Based on what you said I'll identify a couple of candidates. I have only ever used Nikon glass. I don't have any personal experience with Sigma, Tamron, or any other off-brand lenses. They may be very good, I just don't have any experience with them.
The following Nikon telephoto's meet your criteria:
300 f4.0 ~$1000
180 f2.8 ~$700
135 f2.0 Defocus COntrol ~$1050
105 f2.0 Defocus Control ~$850
105 f2.8 Micro-Nikkor ~$650
85 f1.8 ~$350
85 f1.4 ~$1000
There's also a zoom I think you should consider:
80-200 f2.8 ~$900
I have limited experience with the 300 and the defocus control lenses, so I'll start there. If you want a lot of compression and close focusing, the 300 is pretty good. It'll focus as close as 4 1/2 feet and will give you a magnification ratio of about 1:4, so it can be real good for a tight shot of, say, just the eyes. It seems a little cheap/flimsy compared to the 300 f/2.8 which is superb and way out of the price range you stated. Optically, the 300 f/4 seems pretty good but again, I haven't tested it extensively. If you want a long telephoto it's pretty much the only lens that meets your budget.
The defocus control lenses are specialty lenses. You can selectively soften the image by turning a ring. They're designed for portraiture and act like a diffusion filter. Unless you've tried one, it's pretty hard to describe. I wouldn't choose one as a second or even third lens purchase unless you are really into soft-focus portraiture.
The 180 f/2.8 is superb any way you slice it. I've had this lens for a long time. It focuses as close as 5 feet and is tack sharp. I love this lens. The only downside is that the 80-200 f/2.8 zoom is just as good and is, of course, a zoom and therefore a little more flexible. But the 180 weighs about 1/2 of what the 80-200 weighs and is more compact. It's far easier to hand-hold and carry around all day.
The 105 f/2.8 Micro-Nikkor is also very nice if you want micro-capability. If you want to fill the frame with a model's eye, this is your lens. If you want to do close-up photography, this is your lens. It's a nice lens for glamour, but it's optimized for close-up work. Not to take anything away from it, but if close-up work doesn't interest you, the 80-200 zoom would be a better choice.
The 85's give you a moderate telephoto effect. They're very good lenses for 3/4 and full length shots at the 10' working distance you indicated. They're also good for head shots. Both lenses are very sharp, but I really don't care for the bokeh (out of focus highlight circles in an image) that the 85 f/1.8 exhibits. I feel it is pretty poor, actually. The 85 f/1.4's bokeh, on the other hand, is superb. But the f/1.4 is costs 3 times as much. You may have a hard time justifying the cost difference if you're not making money with the lens.
I've mentioned the 80-200 f/2.8 zoom twice now, and you really should give it a serious look. It's as fast as the 180 and 105, gives you more compression than either, has good working distance, exhibits good bokeh, and is optically superb. It's not as fast as the 85's but it's more versatile. The only downside is size and weight. It's the biggest and heaviest lens of the group.
I would recommend finding a store where you could put these lenses on your camera, try them out, and see for yourself what you like. I have the 85 f/1.4, the 180 f/2.8, and the 80-200 f/2.8. I tend not to use the 180 as much anymore because the 80-200 really is superb.
Hope this helped.
-Chip
|