PB PM said:
The 85mm F3.5VR is an interesting lens, good for macro work, and okay for portraits, but due to the largest aperture being F3.5 you do need more working distance between your subject and the background. I've got my best portraits with the 300mm F4 AF-S oddly enough.

Not too sure what you mean about F3.5 and working distances ...

For portraits many of the "glamour" style photographers use lenses with reaches to 200 - 400.
the 100-400 L (sorry for bringing up that other company) is one of the most used for this task.
in our world the 70-200 is of course the king (with the 1.7TC!)

PS: Its actually quite funny.. the photographer is so far away that he uses a telephone to direct the model :-)

clillja said:
The Tamron 60mm f2 is very attractive, but it has a lot a barrel distortion ..

In the reviews I read of the Tamron I had not noticed them mentioning the barrel distortion so I was not sure.. I have just checked the reviews again and yes it has some barrel distortion but its classes as "imperceptible".. other reviews say that it good points is the lack of distortions ..
For most macro and portrait work you would not notice. the only issue is if you are doing copy work like photographing stamps etc or art work but its so slight and you can correct in software easily these days anyway.

Its a great lens for macro work and can be used for portrait to blur the back ground.. The bokeh is also very nice.. there is a significant difference going from F2.8 to F2 if you are using this focal length lens for portrait. Definitely a contender!

warprints said:
Hmm. I have neither of these lenses, but this thread prompted me to read reviews of these lenses and it seems the consensus is the 60 2.8 micro is lightening fast - photozone even notes the macro limiter was not necessary on this lens due to its speed. Shivas - do you also have the 105 micro? How does it compare in focus speed with your 60?

Nope, only the 60 mm 2.8 and I casually compared it to a 85 3.5 before I gave it away as a present (haha), I'm suspecting that might barometer for speed might be slightly off, as using it on non-pro bodies might impact AF-speed greatly. . .

Regardless, it's an awesome macro lens and I'd highly recommend it for anyone looking for a prime in that range.

shivaswrath said:

Curious, what bodies are you using to claim the 60 mm 2.8 micro your fastest focusing lens?

D3 and D300. Never used it on D200 and D90, but I guess AF speed depends on body.. In any case, focus speed is insane anyway, way faster than any older AF lenses.

Hmm. I have neither of these lenses, but this thread prompted me to read reviews of these lenses and it seems the consensus is the 60 2.8 micro is lightening fast - photozone even notes the macro limiter was not necessary on this lens due to its speed. Shivas - do you also have the 105 micro? How does it compare in focus speed with your 60?

stm93 said:
this makes me think you've never used 60mm 2.8. If you had, maybe it was a broken copy, but in my daily practice it's lightning fast. I understand that if you're doing exclusively macro, focusing might take longer, but for regular portraits at normal distances this lense is THE fastest I've ever used.

It's in my bag, trust me I use it PLENTY. Used on a D200 and on a D90, I find the 60mm 2.8 to be slower than my 24-70 and 70-200. Maybe it's my body or my experience, but the 35 1.8 tops my current list of primes in AF speed when compared to the 50 and 60. . . but hey, that's just my experience on 2 bodies. Like Niko said, the metering and AF differs on all bodies and that could impact AF speed.

Curious, what bodies are you using to claim the 60 mm 2.8 micro your fastest focusing lens?

Here's some more info to add to the confusion: I love my 85/1.8 on a D300/D700/D2x, but I haven't found a D90 that will focus the 85/1.8 accurately. I'm actually going to send my D90 in because of this. Had the same problem with the 50/1.4 and 1.8.

Can't say anything about the 60mm Tamron, but I've only had good experiences with the 60mm micro Nikkors (manual, AFS, and non-AFS.)

I agree. It's so fast that I didn't even know it has locked focus :p

shivaswrath said:
Fascinating. . .I'm not sure I know anyone who would tout a macro lens as fast focusing. . .but I guess we're all entitled to our own. . .

For primes in my bag, I would rank the 35 1.8 >> 50 1.4=60 2.8 (all Nikkor)
My zooms squash the $hit outta of the primes, with the 70-200 VR2>>24-70 2.8 (all Nikkor).

Is the 50mm 1.4 really all that slow? And is the 35mm 1.8 really all that fast? I would imagine the 1.4 to be kinda quick because it's a higher end lens. And since the 35mm 1.8 is cheap-ish, I would imagine it to be on the kinda slow side.

NikoDoby said:
On which camera body stm93? A d3 will focus faster than a d40 for example

Even AF-S? The motor is inside the lens, shouldn't it be about the same if you discount the larger number of AF points?

On which camera body stm93? A d3 will focus faster than a d40 for example

shivaswrath said:
Fascinating. . .I'm not sure I know anyone who would tout a macro lens as fast focusing. . .but I guess we're all entitled to our own. . .

this makes me think you've never used 60mm 2.8. If you had, maybe it was a broken copy, but in my daily practice it's lightning fast. I understand that if you're doing exclusively macro, focusing might take longer, but for regular portraits at normal distances this lense is THE fastest I've ever used.

heartyfisher said:
I have to disagree with your disagreement !! :-)

Yes proper portrait starts from 80-85mm thats why the 85mm lenses are classics.. but the 60mm on DX has the same FOV as a 90mm and hence perfect for portraits.

PS: you are free to disagree with this disagreement to your disagreement...

I think I'm done disagreeing with you. I searched a bit and read what our favourite KR had to say about this. I had got it ackbasswards :D I thought the facial distortion had something to the lens' barrel distortion but it actually comes from the distance of the camera from the subject. Smaller sensor means that you have to be further away to fill the frame, thus the problem is solved.

stm93 said:
SLOW FOCUS??? This is the fastest focusing lense I've ever used, and I've used about 20 nikkor lenses in total. 85mm 1.4/1.8 are about 5 times slower than this.

Fascinating. . .I'm not sure I know anyone who would tout a macro lens as fast focusing. . .but I guess we're all entitled to our own. . .

For primes in my bag, I would rank the 35 1.8 >> 50 1.4=60 2.8 (all Nikkor)
My zooms squash the $hit outta of the primes, with the 70-200 VR2>>24-70 2.8 (all Nikkor).

shivaswrath said:

The 60 2.8 is a macro lens, with slow focus, and disgustingly sharp characteristics - you probably want to stay away from using it for portraits it's THAT sharp!

SLOW FOCUS??? This is the fastest focusing lense I've ever used, and I've used about 20 nikkor lenses in total. 85mm 1.4/1.8 are about 5 times slower than this.

The 85mm F3.5VR is an interesting lens, good for macro work, and okay for portraits, but due to the largest aperture being F3.5 you do need more working distance between your subject and the background. I've got my best portraits with the 300mm F4 AF-S oddly enough.

clillja said:
Yeah, like I said I use mine a lot as a general purpose lens. It's not in the same price category as the others, but it has paid for itself several times over. I still wish there was a shorter, fastish, VR prime. Like I said, the 60 (with VR) would be great.

Anyone use the DX 85/3.5VR as a general purpose lens?

I reviewed awhile ago. . .it's a sharp lens, not sure it's all purpose though. . ..

clillja said:
Yeah, like I said I use mine a lot as a general purpose lens. It's not in the same price category as the others, but it has paid for itself several times over. I still wish there was a shorter, fastish, VR prime. Like I said, the 60 (with VR) would be great.

Anyone use the DX 85/3.5VR as a general purpose lens?

That's my next lens on my "purchase" list. It's not terribly pricy, but for the price you get good bang for the buck. I've always wanted to try out macro. But then that might also mean I need to get a decent tripod as well.

I'm starting to realize that you are right. Macro is for macro.

These are honestly 2 VERY different lenses. . .

The 85 is really a long portrait, most suitable in wedding/event situations where you are far enough back and want good isolation of the subject.

The 60 2.8 is a macro lens, with slow focus, and disgustingly sharp characteristics - you probably want to stay away from using it for portraits it's THAT sharp!

I think VR on the 85 would most definitely help reduce some "shake". I really notice a difference compared to my 35 1.8.

I'm going to try some macro's again tomorrow.........60 nikon and tamron. 85 micro as well.

I do wish the 85 1.8 focused more closely.

NSXType-R said:
How about the 105mm 2.8?

Yeah, like I said I use mine a lot as a general purpose lens. It's not in the same price category as the others, but it has paid for itself several times over. I still wish there was a shorter, fastish, VR prime. Like I said, the 60 (with VR) would be great.

Anyone use the DX 85/3.5VR as a general purpose lens?

How about the 105mm 2.8?

The Tamron 60mm f2 is very attractive, but it has a lot a barrel distortion (compared to a Micro Nikkor) if you ever plan to use it as a macro lens. It's not exactly AF-S, either, with a slightly noisy motor... points to ponder... If the Nikkor 60/2.8 had VR it would be a no-brainer...

I had a guy tell me he used a 400/2.8 to shoot his models (from about 100 feet) because anything else made their faces look "fat." His results were quite good, though.

Loved my AF 85/1.8 for as long as I had it, just thought it was a little too long for DX handheld with no VR... I still have an old Nikkor H 85/1.8 which seems just as sharp, but with (IMO) nicer bokeh rendering... I use the 105VR way more, though.

No one said that you can shoot portraits at 85mm or more only. Heck, Joe McNally shoots portraits with his 14-24 all the time :)

monty11 said:
I would have to disagree with you here ... proper portrait lenses start from 80-85mm, anything under that still distorts the face. I guess that a 60 mm would do if you're not too much of a perfectionist.

I have to disagree with your disagreement !! :-)

Yes proper portrait starts from 80-85mm thats why the 85mm lenses are classics.. but the 60mm on DX has the same FOV as a 90mm and hence perfect for portraits.

PS: you are free to disagree with this disagreement to your disagreement...