Hi guys.. just a quick one..
What’s the best combined DX Macro & Portrait lens ??
DX Macro & Portrait lens..
(32 posts) (18 voices)-
60mm 2.8 is nice. I use the older D version and it's great. I guess it depends on what kind of macro, though. And what kind of portrait. ;-)
Posted 2 years ago # -
I've loved the 55mm f2.8 but that's a little older...
Posted 2 years ago # -
AF-S 105 / 2.8 VR
I used this lens for portraits before I bought 85/1.8.
(D200, D2x)Posted 2 years ago # -
Consider the new tamron 60mm F2.0 .. DX macro lens. nice bokeh.
But i use my sigma 150 macro for both macro and portraits.
depending on my mood I also use my 35-70 F2.8 for portrait, add DCR250 for macro.
I am considering a sigma 50-150 F2.8 DX as a dedicated portrait lens and macrp +DCR250, only thing stoping me is its got no VR/OS.Posted 2 years ago # -
105mm 2.8, you want the extra working length, from what I hear.
That's what I'm saving up for as well, as long as Nikon doesn't come out with a crazy good lens for the same $800 or so.
Posted 2 years ago # -
The old 55 micro was great and with a doubler, you get 110 and extra close focusing.
Posted 2 years ago # -
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
Posted 2 years ago # -
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 ...
Posted 1 year ago # -
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.
Posted 1 year ago # -
+1 with tcole. The 105 is the best for both macro & portraits.
Posted 1 year ago # -
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.
Posted 1 year ago # -
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.)
Posted 1 year ago # -
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
Posted 1 year ago # -
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 : )
Posted 1 year ago # -
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.
Posted 1 year ago # -
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
Posted 1 year ago # -
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.
Posted 1 year ago # -
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.
Posted 1 year ago # -
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.
Posted 1 year ago # -
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.
Posted 1 year ago # -
-
"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.
Posted 1 year ago # -
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.
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
