LA StarShooter wrote:
Try a fixed lens, although, I am not familiar with your camera's menu in terms of settings. For my Nikon d7000 I bought a 50mm 1.8f D and the 85mm 1.8f. As I'm not sure what lens your camera takes-mine takes a lot of different lenses--it is good to check your lens compatibility list and performance.

The 85mm 1.8 f D I really like for fashion and swimsuit. The 50mm 1.8 has worked well for me in an 10 x 12 room and also at the house of blues and in a studio.

Robert Mossack wrote:
I would like to point out that since the OP has a D3200, he will need the newer "G" versions of these two lenses to retain autofocus.

Whatever lens he gets, it needs to have an internal focus motor, a G or an AF-S.

PhotoChilly wrote:
Wow, never knew a simple question could cause so many people to fester. There are some amazingly good lenses out there for very little money. The Nikon 24-70 2.8 is certainly the holy grail, but here are two that can cover almost everything for very little money.

This is probably the ultimate lense to learn with. It will rival the most expensive lenses for quality. The 3200 needs the "AF-S" to auto focus, so skip the much talked about older 50mm "D" model.

-50mm 1.8 G AF-S - http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/50mm-f18-g.htm

Here is a great do everything lense value, what many refer to as a "walking around lense" because of its versatility to shoot nearly everything.

18-200mm 3.5 AF-S - http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18200/ … rmance.htm

Here is the link to read up on some great recommendations for your camera.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/dx-dream-team.htm

I find Mr Rockwell less than.... credible sometimes.

"This $200 tele lens is magnificent. It is optically one of Nikon's best lenses, and handles and works great on every DX camera."

He doesn't have the sense to qualify his statement with 'for the money'.

Drew Smith Photography wrote:

I find Mr Rockwell less than.... credible sometimes.

"This $200 tele lens is magnificent. It is optically one of Nikon's best lenses, and handles and works great on every DX camera."

He doesn't have the sense to qualify his statement with 'for the money'.

Why would he need to qualify when he then lists other lenses that meet more specific needs?

JonPhoto wrote:

Why would he need to qualify when he then lists other lenses that meet more specific needs?

What? "more specific needs", like optical quality?

J O H N  A L L A N wrote:

What? "more specific needs", like optical quality?

Did you read the link about recommended tele lenses?

Brian K PHOTO wrote:
A lot of good Nikon lens information here.
http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikkor.htm

especially:  Nikon's 10 Best Lenses

Yeah, and with any luck, Ken has actually seen some of those lenses he reviewed too!

JonPhoto wrote:
I'm going to say if you have to ask, you are not ready to get a pro grade lens just yet. There are just so many options that it depends on what you like to shoot. I would suggest getting studying more, practicing with what you have, and see what direction you go with your practice. Once you get a better idea of your style or how to shoot, then you will be able to answer your question.

That's the problem with this forum, one has to be pretty arrogant to even state that. It's like  a guy walking into a Rolls Royce Dealer and asking the salesman how many miles per gallon the  car gets, and he replies "if you have to  ask,  you probably can't afford it".
Simply tell the guy what in your opinion what you believe is a suitable lens  and leave out the judgemental and editorial opinions, it's obnoxious and condescending.

Desmond Lin wrote:
hi everyone, just taken this hobby recently and am wondering which nikon lens is good for prof photoshoot. there are just so many types of lens and am really interested to find out which is the best lens with prof shoots. im using D3200. guys help advise. many thanks )

I may have missed it, but what lenses are you currently using?

I'd say go with a 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8
OR a 24-70 2.8

That should be enough to get you started but it is a bit harder not knowing what you want to shoot, or what your budget is.

CHAD ALAN wrote:
......... but it is a bit harder not knowing what you want to shoot, or what your budget is.

Hence why I made no specific recommendations. Even if genre is known, the style and working environment / space also influence choices. It is not unusual for me to find myself using a shorter focal length than I'd like because of space / situational conditions or a single focal length at infinity lens when I'd rather be using a zoom but the light levels / action is such that I need F1.4 to get a suitable shutter speed and limited noise.

Erlinda wrote:
It's like buying a crazy racing car because you want to learn how to drive. Sure you can learn with it but it be a waste of it's amazingness.

Actually, the correct term for the above is:

"Mid-life Crisis"

CHAD ALAN wrote:
I may have missed it, but what lenses are you currently using?

I'd say go with a 50mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8
OR a 24-70 2.8

That should be enough to get you started but it is a bit harder not knowing what you want to shoot, or what your budget is.

This, I use a 50mm 1.8 for nearly all my shots.  I really want a 85 but I'm too broke and my studio is too small to use it effectively anyways but really the 50 does just fine for now.

pellepiano wrote:
The photography skills are far more important than the lens. And having a good understanding of light.

For fun, heres a fashionshoot with an iPhone ....
http://fstoppers.com/iphone

Do scroll down and see the light that is used for this iPhone shoot.
Investing in light and knowing how to use it sure helps.

the lonely photographer wrote:

That's the problem with this forum, one has to be pretty arrogant to even state that. It's like  a guy walking into a Rolls Royce Dealer and asking the salesman how many miles per gallon the  car gets, and he replies "if you have to  ask,  you probably can't afford it".
Simply tell the guy what in your opinion what you believe is a suitable lens  and leave out the judgemental and editorial opinions, it's obnoxious and condescending.

Arrogant, trying to save the guy some money on a lens he may find useless because it doesn't suit his style because he doesn't have one yet? I did tell him my opinion. Look at all the opinions he has gotten. They are all over the place in what lenses to get. I'm telling him to develop his OWN style, not one suited to how ANOTHER photographer shoots.

Mac Intosh wrote:
These are the Nikon lenses that you want to consider…

70~200 2.8G

24~70 2.8G

14~24 2.8G

I own each and would highly recommend all three to anyone considering them. Among the three, the 24-70mm and 70-200mm get the most use. They are tack sharp and have performed exceedingly well.

Sigma makes some nice alternatives to these lenses also. They're worth a look for good quality and a price tag that won't break the bank quite as thoroughly as the Nikkor equivalents.

I'd throw in a +1 vote to the folks in this thread who have recommended study of light at a higher priority level than a purchase of additional lenses. There's nothing wrong with having nice lenses -- I wouldn't trade mine for anything -- but there are a lot of other elements that have a more immediate impact on the quality of an image.

Light (Natural or Artificial) > Subject > Composition > Focus > Environment > Lens > Camera

Others may disagree with this priority list, and that's fine.

JonPhoto wrote:

Arrogant, trying to save the guy some money on a lens he may find useless because it doesn't suit his style because he doesn't have one yet? I did tell him my opinion. Look at all the opinions he has gotten. They are all over the place in what lenses to get. I'm telling him to develop his OWN style, not one suited to how ANOTHER photographer shoots.

if you bother to read the subsequent posts ,he did not mind to spend money on whatever he chose, and who appointed you chief financial officer to decide how to handle another's fiscal business. Now that is arrogance. There is no explicit request on how allocate his resources, you took it upon yourself to even suggest that.  It's his money and it's none of your damn business nor anyone else on how  the op should spend it. The op never asked for those opinions, stick to the point asked.

Christopher Hartman wrote:
no, he asked what lenses are good for professional photo shoots.  Not what will make him look like a pro.

however, if you have high end equipment, you will likely look more like a pro than those without.  Your work may not look professional, but that is all together another subject and not one the OP asked about.

Nope that is not what the OP said Chris. He actually said which lens will make his photos look pro.

And the answer to that is no lens will make your photos look professional if you have no clue what you are doing.

A-M-P wrote:
Learn with what you have now.  Once you know your camera and how to manipulate light, Then I say you are ready to invest in a pro lens. You have no idea how many crap photos I have seen taken with the best pro gear. People want to run before they can crawl.

If you are asking for a lens that will give you pro looking photos, that right there tells me that doesn't matter what lens you have you will get the same results. The equipment doesn't give you pro looking photos the person working the camera does.

if the guy is ready,willing and able to buy top tier equipment, and his work is not up to par, he sure as hell can't blame the gear. The only thing left is self improvement. There is nothing wrong with finding out you don't know what the hell you're doing,  but you have to admit first you suck.

the lonely photographer wrote:
if the guy is ready,willing and able to buy top tier equipment, and his work is not up to par, he sure as hell can't blame the gear. The only thing left is self improvement. There is nothing wrong with finding out you don't know what the hell you're doing,  but you have to admit first you suck.

I have this problem with my BF he keeps telling me his camera sucks and that he wants a better one because he gets blurry pictures and I tell him is not that your camera sucks is that YOU suck and a better camera or better lens won't change a thing.


I mean I could give the OP options but it will be a matter of time before we see another thread saying you guys lied to me  my photos still look exactly the same they don't look anymore PRO than they did before.

A-M-P wrote:
Learn with what you have now.  Once you know your camera and how to manipulate light, Then I say you are ready to invest in a pro lens. You have no idea how many crap photos I have seen taken with the best pro gear. People want to run before they can crawl.

If you are asking for a lens that will give you pro looking photos, that right there tells me that doesn't matter what lens you have you will get the same results. The equipment doesn't give you pro looking photos the person working the camera does.

the lonely photographer wrote:
if the guy is ready,willing and able to buy top tier equipment, and his work is not up to par, he sure as hell can't blame the gear. The only thing left is self improvement. There is nothing wrong with finding out you don't know what the hell you're doing,  but you have to admit first you suck.

Except most don't.  They continue to focus on gear instead of an education.  When all is said and done they have spent a fortune on a system to take photos they could have taken with a kit setup.

And, really, for what most here do (post photos online and that's it) even an entry level camera and kit lens is good enough for most required results. 

My vote would be to get a nice 50mm prime and leave it attached to the camera for the next year.  Do everything you can with that lens, study everything you can about photography and apply that learning to that lens.  Then move on to another prime lens.

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:
Except most don't.  They continue to focus on gear instead of an education.  When all is said and done they have spent a fortune on a system to take photos they could have taken with a kit setup.

And, really, for what most here do (post photos online and that's it) even an entry level camera and kit lens is good enough for most required results. 

My vote would be to get a nice 50mm prime and leave it attached to the camera for the next year.  Do everything you can with that lens, study everything you can about photography and apply that learning to that lens.  Then move on to another prime lens.

^^ agreed. and if he is going to get a lens, a single 50mm prime is the best way to learn. I remember when one of my professors made me do that back in the day. I can't tell you how much that it helps to make you think about composition and technique with one lens. It is how I teach students in workshops that I have taught as well.

the lonely photographer wrote:

if you bother to read the subsequent posts ,he did not mind to spend money on whatever he chose, and who appointed you chief financial officer to decide how to handle another's fiscal business. Now that is arrogance. There is no explicit request on how allocate his resources, you took it upon yourself to even suggest that.  It's his money and it's none of your damn business nor anyone else on how  the op should spend it. The op never asked for those opinions, stick to the point asked.

I did read the follow up responses by the OP and he said he wanted his pictures to look like a pro. A new lens isn't going to do that but learning the basics of photography will. When that is done, he or any other beginner photographer will  not have to ask what lens to get, they will know.

The OP asked a question about what lens to get and how to make pictures look like a pro. I gave my opinion on both, yet you have not. You have decided to launch a crusade against me instead of answering the OP's questions. I think it's ironic you are busting on me because in your opinion I didn't answer the question yet you haven't even offered ANY help. That's arrogance.

And really, for a beginner who asks this kind of question, is there really a consensus on which lens to get based on the suggestions? Is it any clearer? I imagine the OP is long gone by now so we are just talking amongst ourselves anyway.

Desmond Lin wrote:
hi everyone, just taken this hobby recently and am wondering which nikon lens is good for prof photoshoot. there are just so many types of lens and am really interested to find out which is the best lens with prof shoots. im using D3200. guys help advise. many thanks )

I haven't shot any professors yet, but on my camera I usually favor my 135mm f/2 DC. It really depends on the circumstances though, naturally. For your cropper, an AF-S 24-70 f/2.8 would suit well. On a budget for a Portraiture-shoot an 85mm AF-S 1.8 works, yet only having 7 blades it may create a more 'literal' look than you desire from a Portraiture-image. On my D90 (screw-drive AF-motor), I adored my 85mm f/1.8D. 9-blades, and faster focusing than my AF-S G-version

IMHO alone;

Ðanny
DBIphotography Toronto (Blog On Site) 
DBImagery Toronto (Website)

“Experience is simply the name we give our mistakes.” 
~Oscar Wilde

JonPhoto wrote:

I did read the follow up responses by the OP and he said he wanted his pictures to look like a pro. A new lens isn't going to do that but learning the basics of photography will. When that is done, he or any other beginner photographer will  not have to ask what lens to get, they will know.

The OP asked a question about what lens to get and how to make pictures look like a pro. I gave my opinion on both, yet you have not. You have decided to launch a crusade against me instead of answering the OP's questions. I think it's ironic you are busting on me because in your opinion I didn't answer the question yet you haven't even offered ANY help. That's arrogance.

And really, for a beginner who asks this kind of question, is there really a consensus on which lens to get based on the suggestions? Is it any clearer? I imagine the OP is long gone by now so we are just talking amongst ourselves anyway.

The op might call the guy that does passport pictures a pro , or for that matter the guy that takes family pictures of kids sitting in Santas lap. Whatever his definition or standard of pro is his not ours. What irks me is your  audacity and arrogance to even suggest that by asking a simple question he is not ready for a "pro" lens. You sit in judgement of people, who the hell you think you are telling him he's not ready for a pro lens because he asked?

Giacomo Cirrincioni wrote:

A-M-P wrote:
Learn with what you have now.  Once you know your camera and how to manipulate light, Then I say you are ready to invest in a pro lens. You have no idea how many crap photos I have seen taken with the best pro gear. People want to run before they can crawl.

If you are asking for a lens that will give you pro looking photos, that right there tells me that doesn't matter what lens you have you will get the same results. The equipment doesn't give you pro looking photos the person working the camera does.

Except most don't.  They continue to focus on gear instead of an education.  When all is said and done they have spent a fortune on a system to take photos they could have taken with a kit setup.

And, really, for what most here do (post photos online and that's it) even an entry level camera and kit lens is good enough for most required results. 

My vote would be to get a nice 50mm prime and leave it attached to the camera for the next year.  Do everything you can with that lens, study everything you can about photography and apply that learning to that lens.  Then move on to another prime lens.

photographers. GWCS are subject to the effects of Darwinism, if they continue to suck after spending shitloads of money, who cares? Unless you are competing with sucky photographers, maybe you need a better game plan. Frankly I like  sucky photographers. They make me look good!!!!  Lol

the lonely photographer wrote:

The op might call the guy that does passport pictures a pro , or for that matter the guy that takes family pictures of kids sitting in Santas lap. Whatever his definition or standard of pro is his not ours. What irks me is your  audacity and arrogance to even suggest that by asking a simple question he is not ready for a "pro" lens. You sit in judgement of people, who the hell you think you are telling him he's not ready for a pro lens because he asked?

And you still haven't answered the OP's questions.

You are correct that we don't know what the OP's definition of a pro is, but I don't see too many photographers posting passport pictures or assembly line kids with Santa pics.

The OP asked in a public forum of a website that features model and fashion photography. He also said he wanted to take pictures like the one he sees here, make them look like they were taken by a pro. It tells me he isn't really interested in passport photography. To get pro looks, you don't need expensive pro gear. You need to learn the basics.

If it makes you feel better to keep attacking me then knock yourself out but do try to keep it on topic and maybe give your input into helping the OP or any other beginner that may be reading. I am not sitting in judgment, I am encouraging him or any other beginner to study photography and not get caught up in chasing after gear. That is all.

the lonely photographer wrote:
photographers. GWCS are subject to the effects of Darwinism, if they continue to suck after spending shitloads of money, who cares? Unless you are competing with sucky photographers, maybe you need a better game plan. Frankly I like  sucky photographers. They make me look good!!!!  Lol

Who are you to sit in judgement of what is and isn't GWCS

JonPhoto wrote:

Who are you to sit in judgement of what is and isn't GWCS

I am a card carrying GWC, and damn proud of it! I produce plenty of half ass mediocre work, I spent shitloads of money of equipment despite what people of your well intentioned ilk advise. If I think I need something, I borrow it, make it, or buy it. Once I asked a question regarding the feasibility of two brands of digital backs and opinions of each, and lo and behold a respondent wrote a similar diatribe as yours advising me  to learn photography basics. I shoot Canon and Nikon, though my MF camera just blows away my best "L" lens,  I have a feeling our OP will eventually upgrade his camera as well,  there's no such thing as too much camera, it's whether you can lug it around and soon find out it's no fun to and eventually start walking sideways from habit. coming from a GWC

the lonely photographer wrote:
I am a card carrying GWC, and damn proud of it! I produce plenty of half ass mediocre work, I spent shitloads of money of equipment despite what people of your well intentioned ilk advise. If I think I need something, I borrow it, make it, or buy it. Once I asked a question regarding the feasibility of two brands of digital backs and opinions of each, and lo and behold a respondent wrote a similar diatribe as yours advising me  to learn photography basics. I shoot Canon and Nikon, though my MF camera just blows away my best "L" lens,  I have a feeling our OP will eventually upgrade his camera as well,  there's no such thing as too much camera, it's whether you can lug it around and soon find out it's no fun to and eventually start walking sideways from habit. coming from a GWC

Awesome, now instead of your continued judgements about me, how about actually answering the OP if I am not doing it in a way that makes you unhappy.

Desmond Lin wrote:
wow cool, thanks for the info )

It appears that the OP had the question answered to his satisfaction back on Page 1. Clearly there are many ways to interpret his question, and I think we have now explored every conceivable reasonable variation on the OP's original query.

This is an industry forum, so please remember to keep your answers here constructive. The goal of this forum is to help each other.