Does any one have experience with both those lens? I hear the 105mm f2.8 is very good, but pricewise at 400$ CDN less the DX 85mm f3.5 would be interesting if quality is not to much sacrificed. Or do you have any other micro suggestions.
AF-S DX micro 85mm f3.5 VR vs AF-S micro 105mm f2.8 VR
(36 posts) (18 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
You might search. Pretty sure all the macro lenses have been discussed. The 105 is far superior in build quality. It can double as a portrait lens. The 85 is only f3.5...so it is slower. They are both sharp. I have used and held the 85 and I don't like the feel of the lens (feels kind of cheap. 105 gives you more working room between the lens and subject. There are a couple of third party macro lenses that are rated pretty high, but I haven't tried them.
Posted 2 years ago # -
105mm is nice. You get the benifit of Macro and Portrait in one lens. Next to my 70-200,..this is my favorite lens.
Posted 2 years ago # -
The 105mm Micro gives you more working distance. It's also an excellent portrait length. But, I would probably rather not spend so much on a macro lens (since I, personally, don't use them that often), and opt for the less expensive, 60mm Micro instead. I would then spend the rest of what I "saved" toward getting a whole 'nother lens, like an AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D.
As I mentioned in another thread, the 85mm on a DX body is great for portraits. At a 127.5mm-equivalent, it's very close to the "classic," 135mm, full-frame, portrait-length lens. Portraits shot with the 85mm look great, also because it's much easier to blur your background with an f/1.8 lens, than it is with an f/2.8 lens.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Hi,
I have both the 60mm and 105mm (older models) and like them. I use them for portraits and macro and the 60 with the slide copier and both on the rail system.
They're very sharp and have a terrific bokeh.
Here's a sample of the 105mm.
;-)
My best,
Mike
Posted 2 years ago # -
Like most of the modern Nikon lenses, optical quality is not sacrificed, but what you lose for $400 is the build quality, maximum aperture, working distance, and the ability to cover FX (but I believe it is considerably lighter and smaller). If those are ok with you, then the 85/3.5 DX macro will suit you fine. For me, I wouldn't bother with the 85, since I know that those factors will bother me and I'll want to replace it in a few years.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I had done a forum search and only could find many good comments on the 105, but had fail to find anything on the 85 f3.5 (found many on the 85 f1.4 but our of my budget league). So by the lack of any threads on the 85 f3.5 I have my answer there, with you numerous comments too, I'll go 105 and if seriously broke will compromise with the 60mm as it was suggested to be good too.
Thanks for the help.
Mike, I love your picture and always find any input you make on this forum to be valuable bits of gold to the newbie that I am. Can I call you Yoda? Will you be my master? When do we begin my photographic Jedi course? lol
Jokes aside, do you have a web site so I can inspire myself with more of your work?
And I mean no disrespect to the others, since you are all helpful and informative as well.
Benoît
Posted 2 years ago # -
lauzobe - that's a good choice. n105vr is a terriffic lens. I love the bokeh, sharpness and speed of this lens. another benefit is. the fact that it works with teleconverters. ocassionally I couple it with TC17II to get a nice prime tele +/-180mm f4.0 on fx and +/-270mm f4.0 on dx. one more thing You had to know about this lens, although it's a prime it doesn't keep 2.8 on all distances, but that's a common factor with all macro lenses.
Posted 2 years ago # -
-
This is not just true with prime lenses, but with all lenses. As you decrease the focus distance, you increase the effective focal length while the aperture size remains the same (don't confuse this with focus breathing, or the change in field of view at different distances etc... they are separate issues). Thus, your f-stop number increases by a factor of 1+M, where M is your magnification (0.5 for 1:2, 1 for 1:1, 2 for 2:1 etc...), so at 1:1 distances, you will always lose 2 stops of light. Some lenses can reduce this by decreasing the focal length slightly at closer distances, so you may not see a full 2 stops reductions.
Nobody really needs to worry about this too much, since the camera is able to calculate those for you, or you can always just compensate manually. At macro distances, you will want to stop down anyway to get depth of field, so not being able to have your "rated" maximum aperture is not a big deal. At "normal" distances where you might actually want the 2.8, you will get it.
Posted 2 years ago # -
-
Hi lauzobe,
Thank you so much for your comments. The 105mm that I have is somewhere around 20 years old and doesn't have VR. The shot was taken a few months ago and was taken with a tripod. The lens is terrific. It's traveled to South America and Europe and still looks pretty new-ish. The 60mm is very good, too. I like it a lot, and would likely not have it, but for the slide copier. It does make a great portrait lens, but the 50mm 1.8 is a little be faster and lighter.
There are a ton of great folks here to get a lot of great information from - I learn from them every day. In this thread Adamz, Monty, and Jerl all pitched in to explain the relationship between proximity of a lens to subject and to maximum aperture, and how that changes with all lenses.
It's the same in all the threads. If there is an abundance of riches, the gold is here.
I do plan to have a site up - as soon as I get my current plate clean - to offer what 'insight' I have for beginning professionals and Photoshop post production, and that should be in March. Of course, it might be as small as a 25 words or less. ;-)
My best,
Mike
Posted 2 years ago # -
I'm guessing you need the AFS?
One doesn't even know what tack sharp means until you use a Nikon Macro. I beleive the first words out of my mouth were "Dear God" when I got my 60mm and "Holly Shit" when the files loaded from my 105vr.
I have used the 85mm 3.5 and it is a great macro and tremendously sharp but I didn't like it for much else due to the max F3.5 and the 85mm just was an odd length. I use my 85mm 1.8 all the time but for macro and with the F3.5 it just never felt right. Being a DX as well doesn't fit into my plans to move to FX in the future. I believe it was intended more of a dedicated macro and have seen it packaged with allot of scientific and other business applications.
I agree with others, I have the older 60mm 2.8 AFD and used the AFS version (Didn't upgrade since I don't need the AFS). Both are amazing and are great lenses for DX. It is close to the 50mm but they are miles apart. Tack sharp and the bokeh is great. The close focus is great for portraits to fill the frame. They are so solidly built they will last a lifetime like Mike G has described.
If you are looking for a Macro and don't want to spend the $ for the 105vr I would go to the 60mm over the 85mm.
The only other Macro I would suggest would be the Tokina 100mm F2.8.
Posted 2 years ago # -
one more thing about macro lenses in general, there's one more difference between macro and regular lens not many ppl may know. it's the way macro lenses handle diffraction. on regular lenses once You cross f11 You will see that diffraction kicks in, on macro lenses the line is moved further, almost to the end of f scale.
Posted 2 years ago # -
monty11 said:
He means that the closer you focus the smaller the aperture becomes.Thanks all for trying to help me understand this concept. I must confess it is a little un-nerving to ask the question in public, but I'm hoping that there are others reading this that are thinking "I'm pleased he's asking that and not me". In spite of your very thorough explanation jerl, and reading and re-reading through it slowly, I'm still not sure I get it. (Very embarrassing, but I'll continue to publicly humiliate myself for the reason previously mentioned). What I think you're saying is that this is a "PERCEIVED" reduction in aperture? In other words the aperture reading on the camera doesn't actually change, if you are shooting in "A" with 2.8 set, this won't change regardless of the focusing distance, but the actual depth of field that you see in the shot will? I do understand the principle or effect of the relationship between depth of field and the respective distance from the camera and the various subjects in the shot. (Not sure if I've described that properly, hopefuly you understand what I mean). Adamz original comment that the aperture changed according to the focus distance threw me, because athough I've obviously noticed this when zooming in and out on a lens that doesn't have a constant aperture across it's focal length (my 70-300 f4.5-5.6 is a good example), where as you zoom from 70mm to 300, the aperture changes in the display of the camera (if you had it set to f4.5), I thought he was saying that the same phenomenon was visible when you adjusted focus with a macro lens? I thought "I've never noticed that"! You're right Mike, all of us understand different concepts of photography, and have had different experiences (not many as much as you! ;-), this is why this forum is so good, because we all genuinely want to help each other on our journey to taking that "perfect" shot. I'll re-read your post jerl, and try and get my head round your very good explanation. Sorry for hijacking this thread.
Posted 2 years ago # -
-
skint, that's work excactly the same, but instead of changing the zoom You change the magnification, and yes the new aperture is showing in the camera window
po naszemu: jak sie przyblizysz do obiektu, to jak z metra miales f2.8, to z kilku cm bedziesz mial f4, mimo tego ze nic nie zmieniales w puszce i na wyswietlaczu pojawi ci sie nowa wartosc
Posted 2 years ago # -
Oh yeah, the 105 is great, but I hear lots of good things too about the 85. If you want to stay with DX, that might be a better lens for you. Also, shooting indoor portraits, the 105 is maybe a bit tight. It depends on you, but I certainly like the fact that it's a fast short telephoto that focuses quickly. Right now I think it's the autofocus of the D40 that's holding back the lens, not the lens' fault that it sometimes hunts a bit. With enough light and contrast and not confusing it with a macro shot, it's bang on all the time. I would describe the AF as scary fast, even when my other fast lens is a 35mm 1.8, which in theory should be faster, but obviously it is not a pro grade lens.
This is my first pro grade lens, and although I don't have money to perpetuate NAS, it has certainly set the ball rolling.
It's a bit heavy, I haven't found a bag large enough to fit all my lenses with my body, and it's expensive- I'm still suffering from buyer's remorse.
But I'm enjoying it more the more I use it. And obviously, to know that it'll work with DX and FX is great peace of mind.
Posted 2 years ago # -
The 85mm is a nice lens, and for actual macro work the difference between the 85mm VR and 105mm VR is minimal at the most. The 105mm VR is F4.8 max aperture at 1:1 vs F5 for the 85mm at 1:1, so when all is said and done the difference in shutter speed is basically non-existent. The 85mm F3.5G VR isn't as nice for portraits, but overall it is a nice sharp lens, for about half the price of the 105mm VR. Lets put it this way, I've had my 85mm macro for almost a year now and don't regret buying it all.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I own a Tamron AF SP90 and it is so sharp that when I use it to shoot portraits of ladies, they always scold me when they see their photos as all their blemishes can be seen :-).
What I noticed with this lens is that at normal head shot distances, the aperture opens to around f/3 max and not f/2.8. From what I can make out from Jerl's post, I think this is due to the focal length being longer at this distance, and since the f-stop is equal to focal length divided by the effective diameter of the aperture, the f-stop number is larger since the numerator has become bigger.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Don't ignore working distance.
Posted 2 years ago # -
adamz said:
skint, that's work excactly the same, but instead of changing the zoom You change the magnification, and yes the new aperture is showing in the camera windowpo naszemu: jak sie przyblizysz do obiektu, to jak z metra miales f2.8, to z kilku cm bedziesz mial f4, mimo tego ze nic nie zmieniales w puszce i na wyswietlaczu pojawi ci sie nowa wartosc
Mam dużo do nauki, dziękuję za Twoją przyjaźń!
Posted 2 years ago # -
-
?? I was sure the 105 had a much lower working distance than that? .
I think the working distance of the 60 mm micro is the lowerst at about 50mm both the tamron 90 and the tamron 60 F2.0( This is what I recommend you look into as well) have similar working distances of about 100mm I think the 105 is about 140mm or so.
NOTE: Minimum focusing distance has only a small relationship to working distance which is the distance between the front of the lense and the subject.
If you are happy with DX then seriously consider the Tamrom 60 F2.0 as an alternative to the nikon 85. the 60 F2 is a really nice portrait lens on DX
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
