where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
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.)
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?
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?
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.
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!
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 :-)
You must log in to post.
