85 1.8 or micro? 60 2.8 « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon DSLR

85 1.8 or micro? 60 2.8

(32 posts) (12 voices)

Tags:

No tags yet.

12 Next »

kiteflyer

junior member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 7
offline

So the 85 1.8 just showed up the other day (thanks to my better half).

First impressions are good. Fantastic build quality-nice feel to the lens.

It Does get rid of backgrounds and I do like the pictures I get from it but I have noticed that it is a little long on my D90, also it seems hard to get perfect focus. Maybe I'm just used to VR and more depth of field.

I have just a few days to decide on keeping the lens and have been thinking that a macro might be a better option for me

What do you guys think of the Nikon 60 2.8 or Tamron 60 2.0??

Thanks!

50/50 use portrait and close up?

Posted 3 years ago #
stm93

member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 22
offline

I have to say that I own 85mm 1.4 and 60mm 2.8. I hardly ever use 85, in my opinion 60mm is much more suitable for portraits, plus the obvious macro bonus. I don't really shoot at night so I don't need 1.4 aperture, and 60mm 2.8 is perfect for me and is as sharp or even sharper than 85mm.

Posted 3 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

They're different lenses though. The 85mm 1.8 is not a macro lens while the 60mm is. It really depends on what type of work you wish to do.

Posted 3 years ago #
kiteflyer

junior member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 7
offline

How fast does the 60 focus? Can you keep up with toddlers--I've got two young ones

How does the bokeh compare between the 85 1.8 and 60 2.8?

One of my goals with this lens is to obliterate backgrounds when taking some portraits.

Thanks!

Posted 3 years ago #
gnohz

junior member
Joined: Dec '09
Posts: 8
offline

I just got a 60 2.8 just the other day, and I was very surprised at the speed of the autofocus. Simply put, it blowed me away :D It's the fastest focusing lens that I have now, not to say deadly accurate as well.

Posted 3 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

My vote goes to the Tamron 60 F2.0..

Pro
* F2 vs F2.8
* Double the working distance in macro mode (99 mm vs 50mm )

Con
* Not a Nikon.

Dont know how fast or slow or accurate the tamron is compared to the nikkor.. but for both uses you mentioned most of the time the DOF is so fine that you will need to LEARN manual focusing techniques anyway.

PS: Tamron seems to be having a huge price reduction at the moment !!

Posted 3 years ago #
monty11

Member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 798
offline

stm93 said:
I hardly ever use 85, in my opinion 60mm is much more suitable for portraits, plus the obvious macro bonus.

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.

Posted 3 years ago #
heartyfisher

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,701
offline

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...

Posted 3 years ago #
stm93

member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 22
offline

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 :)

Posted 3 years ago #
clillja

preferred member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 121
offline

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.

Posted 3 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

How about the 105mm 2.8?

Posted 3 years ago #
clillja

preferred member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 121
offline

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?

Posted 3 years ago #
kiteflyer

junior member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 7
offline

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.

Posted 3 years ago #
shivaswrath

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 841
offline

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!

Posted 3 years ago #
kiteflyer

junior member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 7
offline

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

Posted 3 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

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.

Posted 3 years ago #
shivaswrath

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 841
offline

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. . ..

Posted 3 years ago #
PB PM

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 2,217
offline

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.

Posted 3 years ago #
stm93

member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 22
offline

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.

Posted 3 years ago #
shivaswrath

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 841
offline

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).

Posted 3 years ago #
monty11

Member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 798
offline

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.

Posted 3 years ago #
stm93

member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 22
offline

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.

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

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

Posted 3 years ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

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?

Posted 3 years ago #
gnohz

junior member
Joined: Dec '09
Posts: 8
offline

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

Posted 3 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

12 Next »

Reply »

You must log in to post.

The new Nikon Rumors Forum is now live at http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussions. This forum is now in "read only" mode until I figure a proper way to import all data over to the new platform. Please register over at the new forum.

85 1.8 or micro? 60 2.8

Reply »