[ooheadsoo]

tl;dr: Given I just purchased a Nikon 24-120 f/4 and Tamron 35mm f/1.8 VC for use with a Nikon D750, what lens should I buy, or is it necessary to buy another lens, to enable me to take street/environmental portraits with good subject isolation while also incorporating elements of the location?

I am taking a trip to Japan in late May/early June.  It is a family trip, not a photo safari, but I would still like to make the most of my photographic opportunities.  Unfortunately, my home was burglarized and my old camera and many lenses were stolen.  The silver lining is that I was able to use the opportunity to upgrade to a full frame camera (Nikon D750.)  By my calculations, the 24-120 f/4 should provide me similar depth of field control as my stolen 18-50 f/2.8 on crop and the loss in shutter speed can hopefully be overcome by the body's better high ISO capability.  However, I am thinking of taking street/environmental portraits of my wife with some framing elements and use as much DOF control as possible to isolate her and the frame from the rest of the scene.  Given typical working distances, I don't think if the 24-120 f/4 will be able to do that.  Perhaps only at the long end, but the working distance might be untenable and it isn't my intention to do just a headshot type portrait, which I could do anywhere...no need to go to Japan for that.  I'm really hoping to sort of approach the isolation you get from medium format, although I know that's not really achievable with 35mm.

I also purchased a Tamron 35mm f/1.8 VC.  Unfortunately, from my tests so far, the sharpness wide open is so-so, and by the time I get far enough away to fit my wife full length in the photo, the background may be out of focus, but it looks more like a focus error rather than true subject isolation.  The other thing I wanted to try with this lens is street scenes while dragging the shutter, which the VC should allow me to do.  However, the 24-120's VR would allow me to do that, as well.  Furthermore, the lack of sharpness wide open on this particular copy and some noticeable CA have me questioning this purchase.  Should I stick with this lens?  The close focusing capability has proven less useful than anticipated.

So for those scenes where I can more easily isolate my subject for a portrait while including environmental elements, I had been considering buying either a 50mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.8, or an 85mm f/1.8 (I had one of these, but it was taken, which makes this extra frustrating for me.)  To further throw a curve, I have an old beat up Nikon 50mm f/1.2, but I never use this lens because I typically find manual focus too challenging and time consuming.  It also doesn't seem to have any flare resistance at all, and will go hazy and take on color casts at the drop of a hat.  And talk about being soft wide open!  But people do that all the time in post...maybe I should just accept it and use it anyway?  Or maybe I should go with a Tamron 90mm 2.8 VC macro lens, which is about the same price as the 85mm 1.8 but trades shallowness for macro capability plus stabilization.  Or, because my wallet is pretty much easy, should I continue down the mf path and get a mf lens like the rokinon 85 1.4?

[drewm]

I think with your current 24-120, you should figure out what focal length you prefer for your application and go from there with a big aperture prime lens of that focal length. If I had to take a guess for street you should be around a 50 or 85mm, and if you really want to ensure the lens is sharp wide open, get that info from good lens reviewers. I personally prefer the 50mm focal length for my street photography, but an 85mm will blur that background out further at the same aperture. It all depends how far away you're okay with being. Only you will know what distance you're comfortable with.

[thunderbrick]

I think with your current 24-120, you should figure out what focal length you prefer for your application and go from there with a big aperture prime lens of that focal length. If I had to take a guess for street you should be around a 50 or 85mm, and if you really want to ensure the lens is sharp wide open, get that info from good lens reviewers. I personally prefer the 50mm focal length for my street photography, but an 85mm will blur that background out further at the same aperture. It all depends how far away you're okay with being. Only you will know what distance you're comfortable with.

+1!

Perfect advice!   

[drphoto]

It's been a long time since I shot with Nikon, but the 85 1.8 is quite good. About $475 new.

Most street photographers shoot with something like a 35mm equivalent. The old saying is f8 and be there, which means you basically don' have to worry too much about focus. Suppose you don't if you shoot AF either. Just gotta make sure camera focus on intended target!

Of course the 'f8 & be there' idea, means everything in focus, not the selective focus you seem to be after.

good luck & have fun!

[SET Man]

.....

So for those scenes where I can more easily isolate my subject for a portrait while including environmental elements, I had been considering buying either a 50mm f/1.4, 50mm f/1.8, or an 85mm f/1.8 (I had one of these, but it was taken, which makes this extra frustrating for me.)  To further throw a curve, I have an old beat up Nikon 50mm f/1.2, but I never use this lens because I typically find manual focus too challenging and time consuming.  It also doesn't seem to have any flare resistance at all, and will go hazy and take on color casts at the drop of a hat.  And talk about being soft wide open!  But people do that all the time in post...maybe I should just accept it and use it anyway?  Or maybe I should go with a Tamron 90mm 2.8 VC macro lens, which is about the same price as the 85mm 1.8 but trades shallowness for macro capability plus stabilization.  Or, because my wallet is pretty much easy, should I continue down the mf path and get a mf lens like the rokinon 85 1.4?

Hey!

    Instead of Rokinon 85mm, I'd stick with Nikon and go with a Nikon 85mm f1.8 like drphoto said. As for that old Nikkor 50mm f1.2, don't over look it, older lenses like that won't as sharp as current ones but it does offer a unique looks and feels. I know MF is slower but once you get use to the process it can be pretty fast.

Take care,
Buddy 

[drphoto]

And there's f8 and be there!. Way easier to do with high iso equivalents on modern digi cams too. But again, sounds like you want shallow focus. I rarely shoot auto anything. Focus, exposure, etc. Be the master of the camera! does take practice as SET said. But if you go long lens and shoot wide open, and depending on subject to camera distance. there's not much room for error.

Remember, depth of field is a product of magnification plus aperture, plus subject to camera distance. Wide angle lenses don't have 'more depth of field' they just magnify less. Got it? And closer you get, the less you have. Wider aperture? same.

Oh crap, I'm playing teacher again, sorry......I taught chem and then photo, then photoshop. Can't help it.