< ! --Digital window verification 001 -->

Nikon 85mm f/3.5G DX Micro lens now available

Pin It

nikon-85mm-DX-lens

I just noticed that Amazon (US) also has listed the Nikon 85mm f/3.5G AF-S DX ED VR Micro lens in stock.

B&H and Adorama also have it in stock.

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • johnny

    Very curious about how it performs, even if I intend to buy the 60mm instead

  • http://bonzo.com Bonzo

    How is possible that Ken R***** doesn’t already have a review on this lens?!?? Usually he has reviews even before the lenses are available… :D

  • http://www.shortfingerphoto.com Nubz

    I’ll pass… I just don’t see any justification in buying DX lenses except for the 10-24mm.

  • Crabby

    I am tempted to sell my travel macro lens (Nikkor 60mm D) and buy this one for my D300. I do closeups with it, not real macro, and the VR and extra working distance would be helpful. (The Micro 70-180mm and tripod don’t go on planes.) Still, I don’t like losing the 2/3 of a stop when I use the lens for portraits. Decisions…

  • nir.e

    Silly lens.
    My guess -Nikon will sell only a few, DX shutters gain nothing in buying this lens over the 60mm or the 105mm

  • BillyBobJohnson

    Woopity do. I figure Nikon will sell next to none of this lens. Pointless.

  • Dan

    Here’s why I just bought one, instead of the 60 or 105:
    * 85mm vs. 105mm: the 85 is half the weight (355g vs. 750g), and 40% cheaper ($530 vs. $890). the working distance at 1:1 is similar (5.6″ vs. 6.1″).
    * 85mm vs. 60mm: weight is similar (355g vs. 425g), and price is identical ($530), so this mostly comes down to 1:1 working distance (5.6″ vs. just 2″!). VR is not unwelcome, either.

    • Ben

      I paid 650$ for the 105/2.8 VR. Its faster, FF, has VR and is better in every way I can think of. I agree with some of the other posters. If its a DX lens it better do something you can’t do with an equivalent FF lens or be vastly cheaper then the FF lens. 500$ is way more then most consumers will spend on a prime lens, and us pro’s (well, those who might still be shooting DX) know the older lenses work just as well and can grow with the body (your DX lenses are all near useless when you upgrade to FF someday. anyone in the market for a 17-55/2.8? lol).

      I picked up a 85/1.8 and 60/2.8 micro as well for great prices used and they have seen over 100+ weddings in the past few years. Total workhorses, *and* the work great on my D700 and D3, or my canon’s with an adapter!

      • mike

        Why are you comparing MSRP to used prices? Even neglecting price, the 85 is better than the 105 in some ways; it’s smaller, lighter and sharper. Besides, 2/3 stop is nothing to write home about, especially on a macro.

  • http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikezphoto Mike Z

    I would rather have the 60mm, even the AF-D version. I guess they wanted to make a macro lens for D3000/5000 owners, but then again the 60 was recently redesigned as a G/AF-S lens, so I totally don’t get this at all. On a DX sensor the 60 is a pretty good portrait lens as well as a macro. I wish they wouldn’t waste time with stuff like this. 24 & 35mm f/1.4 please. Also if they wanted to make a DX lens, a true wide angle like a 16 f/2.8 (24mm angle of view) would have been nice.

  • dustyj

    I ordered mine! Looks like a great lens. D300 user by the way.

  • nikon_arg

    ordered one , I am getting mine tomorrow.

  • http://www.veckansbild.nu Johan

    I got the Tamron 60 mm f2.0 macro instead. I wanted a lightweight travel macro and the choice was basically between these two and Nikon’s 60 mm macro. The difference beween f3.5 and f2.0 was the deciding factor in my case. While I would rarely use a large aperture for macro it does make the lens much more useful for portraits and low light situations. VR isn’t very useful at macro distance either but if it had been f2.8 I would probably have gone for the Nikon…

  • Back to top