Nikon 85mm vs. 105mm

[bildio]

I'm a novice. I just got a Nikon D90 with the 18mm-200mm VR lens, & a 35mm lens.

I'm interested in learning & experimenting with macro photography. I don't have any particular subjects in mind. I'll try different subjects to hone my skills, & maybe develop an area of interest after I get experience.

I'm debating between the Nikon 85mm & 105mm micro lenses. Both have AF-S & VR. I like the fact that the 85mm is lighter in weight than the 105mm. The 85mm is f/3.5 & the 105mm is f/2.8. Is the f/x.x important for macro photography, & if so which is better? Any other comments to help me decide will be appreciated.

[Jim Poor]

Rent or borrow one of each and decide what works for you.

[bildio]

Originally Posted by Jim Poor

Rent or borrow one of each and decide what works for you.

I'd like to know what the difference in these lens' focal lengths will mean for mico photography before renting or purchasing. I don't have the experience to discern the difference during a "brief" rental period.

[PhotoRebel4]

I'm fairly new to photography with DSLRs, but the longer focal length in a macro lens does the same thing as in a normal lens: it gives you more working distance. If you're shooting subject that aren't going to shy away (like flowers), a 60mm would be fine. The 85mm will give you a longer distance between you and your subject, and even more so with the 105 or a 180mm.

I think the 105 should work well for most situations, and the faster aperture will help in macro since a lot of light is important.

[jim greer]

I have the 105mm vr f/2.8G You'll grab more light with this lens then you will with 85mm, which is VERY critical in macro photography. Keep in mind that the 105 is a Nano Crystal Coated Lens. Buy the the 105 you won't be sorry. Trust me. But the price is higher about 300.00 more. Go with your budget I'm sure the 85mm will give you some great shots. But keep in mind you'll be hurting for lighting. This is just my opinion

[arcusx]

I never used the 85, but own the pre-digital 105, and it is a fantastic lens. You won't be disappointed. I imagine the VR is a big plus, as I typically use a tripod when using this lens.

[bildio]

I've been experimenting with the 85mm for several days. I think it takes very nice macro & portrait shots. I like the fact that it's light weight compared to the 105mm. However, I'm going to try the 105mm. If I don't, I'll always be wondering if I made the right choice.

[bildio]

I've been experimenting with the 105mm for a couple of days & I still can't decide. At this point, I like the lighter weight of the 85mm, & its wider angle for non-macro shots, but the 105mm is very sharp in its in-focus area. My inexperience hampers the comparison process.

I was disappointed with the 105mm the first evening after it was delivered, & thought it might be defective. The AF was poor for macro shots on a tripod & the motor was loud. The AF problem may have been due to low light on the subject &/or my inexperience with the lens. The noisy motor may have been due to the lens being cold after riding in the UPS truck all day, or maybe I was just used to the quieter 85mm lens motor. The next day the 105mm was fantastic.

Day 3 I've been comparing like shots (macro & portrait) side-by-side in iPhoto. Some shots slightly favor the 85mm,some the 105mm, & some I can't tell which is better. Most of the time I need to study the macro shots very closely to decide which better. No doubt when I get a good shot with the 105mm, the clarity is phenomenal in the in-focus area.

The below photo is with the 85mm lens.



The below photo is with the 105mm lens.

[bildio]

I just got a used Nikon 105mm f/2.8D micro lens. I like this lens the best of the 3 lenses.

If I upgrade from a DX to FX format, I'm set, the weight is between the 85mm & the 105mm with VR, & it's less than half the price of the VR. It seems to focus faster & better than the other lenses. Comparison shots viewed on my computer seem sharper too. The only thing I might miss in the future is the VR capability.

Here's a sample shot with same settings as the above photos. It looks better to me. Could be the lens or the experience I've gained in shooting with the D90 over the last couple of weeks.

Here's a sample shot with the 105mm f/2.8D lens.

[PhotoNewt]

Originally Posted by bildio

I'm a novice. I just got a Nikon D90 with the 18mm-200mm VR lens, & a 35mm lens.

I'm interested in learning & experimenting with macro photography. I don't have any particular subjects in mind. I'll try different subjects to hone my skills, & maybe develop an area of interest after I get experience.

I'm debating between the Nikon 85mm & 105mm micro lenses. Both have AF-S & VR. I like the fact that the 85mm is lighter in weight than the 105mm. The 85mm is f/3.5 & the 105mm is f/2.8. Is the f/x.x important for macro photography, & if so which is better? Any other comments to help me decide will be appreciated.

When any of these lenses are used for Macro photography, the main difference is, as commented before, the longer focal length (105mm) will give you some additional working space between the lens and the subject. This is most important when working with live subjects - insects for example. For non-live subjects is not critical and becomes a matter of personal preference.

When shooting Macro, you usually work with smaller apertures (larger f/numbers) in order to get the maximum depth-of-field (DoF) possible at close distance. Remember, the DoF is the zone where focus is perceived as sharpest, and the width of this zone becomes progressively smaller, the closer you get to the subject. In a true Macro shot (1:1 magnification), the DoF will be so small that you will need apertures of f/16 or smaller to keep your subject sharply focused. So a maximum aperture of f/2.8 is not really useful when shooting Macro - most dedicated Macro lenses usually have minimal apertures of f/32 or smaller for this very reason.

However, what you need to realize is that a Macro lens can be used for regular photography, they usually are very sharp lenses of excellent optical quality. In these roll, a maximum aperture of f/2.8 will give you greater flexibility on low-light situations, and better bokeh (the blurred area behind your subject) when shooting portraits - a focal length of 100mm being ideal for portraiture.

Also, on some automatic focusing systems (like Canon's), a maximum aperture of f/2.8 or larger is needed to take advantage of the most accurate focusing sensors on the array. The autofocusing function happens with the lens at it's maximum aperture. Also a lens with a larger maximum aperture will produce a brighter picture on the eyepiece as compared to one with a smaller one. Regardless of the aperture setting selected for exposure, when you look through the viewfinder, the lens is always wide open to provide the brightest image possible for you to work with. Only when you press the shutter button (or the depth of field preview function) will the lens be stopped down to the selected aperture for picture taking.

Everything else being equal, I would gravitate towards the 105mm f/2.8 lens as the better pick.

Hope this helps...