I agree that VR is a good idea for macro or close-up, ESPECIALLY when using longer focal lengths at greater distances. I often photograph butterflies and there is no time to set-up a tripod, you have to move quickly - very quickly in hot sun.
Would you buy the new 85mm DX macro lens
(43 posts) (24 voices)-
Posted 2 years ago #
-
At 1:1 I dont think autofocus nor VR helps very much at all. In fact autofocus is just annoying and VR (nikon says so) is not applicable. but I agree if you are not at the 1:1 distances say around 1:2.5 it can be helpful.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Hi all,
PatMan's thoughtful comments are certainly not without merit, but I have the 105mm lens (it's getting very long in the tooth), and it has taken some fine pictures. The only thing it's missing is VR.
I guess I saying if I were to 'replace' it, I likely would go to a 105mm rather than an 85mm if any reason than a 'possible' upgrade to FX. Something I have a jones for, but may not do. But I'd like to have that option. I'd like to have a lens kit that keeps my options clearer.
The lens would be brighter for me to view and give me more reach, too.
My best,
Mike
Posted 2 years ago # -
For me, not a chance now, I already have the 105 macro and I'm enjoying every bit of it.
Yes it's much more expensive and heavier, but I do like that it's a faster lens and there's more reach.
Posted 2 years ago # -
while I love my micro nikkors, a 50mm 1.8 AIS and a set of extension tubes make a fantastic and cheap macro lens abeit manual but good for shooting many things without putting out $600
Posted 2 years ago # -
I see the reason to not understand putting vr on the 105mm 2.8 but when used for a portrait lens to get a little bit more subject isolation the vr is nice. If nikon is willing to give me more I will welcome it as long as I can find a reason for having it.
~CheesPosted 2 years ago # -
ted2001 said:
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 . . . 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.I guess my answer would be "no," also.
While not very sexy, the AF 60mm Micro-Nikkor f/2.8D is both cheaper and faster than the 85mm DX. Plus, it's FX-compatible. If you don't do a lot of macro, I think the 60mm is ideal: it's fairly fast, it's a fun focal length anyway, and it's also a fairly compact lens. If outdoors, it also lessens the need to carry around a 50mm.
If you plan on doing a lot of macro photography, and don't already own another 105mm lens, then the 105mm VR may suit you better, and would give you more working distance. But, I actually like the way the shorter, 60m Micro shoots (plus, I already own two other 105mm lenses: 105mm f/2.0 DC, 105mm f/1.8 AI-S). And, I definitely like the way the 60mm packs, since I'm more likely to take a macro lens on a hiking trip rather than to somewhere I'm just driving to.
Posted 2 years ago # -
@casperwb - jeezsh what's up with pulling up all the 1+ year old stuff? ;)
This was just talked to death last week.
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=3183This is what I posted there:
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 # -
85 micro vs 60 micro
1) The 85 has almost 3 times the working distance.. This alone would be the deal clincher. esp for insects!
2) DOF will be better or similar.
3) Some say 85 is too long? I dunno I use my 150mm for portraits too.85 micro vs 105 micro
basically its a longer 105 for dx at a much cheaper price. they have almost the same Working distance.if you are a dx macro shooter. the 85mm is a great value! if you also want to do portraits with it, its still good. but the 60mm F2.0 Tamron MACRO may be better than the 60mm micro nikkor.
If you are currently a DX shooter but LUST after FX. Forget FX! (;-) she is too expensive!
"love the one you are with" ;-) Heh!Posted 2 years ago # -
-
heartyfisher said:
85 micro vs 60 micro
1) The 85 has almost 3 times the working distance.. This alone would be the deal clincher. esp for insects!
2) DOF will be better or similar.
3) Some say 85 is too long? I dunno I use my 150mm for portraits too.85 micro vs 105 micro
basically its a longer 105 for dx at a much cheaper price. they have almost the same Working distance.if you are a dx macro shooter. the 85mm is a great value! if you also want to do portraits with it, its still good. but the 60mm F2.0 Tamron MACRO may be better than the 60mm micro nikkor.
If you are currently a DX shooter but LUST after FX. Forget FX! (;-) she is too expensive!
"love the one you are with" ;-) Heh!Nothing wrong with lusting after FX lenses even when you shoot with DX. :D
Currently using a 105mm macro with a D40.
By the way, is it a 150mm lens or 105mm lens you are using? You change between the two a good bit.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I have nothing against FX glass that is useful and plays a role in DX. My 150mm Sigma Macro is FX after all.
To me that sigma 150mm F2.8 macro is in a sweet spot. the 150 macro may not suit some people but it suits me to a T.
1) its equivalent to 225mm F2.8 (on FX that would be a mighty expensive prime lens if available)
2) as a macro its WD is HUGE, almost 200mm. A bit less than the 200 micro nikkor but brighter) about 50mm better than the 105mm micro nikkor and a humungus 140mm more working distance than the 60mm micro nikkor. I don't have the 105 micro VR. VR doesnt work for MACRO! Would be nice it it had VR when using it as a tele prime though.
3) Its a 1:1 macro lens!
4) its F2.8.
5) its sharp!
6) Its cheaper.Opps sorry got carried away .. we were talking about the 85mm micro nikkor.. yes that's nice too ;-)
Posted 2 years ago # -
TaoTeJared said:
@casperwb - jeezsh what's up with pulling up all the 1+ year old stuff? ;)TaoTeJared
My apologies for digging up the old threads, just spending some time looking through the old one to get different a different point of view.
What I find sad is that a lot of people who had made meaningful contributions have left and no are no longer with us.
It would be nice to do a poll to find out what would keep the intrest of the members.
back to the original question, it just seems [to me] that the 85mm is a lens that most people would like to have and brought it back up.
will be more selective in the future
Posted 2 years ago # -
bmxdad said:
I am in the market for a Macro lens for my D300 and have yet to decide on the lens that I want.Anyway what's your thoughts on this new Nikon Macro lens
Pete
I think the 85mm DX macro is a dud. Get the 60mm AF-S instead if you are not going to take any insect photos. For that, consider the Sigma 150mm/2.8 macro, which is the only good Sigma product atm.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Just my two cents on this lens,
Before buying this 85mm/3.5 I bought an used Tamron 90mm and it was annoyingly noisy while focusing and it extended too long. The focus was struggling a lot with low light.
This 85mm has few advantages from my view:
- VR really helps if you are shooting on hand-held
- AF is pretty fast compared to Tamron
- Less Noisy
- It does not extend out, so your subject would not be disturbedI do have only 2 lens anytime. One is this macro and other is 35mm 1.8 which stays on the camera. I use this as a portrait lens or a tele-photo lens and it comes in very handy for me.
Only downside is sometimes DOF is not shallow like I wanted it to be.
If you want VR, faster AF and silent lens, go for it and you wont regret it.
Posted 2 years ago # -
FWIW the 85 f/3.5 should have about the same background softening ability as a 50 mm @ f/2. A more pleasing perspective, but hardly a portrait creamfest.
For that reason + DX only I'd be sorely tempted to go Tokina 100 f/2.8.
That said in a couple of years when you go FX I have little doubt you'd be able to sell the Nikon for enough cash to purchase the Tokina, not sure the corollary is true.
Posted 2 years ago # -
crocodilo said:
That's the setup I'm aiming for. I love the 35mm f1.8, am getting rid of my zooms, and was looking for a macro/portrait short tele to go with the D7000. f3.5 doesn't seem to impress much, but I do have good experiences with VR.For a macro+portrait for DX consider the Tamron 60 F2.0 macro I was seriously thinking of getting this but my shooting profile does not seem to suit the 60mm FOV still logically its a great lens for DX. It has the same working distance as its 90mm brother. Against the equivelent Nikkor 60micro it has double the working distance and double the speed. for portrait the F2.0 is nice and bokeh is good. It me it seemed much better than the bokeh from the 50 1.8.
Posted 2 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
