Opinions on 3 Nikkor lenses please

Phranquey · Feb 8, 2009

anubis404 said:
Keep in mind the 105 is probably going to reach a lot further with the 18-105. He most likely owns a DX body, and that 105 is going to be the equivalent of 155mm or so.

Ahh...I didn't realize the 18-105 was a DX lens...no crop factor.

Well, Captain IK, you have a 70-300, which I do not believe is a DX, so this same test could be run with that, or put the 70-200mm on your XD-11 set at 155mm, and that will give the same approximation as the 105mm on a crop factor.

goodoneian · Feb 8, 2009

i personally would get the 105. it may be a little long in some situations as you said but it would serve as a dual purpose lens being good for macro and portraits. plus i've played with on a crop sensor body and i really liked its 1:1 magnification and sharpness

Captain IK · Feb 8, 2009

Hadn't thought about comparing the film lens on the XD-11 to the 70-300, but I will do that tonight.

Ejazzle · Feb 8, 2009

Honestly, i would go with the 85. I have the 105 and its sooo awesome. But it sounds like you studio is too tight for you to get what you want out of it. If you already know you can get the shot you want with the 105, but not exactly what you want. I'd either go with the 85 or the 60. The 60 might be best for a small area.

Sw1tchFX · Feb 8, 2009

85 f/1.4, the f/2.8 in the macro lenses isn't fast enough.

Ejazzle · Feb 8, 2009

f/2.8 is plenty fast with lighting.

jlykins · Feb 9, 2009

Sw1tchFX said:
85 f/1.4, the f/2.8 in the macro lenses isn't fast enough.

Why isn't it? He's just wanting to use it in the studio for portraits. He even said that he probably won't use it for anything else. You of all people know that with strobes, or CLS you don't need something super fast. Probably be around 5.6 or so anyway...

Captain IK · Feb 9, 2009

Although I like to shoot with wide apertures one of the problems I have at 1.8 and even a bit at 2.8 is a very narrow DoF. Keep in mind I am only 10-12 feet from the subject, so my DoF can end up being only 6 or 7 inches wide!
That's great for keeping the background out of focus but is a little tight when trying to keep the whole subject in focus.
I did some test shots with my zooms last night and will likely go with the 85mm 1.8
Thank you for everyone's input it helps in making a decision.

kundalini · Feb 9, 2009

Captain IK said:
I ruled out the 85 1.4 only because it's almost triple the cost of the 1.8. Didn't think such a small gain in speed was worth the cost. If there is something else I should know about this lens....please enlighten me.

I did the same reasoning and got the 85mm f/1.8. This is a very good lens and will serve you well. However, in hind sight, I wish I had gone with the f/1.4 now. It's not so much the wider aperture that you'll use in portraiture, because you should be stopping down anyway, but they don't call it the Cream Machine for no good reason. I will assume you will be making money on your portraits, so the lens will be a business expense. Surely you may also do some outdoor sessions as the weather improves. The bokeh on this lens is unbelieveable.

Just my 2¢.

Keep in mind the 105 is probably going to reach a lot further with the 18-105. He most likely owns a DX body, and that 105 is going to be the equivalent of 155mm or so.

I wish people would get it in their heads that the focal length does not increase on a cropped sensor.......... it's the Field of View that changes.

andrew99 · Feb 9, 2009

kundalini said:
I wish people would get it in their heads that the focal length does not increase on a cropped sensor.......... it's the Field of View that changes.

+1 .. I was going to chime on this but you beat me to it.

I tested my Nikkor 50 f1.8, which is a full frame lens, and the kit lens (18-55 DX) zoomed to 50mm, and the photos had the exact same field of view (this was on a D40 with a small sensor). So for the OP, the 85mm prime will have the exact same FOV as his zoom lens zoomed to 85mm.

JerryPH · Feb 9, 2009

Captain IK said:
I ruled out the 85 1.4 only because it's almost triple the cost of the 1.8. Didn't think such a small gain in speed was worth the cost. If there is something else I should know about this lens....please enlighten me.

It is not just about the speed, it is about the quality, sharpness, bokeh quality and colour rendition. Distortion, CA are all lower as well.

If the only difference between a 1.8 and 1.4 was the aperture size, it would not be 3 times the cost.

Do what I did... shoot with both in store and decide for yourself. I own the 85mm F/1.4 and it is nothing short of incredible. It has been a lens that is *well known* as being nothing short of incredible since the mid-80s. That says a lot.

For a cropped camera sensor, you will need about 20-30 feet for a 1/2-3/4 body portrait. Add about 30% more distance for that 105mm. How big is your studio? Your lens choice should not normally be dictated by your studio space, but if your room is 10 X 10 feet, obviously, the 105mm on a cropped sensor is pretty much out of the running, unless all you want are tight head shots.

Captain IK · Feb 9, 2009

Great advise guys...thanks for the comments.

Sw1tchFX · Feb 11, 2009

jlykins said:
Why isn't it? He's just wanting to use it in the studio for portraits. He even said that he probably won't use it for anything else. You of all people know that with strobes, or CLS you don't need something super fast. Probably be around 5.6 or so anyway...

I wish.

If you're shooting on location and you're trying to balance out ambient and strobe and the lights getting darker, wider apertures help you shoot longer and AF better. Not to mention the quality of the bokeh.