a FF body at f2.8, and is not so expensive!
189735
If you shoot in low light or you enjoy bokeh (look it up), yes -- pick up the 35mm, it's more versatile for getting everything in the frame. Otherwise, no.
204310
The 85mm is perfect for portraits on a Full frame an almos equivilant on the 60d will be the 50mm 1.4. In my opinion a 50mm and the macro will be a better choice.
134942
My next purchase will be a D60 with the 50mm 1.4 lens. I have shot 100s of weddings and portraits with my Rebel 300D and a 17-85 zoom, since 2003. At my day job we use a 5D and D60 with L lenses for stills. The D60 will be an ENORMOUS upgrade from my 8 year old Rebel. I shoot video for a living, so the D60 will be a nice addition to my personal cameras.
1203851
DG & john, I ended up with the Signma 10-20mm. It has been perfect for what I need, takes great photos without any unwanted distortion (the corners do stretch at 10mm, especially for architectural shots), but I think that's somewhat normal at 10mm), and it does autofocus with the D60 - not to mention has a lower price than the nikkor. I'm no pro photographer though. I would suggest you read the reviews for both lenses here on amazon, they steered me in the right direction.
141676
Wouldn't we all. If budget is limited, go with previous 60mm micro; it's outstanding. Not a huge saving, but a saving nonetheless.