Would you buy the new 85mm DX macro lens

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon Lenses

Would you buy the new 85mm DX macro lens

(43 posts) (24 voices)

Tags:

Nikon 85mm Macro

12 Next »

bmxdad

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 1,864
offline

I am in the market for a Macro lens for my D300 and have yet to decide on the lens that I want. This lens is tempting but it is only DX and also only max F3.5. The 60mm micro F2.8 is DX and have manual aperture control which can make it easier to use with extension tubes etc. I was close to get an older vivitar 105 F2.5 macro lens a few months ago, which is a sharp lens but only M/F

Here is a macro shot by a Pentax 50mm with extension tubes:

Anyway what's your thoughts on this new Nikon Macro lens

Pete

Posted 3 years ago #
ted2001

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 726
offline

I use the current crop of Nikon micros frequently on a D90. 60/2.8, 105/2.8 and 200/4. I see no reason at all for the new 85. For macro work autofocus and VR are of very limited value, longer focal lengths extend working distances and faster means shallow depth of field for easier focusing. The 85 fails everywhere in my book. The 60 is less expensive and at 90mm DX a better portrait length (127.5 for portraits is too long for my taste). The 60 is also small and compact. For most macro work the 105 is perfect, more expensive, but f2.8 at 105mm yields easier focusing, shallow dof when wanted and decent working distance. The 200/4 is wonderful, but more specialized, expensive, big, heavy and more difficult to use.

When I heard Nikon released a new Micro-Nikkor, I was very excited. Then I read the specs.

Now I can only covet the Zeiss 100/2 Macro and Nikon's 85/2.8 PCE Micro.

Posted 3 years ago #
soap

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 606
offline

So the 1/2 stop slower 85 makes focusing harder then the 2.8 old boys?
But, yea, VR is boggling my mind at time point in time.

Posted 3 years ago #
bmxdad

preferred member
Joined: May '09
Posts: 1,864
offline

Yes I don't get the idea behind this new Lens. VR is meaningless in Macro, you should use a TriPod Period

For portraits I would rather have the 85mm F1.8 and you could use extension tubes with that one to get macro

For portraits I really like my 70-200 2.8. I usually start in the 90mm area and then zoom to adjust a bit if needed. It is heavy but I am used to use all day when shooting BMX

Anyway this new lens is not a go for me and I can not see it being a great seller for Nikon

Pete

Posted 3 years ago #
soap

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 606
offline

Though, if it IS as sharp as a Hanzo sword - does that not make up for some ills?

Posted 3 years ago #
ted2001

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 726
offline

No, since the 60, 105 and 200 are all extremely sharp. If the lens was inexpensive (like the 35/1.8) and super sharp, then maybe.

Posted 3 years ago #
soap

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 606
offline

The 85 blows the 60 out of the water MTF chart wise (even with the knowledge that the charts are made at different stops (though real-world might show otherwise)) the 105 - not so much. I didn't look at the 200 as it's a whole other ballgame.

That said - your points about the 60 serving dual-purpose as a portrait lens are quite valid, though it is barely more compact than the 85 DX.

Oh - and to answer a question I raised earler:
85mm @ 3.5 has almost exactly TWICE the depth of field of a 105 @ 2.8 - which makes that a VERY valid point.

Posted 3 years ago #
shivaswrath

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 841
offline

so it's funny this topic came up like now. . .

I heard about the macro release via the patents here on NR and I decided to wait to buy a macro, one of the few last elements missing in my bag. . .

It was the 60mm AF-S 2.8 vs. the 85 3.5 DX.

Pros for 60:
FX and DX
2.8
$539 on amazon.com
Dx0 module support
RAZOR SHARP and tested
Mangeable for my work: 60% portrait, 40% macro (something I dabble in, and I'm not a bug/insect buy, more landscape, stuff).
Fits well into my lens gap, as I have a 17-55 2.8 and eventually will get a 70-200 2.8 of some sort

Cons for 60mm:
60mm
No VR (arguably not needed at that length

85mm Pros:
the single handeley best MTF I HAVE EVER SEEN!!!
VRII

85 cons:
3.5
$529 (for a consumer lens, hello?!, if it was $299, I would've bought it for sure no q's asked, but it'll come down)
too long for my tastes
overlap with 70-200 lens (that might be macro when I buy)

Needless to say, 60mm is on its way for my Diwali present (w00t!) after badgering my wife for a bit. . .it looks like it's one of the few lenses that got marked up in the nikon price hike, so I was ok with a 2007 lens costing that much. . .

I'll post pics tomorrow when I get it (if USPS doesn't screw up). . .

Posted 3 years ago #
soap

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 606
offline

While the 85 MTF is very flat - make sure you compare it to the 60's MTF properly:
Crop the horizontal axis to match (85 isn't FX)
Assume a slight flattening of the resulting curve as the charts are recorded @ widest aperture, which favors the numbers on the 85.

Posted 3 years ago #
adamz

The Predator
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 3,461
offline

I wouldn't - for $300 more You can get 105VR - will work on FX and gives much better working distance

Posted 3 years ago #
Johndbr

preferred member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 102
offline

I will not buy the 85mm DX micro. I decided after Nikon came out with an FX camera I will not buy any more DX lenses. As of now I have a D300 and a D700. I do shoot macro quite often using the 85 PC, 105mm VR and 200mm AF.
The 200mm is my favorite overall.

Posted 3 years ago #
shivaswrath

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 841
offline

well i was simply speaking from a entry point into macro. . .for me, $500 was MAX, since it's something I'm dabbling in, most of my work is either event or landscape, which the 60mm suited just fine. . .105 at $899 was way too much, nearly 40% more than the 60mm for what, 40mm? I can slap on a 1.4 TE and get the "extra reach" everyone speaks of, no?

Posted 3 years ago #
NikoDoby

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

I agree with adam

Posted 3 years ago #
ted2001

preferred member
Joined: Jul '09
Posts: 726
offline

I too agree. Get the 105, if price and size are major considerations, then get the 60. Forget about tc's I don't think they'd work with acceptable image quality.

Posted 3 years ago #
ShadeofBlue

preferred member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 158
offline

I you are okay with going 3rd party, the 90mm Tamron macro is supposed to be ridiculously sharp. My mom has one, but I've barely shot with it, and frankly I don't like the build quality, but it's 90mm, f/2.8 and only about $450.

I'd wait for reviews to come out on the new 85mm dx if you want to go Nikon, if you can wait. It will be a while, but if the lens turns out to be super-sharp it might be worth considering after all.

Posted 3 years ago #
NSXType-R

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

Yeah, me too, I'd go for the 105mm. It's FX and DX, and it's a proven, highly well reviewed lens. For that extra $300? That's worth it in my opinion.

Posted 3 years ago #
mb

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,160
offline

New 85mm VR DX is supposed to be poor man 105 mm VR micro and it has very useful length (127mm equivalent) that will give you very good working distance for macro, VR is welcome addition probably more so for portraits done from hands, 52mm filter tread means you will be able to use same filters as on 35mm DX or kit 18-55 lens for example.
But it is DX only, lower f/3.5, without Nano coating and with only one ED and no aspherical glass elements I doubt it could compare to 60mm in real life.
And at the same price as the new and wonderful 60mm FX micro I am not so sure how successful it will be.
Nikon announced great little 35mm DX at 200$ and everybody wanted it immediately, they should have continued same thing with this 85mm DX and announce at no more then 400$.

Posted 3 years ago #
heartyfisher

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

I wonder what the working distance of the new 85 is.. the 60 is only about 50mm. I am seriously looking at the Tamron F2 as that has great specs. eg a 100mm working distance for macro work. and F2 for portrait.

Posted 3 years ago #
Johndbr

preferred member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 102
offline

Here's another thought. Consider the 105mm F2.8 manual focus micro. It would work great on the D300.

Posted 3 years ago #
mb

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,160
offline

heartyfisher - if by working distance you mean distance from the top of the lens to the subject it is around 140mm on 85mm DX for 1:1 image size, that means that you could shoot a bee that will almost fully cover you DX picture from about 140mm.

Posted 3 years ago #
iamnomad

junior member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 7
offline

Useless lens, FX and 3.5?! Nikon is not thinking these lens choices through logically. Charts are fine, but practical experience and the final image is really what matters. Much of what is on a "chart" is never actually seen. And as others have stated, VR for a macro/micro is really not that important. Save a tone of money and eBay an old 55mm f/2.8 micro manual focus, epically sharp, especially if used on your DX. Want more distance? Go with the newer 105mm f/2.8 micro, also crazy sharp.

Posted 3 years ago #
heartyfisher

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

@mb: where did you see that? (140mm working distance) That is excellent .. The 90mm tamron's working distance is 100mm. If that 140mm working distance is correct Im impressed...

Nevermind .. found it.. so for a macro lens it really is excellent! it almost triples the working distance of the 60mm and is only about 10mm less working distance than the 105 vr. .. and sharp!

Posted 3 years ago #
mb

preferred member
Joined: Apr '09
Posts: 1,160
offline

For IF lenses it is elementary to calculate working distance. It equals:
focusing distance - lens size - focal plane distance = working distance
so for AF-S 60mm micro it would be
185 - 89 - 46.5 = 49.5mm
and for AF-S 85mm DX micro it would be
286 - 98.5 - 46.5 = 141
give or take a mm or two

Posted 3 years ago #
PatMann

member
Joined: Sep '09
Posts: 37
offline

Yes, I like this lens, I think it makes great sense.

Why bring out a DX lens unless it's smaller, lighter, better on DX than the dual-format lenses?

This one weighs less than half what the 105 micro weighs. It weighs substantially less than the 60, and has a much more convenient working distance. MTF shows it's significantly sharper than the 105, needed for the closer pixel spacing of the DX sensors. F/3.5 is probably just enough to maintain autofocus at 1:1, I'm guessing that's the design criterion.

If you don't want it, and you're concerned about having a lens you can use when you go to FX, or on both systems at the same time, you have good choices in the 60 and 105 VR lenses.

For me, smaller, lighter, less-expensive high-quality lenses for the same FOV is why I think I'll be using DX for some time. I might get one FX body for low-light shooting or live performance with a couple of selected prime lenses or the 70-200, but I get results I'm quite satisfied with out of DX now.

VR seems like a good idea for available-light macro - often working at low illumination on the forest floor and with loss of light that comes from extending to 1:1, trying to get adequate depth of field. I could take a macro flash kit, but that's not traveling light. As a replacement for my outdated and optically far inferior 60mm f/2.8D micro, this looks great to me. Also a nice light travel telephoto that does double duty.

Posted 3 years ago #
casperwb

preferred member
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 558
offline

PatMann said:
Yes, I like this lens, I think it makes great sense.

Why bring out a DX lens unless it's smaller, lighter, better on DX than the dual-format lenses?

This one weighs less than half what the 105 micro weighs. It weighs substantially less than the 60, and has a much more convenient working distance. MTF shows it's significantly sharper than the 105, needed for the closer pixel spacing of the DX sensors. F/3.5 is probably just enough to maintain autofocus at 1:1, I'm guessing that's the design criterion.

If you don't want it, and you're concerned about having a lens you can use when you go to FX, or on both systems at the same time, you have good choices in the 60 and 105 VR lenses.

For me, smaller, lighter, less-expensive high-quality lenses for the same FOV is why I think I'll be using DX for some time. I might get one FX body for low-light shooting or live performance with a couple of selected prime lenses or the 70-200, but I get results I'm quite satisfied with out of DX now.

VR seems like a good idea for available-light macro - often working at low illumination on the forest floor and with loss of light that comes from extending to 1:1, trying to get adequate depth of field. I could take a macro flash kit, but that's not traveling light. As a replacement for my outdated and optically far inferior 60mm f/2.8D micro, this looks great to me. Also a nice light travel telephoto that does double duty.

Interesting and refreshing point of view that's different.

Posted 2 years ago #