80mm <-> 105mm Prime.. Im buying one.. but which?

[TheLost]

Spring is in the air (not really.. but one can dream) and I've got the itch to buy a new lens. This is a lens i don't NEED but WANT (aka.. who knows how long before i sell it).

I'm thinking about:
Nikon 85mm 1.8G (new rebates are out)
Nikon 85mm 1.8D (cheap!)
Nikon 105mm 2.8 Macro (current rebate)
Tamron 90mm 2.8 DI Macro (cheap!)

Any other options i should look at? This will be used on a D7100. I don't currently have a macro lens and that's why i started looking at the 105mm. However, I've had macro lenses in the past and after the fun wears off i normally sell them (how many bug pictures do i need?).

My price is $200 (Tamron 90 2.8) - $800 (Nikon 105mm)... If you have a sample image or favorite i'd love see or hear about it.

 

[astroNikon]

They are all great lens.
Derrel will mention though how the 85/1.8D isn't so hot ( I have one too) and how it give purple fringing.
I haven't seen any purple but I only take pictures of bluish type things anyways ... at least they end up like that

seriously, I like the 85 1.8. And bring on a crop you'll have that "extra" distance on it which will take you up to about 130.
If you don't need macro, and don't want those focal lengths, then eliminate it from your equation, then you are left with the 85s. The "better, more costly G" and the AF-D.

 

[Derrel]

Depends on what you want to use the lens for. The 85/1.8 G is one of the absolute sharpest and best-performing of all the Nikon "regular grade" lenses. I use one as my high-resolution landscape lens. It's light and small and affordable. The 85/1.8-D is not even in the same league, and is priced very close to the much newer and much better G-series lens. The 1.8-D is a money-loser if you buy it new and then sell it. If you buy it used, it'd be a better deal.

I have a Tamron 90 AF-SP, the one before the Di moniker got slapped on. It's a sharp lens and a fine,fine MACRO lens, but it uses screwdriver focus, and like many macro lenses, its focus consistency at longer distances is sketchy. It has HAIR-tgrigger focusing beyond 1 meter, and frankly, it blows the focus on many shots by 1 to 2 feet, or more...it is just so,so,so incredibly hair-trigger that the end-of-day results disappoint me, UNLESS it's used in the macro range.

I dunno about the 105 Macro...I saw a used AF-S G VR model recently at my favorite electronics pawn shop for $725 I think it was. My own experience has been that most macro lenses are VERY difficult to consistently and rapidly get into PERFECT focus at longer distances, and that makes using a macro a PITA, unless you're shooting CLOSE, which is where the focusing systems have long, smooth, slooooow focus ring travel.

If you want a macro lens, I'd buy a macro tele in a heartbeat. If you want a lightweight field telephoto, the 85/1.8 G is a fantastic performer.

 

[D-B-J]

I sold my older 105mm 2.8D and replaced it with the 85mm 1.8G and couldn't be happier. The 85 is an amazing lens and I use it all the time, whereas the 105 just sat in my case and rarely got used.

Best,
Jake


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tirediron]

Just as food for thought... the 105 makes a pretty darn good portrait lens. The 85 makes a terrible macro lens...

 

[TheLost]

Just as food for thought... the 105 makes a pretty darn good portrait lens. The 85 makes a terrible macro lens...

That's why i was leaning towards the 105mm..

However.. Shooting sports i could see myself using the 85mm 1.8G sometimes (but not enough to justify it as a 'needed' lens).

So am i ruling out the 85 1.8D? For $250 used? Tamron 90 2.8 DI is about the same price used..

At the same time... the 85 1.8G has been pulling at me for some time.. It will probably force me to get a D800

 

[PaulWog]

What lenses do you already have? I think the 85mm 1.8G is a given. Wonderful lens.

If you're really interested in macro, and you don't need the fast aperture, the 105mm does sound tempting. But I'm partial to the 85mm 1.8G which does its job so insanely well for the price.

 

[TheLost]

Nikon Tokina 12-24mm + 50mm 1.8G + Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR

I sold everything else a few years ago (well.. i did keep the Nikon 18-200 for giggles) because i never use anything else.

95% of my shots are taken with the 70-200.. that's why i was thinking the 85 would be fun to mess with.

 

[Mach0]

That's why i was leaning towards the 105mm.. However.. Shooting sports i could see myself using the 85mm 1.8G sometimes (but not enough to justify it as a 'needed' lens). So am i ruling out the 85 1.8D? For $250 used? Tamron 90 2.8 DI is about the same price used.. At the same time... the 85 1.8G has been pulling at me for some time.. It will probably force me to get a D800

The 85 1.8d has dropped a lot in price lately. I got mine a while ago for about 350 ish. My copy is sharp as a tack. Leaves a little to be desired at 1.8 if you choose to use it ( and I can't make it sharp with AF fine tune ) there but by 2.2 mine is good. The fringing can be taken care of ( I use LR4 and it's all removed.) However, given the price of the two, can't go wrong with either or.

 

[Derrel]

You do know that there's a brand new $100 rebate on the 85/1.8 G, right???

 

[TheLost]

You do know that there's a brand new $100 rebate on the 85/1.8 G, right???

yea.. $396.95 at most places.. its what got me thinking.

 

[Derrel]

This is an interesting numerical ranking of the best short telephoto lenses, as tested on the Nikon D7100, with listings of DxO Mark Score, and their "megapixel-rated sharpness" statistic.

Best short telephoto for the D7100 - DxOMark

I have a few samples from the 85/1.8 G, not full-sized but down-sized to 1400x pixels wide, beginning here, and going for 13 frames in a row. You can see the bokeh, and also see how sharp it is at f/2.2 to f/3.5, even when shot right into blinding late-afternoon sunlight reflecting off the ocean and coming right toward the lens, with the factory hood accidentally left in the car...http://www.pbase.com/derrel/image/150766985

 

[Gavjenks]

This question seems like it has less to do with the lens specs, and more to do with how quickly you truly do get bored of bug photos.
Which we can't really answer for you.


Anyway, if you do choose a macro, and you have a history of selling them soon, you should probably buy used, so that you don't take any significant loss (and it's unlikely to break during a short usage/ownership)

 

[sk66]

A good long Macro Lens has many uses. Portraits (can be "too sharp" even), product, bugs, short telephoto...
One of the few primes I own is the Sigma 150mm macro, but it's even a bit more than the Nikon 105.

 

[Tom47]

Nikon 105 macro is tack sharp and is a great portrait lens. You can not miss with it