tcole1983 said:
I will add my second piece of advice...when in doubt buy the Nikon ;)

IMO working distance on the 105 is good enough for all but the most skitterish bugs.

Yes, I do agree with that.

I had fun with a jumping spider yesterday- he wouldn't stop moving! Pretty cool little guy.

I have no idea why, but spiders seem to love my garden. I'm on the lookout for praying mantises though.

The Zeiss doesn't have autofocus (obviously) which is a big turn off for many because of the price. Manual focus is better for macro shots but the Nikon 105 is much more convenient because of VR and AF-S. The Zeiss is a great lens but the 105 keeps up very well and for the price there is no comparing the two.

With 105 and higher focal ranges you need to move back further from the subject to get more in the frame. Some macro shooters want to get up close but still have a "wider view" of their subject.

Hey all,

Looks like the OP never chimed back in, and that was a long time ago anywho... Not too specific as to what kind of macro, what kind of portraiture (as others already brought up)...

I can't believe the Zeiss 100/2 Makro hasn't been mentioned. This and the Nikon 105/2.8 macro are (IMHO) the only two that realistically fit the bill of both macro and portraiture. Again, it really depends on the the type of shooting/subjects.

A short focal length just isn't my thing for macro, I prefer at least 120mm equiv, I appreciate my bokina 90/2.5 macro on DX. I love the 85/1.4 for portraits, on both FX and DX. My 135/2 DC is pretty cool, but macro ain't its thing w/ such a long min focal distance- tubes or close-up filter or whatever, still. And oftentimes, it is crazy close-up for portaits on DX.

But due to background compression (a huge factor for creamy bokeh), the 100mm length is a good betweener IMHO for macro and portraits. And the Zeiss 100 is a beauty. But it is MF only, no stabilization. The Nikon 105 has VR which is VERY useful for some macro work to keep lower ISO when stopping down (as another mentioned).

Very different tools, somewhat different results. But both the Zeiss 100/2 Makro and the Nikon 105/2.8 VR micro are clear winners IMHO.

Cheers.
- david

tcole1983 said:
I will add my second piece of advice...when in doubt buy the Nikon ;)

Amen!

I will add my second piece of advice...when in doubt buy the Nikon ;)

IMO working distance on the 105 is good enough for all but the most skitterish bugs.

vancwa said:
NSX - I was talking about the Tamron 90, not the Nikon 105 VR. I've used both of these lenses, they are both great. I ended up buying the Tamron because it seems every bit as sharp and less than half as expensive. Very light and tossable. For me at least the AF seems a little more decisive on the Tamron than the Nikon, a little less hunting around. If VR is important to you, by all means stick with the Nikon. I do like Nikon's AFS focus override system better than Tamron's clunky AF/MF switching. And if you want to shoot bugs, I don't don't think either of those are great because of too short of working distance. Either the Tamron 180, the Sigma 150, or the Nikon 200 macro is probably a better lens selection.

Oh, I see. I was just saying that using MF for me worked better than allowing the lens to hunt around for focus. Perhaps the camera body I was using had a little more issue with focusing than the lens was.

Ideally I would use the Nikkor 200mm, but price is a major deciding factor, of course. :D

NSX - I was talking about the Tamron 90, not the Nikon 105 VR. I've used both of these lenses, they are both great. I ended up buying the Tamron because it seems every bit as sharp and less than half as expensive. Very light and tossable. For me at least the AF seems a little more decisive on the Tamron than the Nikon, a little less hunting around. If VR is important to you, by all means stick with the Nikon. I do like Nikon's AFS focus override system better than Tamron's clunky AF/MF switching. And if you want to shoot bugs, I don't don't think either of those are great because of too short of working distance. Either the Tamron 180, the Sigma 150, or the Nikon 200 macro is probably a better lens selection.

vancwa said:
"I heard the auto focus is very slow on the tamron."

Not as fast as a newer/faster AFS lens. It's actually fine, expecially if you use the focus limiter and don't try to AF from 3" to infinity all the time. Sports might be an issue, but portraits and macro (what I use it for) are inconsequential because they are static subjects.

Interesting that you note that- the AF on the 105 VR slows quite a bit for close focusing- perhaps because the D40's AF is a little bad. I usually let it AF then switch it to MF and move in and out to get the right plane of focus. It's a bit of a trial and error, but I think it's better than trusting the D40's AF system. For long distance shots, like portraiture and such, the AF is bang on though. VR helps a bit in macro handheld shooting too. I don't see a tripod as a very useful help for bug shots because they move around way too much. Flowers maybe, and if it's windy it still won't help you freeze motion of the petals.

"I heard the auto focus is very slow on the tamron."

Not as fast as a newer/faster AFS lens. It's actually fine, expecially if you use the focus limiter and don't try to AF from 3" to infinity all the time. Sports might be an issue, but portraits and macro (what I use it for) are inconsequential because they are static subjects.

vancwa said:
One vote for the Tamron 90 f/2.8 and works on both FX and DX. A great macro, and a fine portrait lens with a better working distance than a 60mm.

I heard the auto focus is very slow on the tamron.

One vote for the Tamron 90 f/2.8 and works on both FX and DX. A great macro, and a fine portrait lens with a better working distance than a 60mm.

Mike Gunter said:
Hi,

My 60mm is certainly made of metal; it's a heavy mother.

It was serviced by Nikon last year and works fine. It was bought in the late 80's or early 90's, but works just fine as a portrait lens. I've thought about updating it, but don't much see the point. I think it would be worth getting the 105mm for the VR. The contrast is terrific.

My best,

Mike

The 105mm isn't light either. :D

I agree, VR is another selling point of that lens. If I need to stop down a little bit more, the VR helps a bit without bumping ISO up too much.

tcole1983 said:
It looks like it is, but the build quality is much better on the 105. Maybe it just felt light or something when I tried them out, but the build on the 60 and 85 micro compared to say the 18-200 where the 105 compared to like the 70-200.

Haven't held a 60mm 2.8, but it seemed like a focal length too close to my 35mm, which is another reason why I didn't get the 60mm.

PB PM said:
The 60mm F2.8G is made of metal, but it doesn't have anywhere near as much glass as the lenses you mentioned, which is why it is so light.

That would make sense too.

The 60mm F2.8G is made of metal, but it doesn't have anywhere near as much glass as the lenses you mentioned, which is why it is so light.

NSXType-R said:
I thought the 60mm was partly metal? I had thought about the 60mm, but when I found out that the working distance was smaller, it made a difference in my decision to get the 105mm. I don't regret getting the 105mm either.

It looks like it is, but the build quality is much better on the 105. Maybe it just felt light or something when I tried them out, but the build on the 60 and 85 micro compared to say the 18-200 where the 105 compared to like the 70-200.

NSXType-R said:
I thought the 60mm was partly metal? I had thought about the 60mm, but when I found out that the working distance was smaller, it made a difference in my decision to get the 105mm. I don't regret getting the 105mm either.

Hi,

My 60mm is certainly made of metal; it's a heavy mother.

It was serviced by Nikon last year and works fine. It was bought in the late 80's or early 90's, but works just fine as a portrait lens. I've thought about updating it, but don't much see the point. I think it would be worth getting the 105mm for the VR. The contrast is terrific.

My best,

Mike

tcole1983 said:
I think the newer 60 micro is pretty good. It just doesn't have the build of the 105 and it lacks VR. They kind of mishmashed all the stuff on the macro lenses then put everything on the 105 and made it expensive : )

I thought the 60mm was partly metal? I had thought about the 60mm, but when I found out that the working distance was smaller, it made a difference in my decision to get the 105mm. I don't regret getting the 105mm either.

Mike Gunter said:
Hi all,

When I was shooting film, I used the 105mm f2.8 a lot for portraits, but for DX the 60mm is very good. I originally had it for slide copying, but it does great double duty as a macro or for portraits.

Mine is a much older model, I don't know how it compares to newer lenses.

My best,

Mike

I think the newer 60 micro is pretty good. It just doesn't have the build of the 105 and it lacks VR. They kind of mishmashed all the stuff on the macro lenses then put everything on the 105 and made it expensive : )

Hi all,

When I was shooting film, I used the 105mm f2.8 a lot for portraits, but for DX the 60mm is very good. I originally had it for slide copying, but it does great double duty as a macro or for portraits.

Mine is a much older model, I don't know how it compares to newer lenses.

My best,

Mike

DutchNikon said:
I feel that most Makro lenses are to sharp to be a good portrait lens, i like the "Softer Drawing" lenses for portrait's a lo better.

The Macro's are great but (being a lens techie-junkie) have been looking for some softer portrait lenses to play with. The macros can be too sharp if you are going going for more of a classical look. Zeiss has a 50mm f/1.5 that is suppose to do this and still be sharp just less contrast on the edges. I now want this lens, and a M8/9. Not going to happen, but I can dream. I would like to see something like this for a Nikon mount.

I have learned a new term called micro contrast in lens design. It is something that Zeiss and Leica designers try to perfect to draw images in a certain way. I'm starting to see and learn that is why their lenses "draw" images slightly different is by controlling this (and many other things.)

Just a note on the 135 DC if anyone was considering it: it works wonderfully as a portrait lens, but is awful as a macro lens (with extension obviously) since the amount of lateral chromatic aberration you get is abysmal. It is probably one of the worst cases of chromatic aberration I've ever seen.

If I needed a combined portrait and macro lens (I would prefer a separate one for both) I would opt for the 50/1.8 AFd- very inexpensive, no distortion and limited chromatic aberration, and very cheap too. For macro use you would obviously need extension tubes (for low magnification) or bellows (for higher magnification) but I don't find that to be a problem (you might). For portrait use, the focal length is excellent for head/shoulders shots since it forces you to get close (giving you a better range of viewpoints and a more engaging perspective), but not too close. I actually prefer the 50/1.8 to the much more expensive 135 DC when I can move closer, but this is just my opinion.

+1 with tcole. The 105 is the best for both macro & portraits.

They are all sharp. The 105 F2.8 VR is the best lens I own and I love it. I know the other macros have gotten good reviews, but the working distance is short for them to do macro work. You can double up, but the best Nikon macro isn't really the ideal portrait length. The 85 or 60 are better lengths for the portrait work. I don't think you would be disappointed with any of them, but the 60 is at least F2.8.

It was hard for me to decide on this one as well. Each lens is a few different features and none except the 105 that has them all. The 85 is slower but has VR. The 60 is F2.8 and doesn't have VR.

The 105 is/was my first pro level Nikon lens and you won't ever want to go back to any others after you use it. It really is an awesome lens and will spoil you.

I feel that most Makro lenses are to sharp to be a good portrait lens, i like the "Softer Drawing" lenses for portrait's a lo better. Focal Length ? depends on the type of portrait, torso + shoulders + head ==> 35 or 50mm 1.4D, Shoulders + Head + more distance to resolve the background ( Bokeh_ ) I'd say 85mm 1.4 - 135 mm f2 (DC) , Total blur of environment and discreet distance from the model : 180mm 2.8 for sure ...

I have the Nikon 60mm f/2.8 and it has worked great for me. I have used it for macro but on a DX Nikon it would be like using a 90mm lens which should work great for portrait work.

My 2 cents.

Mark

I concur with the above posters. I have the old 55mm 2.8 ais as well. Tt's pretty awesome.

Otherwise I would go for 60mm 2.8 or 105mm 2.8