Lens recommendation for Nikon d70 for close-up indoor photography of kids

May 7, 2009 12:00 PM

I'm loooking for a lens recommendation for a Nikon d70 specifically for close-up indoor photography of kids. Apologies in advance for asking a question that's very close to several others here at AskMeFi, but here's the twist...

I'm looking to buy this lens as a gift for my wife, and I don't know ANYTHING at all about photography.

So, I know you can find TONS of information about this all over the web, but everything I find presumes much more knowledge than I have (f-stop, focal length, aperture, etc... all lost on me).

Anyway, she has a Nikon D70, and the only lens she has is the one that came with it: AF-S NIKKOR 18-70mm.

I'd like to find on that's best suited to taking pretty close-up pictures of our kids, mostly indoors. In particular, I'm after one that tends to create really sharp focus on the face, and significantly blur the background.

I'd really appreciate recommdations for specific models, if possible.

Many thanks in advance!

posted by stuehler to sports, hobbies, & recreation (17 comments total)

Get a 50mm f/1.8. Nikon makes one. It's cheap and sharp. And for little children it works well because it'll end up being sort of telephoto on your camera.
posted by chunking express at 12:31 PM on May 7 [1 favorite has favorites]

And now, my interminable version of chunking express's answer!

You want a cheap large-aperture lens.

The large aperture gives you two things.

One: Lots of light getting into the camera, which is essential for indoor photography without flash, even with modern DSLRs that can do ISO 800 sensitivity (like really "fast" film) without much noise.

Two: Shallow depth-of-field. This means there's a small range of distances from the lens in which things are in focus, which gives you the classic portrait look where the face is in focus but everything further back - including the shoulders, or even the ears - is blurry.

Short depth-of-field is a bad thing for everyday happy snaps with less-than-perfect focus, because you'll end up with a lot of blur where you don't want it. You also get the small depth of field and the large light-gathering capacity as a package deal; you can't have one without the other. You'll be able to stop your new "fast", large-aperture lens down to f/8 or f/16 just like the kit lens that came with the camera, but then it'll take pictures that aren't obviously superior to the kit lens shots. But it's really not hard to learn to use a large-aperture lens, when you're shooting digital and not film. Just mess around with it for an afternoon and see what works and what doesn't.

(Starter tip: Don't centre a face in the frame and use default autofocus, or you're likely to focus on the tip of the nose. That's fine for smaller apertures that give you decent depth of field, but it blurs much of the face for large-aperture close-up. If you're using autofocus, point the camera at an eye and half-press the shutter button to focus, then re-aim to get the framing you want and press the button the rest of the way to take the shot.)

OK, next point: Most large-aperture lenses are not cheap. Many of them are nowhere near cheap. But exactly one kind is - the mid-range "prime". Prime lenses are the type that everybody had to use before zooms were invented; they're non-zoom lenses with one, un-changeable, field of view. You can get them in many focal lengths, but 50mms are the really cheap ones.

On a mainstream DSLR a 50mm lens will give you about an "80mm-equivalent" field of view - the same as an 80mm lens on a film SLR or pro DSLR, which have film/sensors that're larger than the ones in cheaper DSLRs. This makes it a less than optimal choice for everyday shots - it just doesn't see enough of the room, for indoor photography - but about 80mm is actually pretty much ideal for a "portrait lens".

The Nikon lens you want is, I think, the "50mm f/1.8D AF", for which you shouldn't have to pay more than about $US150 plus delivery. It's small, lightweight and entirely bereft of obvious metal components (just like Canon's similarly cheap f/1.8 50mm for EOS cameras), but it's optically superb (again, just like the Canon).
posted by dansdata at 12:34 PM on May 7 [1 favorite has favorites]

For future reference to others searching, the above lens, which is perfect for the posters question does NOT autofocus on the D40 or D60.
posted by bensherman at 1:14 PM on May 7

If you want to splurge, you could get the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF-S. (The lens will also autofocus on the cheaper Nikon bodies.) I think the builds a bit better, it's a little bit faster, and none of the external elements move when you focus, which is handy if you are using certain filters.
posted by chunking express at 1:23 PM on May 7

I have the 50mm f/1.8 and it's a great lens. But sometimes I wish it was a bit wider... You might consider the new 35mm f/1.8.
posted by lalas at 1:26 PM on May 7

nth-ing the 50mm f/1.8. Great bang for the buck. Here is a review of it by Ken Rockwell.
posted by SNACKeR at 2:43 PM on May 7

I feel obligated to note that Ken Rockwell often reviews things he has never used or even seen in person. Note that in the f/1.8 review he does not cite any personal experience with the lens. It probably is a great lens. I would just not use Ken Rockwell's web site as a reference point.
posted by Quonab at 3:22 PM on May 7 [1 favorite has favorites]

50/1.8 AF D Nikon. Cheap. Deadly sharp, otherwise optically excellent as well.

...unless you wife is one of the .000001% of all photographers who legitimately needs one of the 50/1.4 lenses and would want you to pay way more money for it.
posted by imjustsaying at 3:34 PM on May 7

Another option, which has all the beautiful depth of field properties of the 50mm, is the Nikkor/Nikon 35mm 1.8 AF-S lens. It's a beaut and is rougly equivalent in its view to 50mm on 35mm film cameras (or full frame/FX cameras). Most old-school film shooters would say that 50mm is the most "normal" lens, meaning that it most approximates the field of view of the human eye.

For your purposes, I'd say that the 50mm is better for taking pictures of one or two kids while the 35mm is wider and can more easily capture a group of kids. You can get pretty close with the 35mm, but you'll get some fisheye-type distortion.
posted by Hali at 4:32 PM on May 7

Quonab: I know it is snarkily popular to bash Ken Rockwell but his review sports photos of the lens taken by, or at least credited to, Ken Rockwell so it seems to me he at least had the lens in his possession. Here he shows comparisons taken with the lens. Here, he shows more comparisons he shot pitting the 50mm against several Nikkor zooms.

I know his writing style can be annoying (and my-oh-my opinionated or at least abrasively honest) but I've never found any of his writings make me doubt his integrity.
posted by bz at 5:14 PM on May 7

Seconding either the 50mm 1.8 ($100) or the new 35mm 1.8 ($200). I've had the "nifty fifty" for a couple of years (love it) and just got the 35 this past weekend (also love it).

Keep in mind that the 35mm on a cropped sensor typical of a low end DSLR is equivalent to a 50mm lens on a 35mm film camera, or what is called a "normal" lens (typical of what the human eye sees rather than wide angle or telephoto). So I would say 35mm is a good lens for beginners.
posted by matildaben at 6:17 PM on May 7

I think I just might buy that new 35mm, once B&H has it in stock. I bought the 50mm/f1.8 about a month ago; it takes great shots on my D80. It's a bit tele for small rooms, though -- thus the 35mm...
posted by Alterscape at 8:43 PM on May 7

I think it's also useful to have a flash, in addition to the 50mm f/1.8. Because kids move around, and you still may not have enough light sometimes. Nikon sells something called the SB-400 which is good enough for a beginner flash and is inexpensive at around $120. Bounce the light off your ceiling and you'll get something really surprising, if you're accustomed to the awful look of cheap, on-camera flashes.
posted by chengjih at 9:11 PM on May 7

I feel obligated to point out that Ken Rockwell is a blowhard and a jackass.
posted by chunking express at 6:05 AM on May 8

Ditto the 50mm 1.8D. Good focal length for kid portraits on a D70, and fast enough for indoor (low light) portraits.

Here's a reputable place to buy it from: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/247091-USA/Nikon_2137_Normal_AF_Nikkor_50mm.html
posted by jcmilton at 10:18 AM on May 8

I feel obligated to point out that Ken Rockwell, who should always be taken with several very large grains of salt, has probably learned and forgotten more about photography that most amateur photographers will ever know.

Additionally, I feel obligated to point out that he is an individual who truly enjoys actually taking pictures more than obsessing over pixel peeping and the conventional wisdom of, "if it costs the most, then it must be the best and I must have it now".

BTW, I am not Ken Rockwell. I just find his musings entertaining and on occasion informative.
posted by imjustsaying at 7:25 PM on May 8

Just wanted to thank everyone who's responded...

I took the hive's recommendation and bought the 50mm f/1.8D AF.

My wife loved it, and the photos she's taken with it are spectacular (IMHO).

Exactly what I was looking for.

Best wishes to all!
posted by stuehler at 5:14 AM on May 14