AF-S 85mm f/1.8G vs. AF-S DX micro 85mm f/3.5G ED VR for use on DX body

Arby

TPF Noob!
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
I've got the kit 18-55 lens and the 35mm f/1.8 prime. I'd like to add a lens with a bit more reach to take pictures of my kids in indoor plays and outdoor sports. I know there are a lot of options available to me, so I'm looking for some advice. Other than wanting to keep costs down, I'm really open to any of those options. I first looked at the 18-200 and the 55-200 VR zoom lenses, which would give me more reach than the 85mm primes, however I notice a big difference in the quality of my shots with my 35mm prime vs my 18-55 lens, so I'm leaning toward a prime lens for my next purchase. In my price range that brought me to the AF-S 85mm f/1.8G and the AF-S DX micro 85mm f/3.5G ED VR which both run ~$500.

I'm shooting with a DX camera body. Although one of the 85s is a FX lens and the other is DX, am I correct in understanding that both lenses would give me the same effective field of view of ~130mm? If so, then the big differences between them is their maximum aperture and the presence or lack of VR. Which lens would be better for me? For sports shots which need fast shutter speeds, it seems like the f/1.8 is the clear winner. On the other hand, when shooting indoor plays, how much does the VR make up for the smaller f/3.5 aperture lens? If the VR allows me to shoot more than 2 stops slower shutter speeds, then it seems the VR lens would be better indoors. If not, I'm thinking the non-VR f/1.8 lens is the winner.

Thoughts?
 
I think zooms give a lot more flexibility for sports or situations where you don't have very easy/quick access to controlling your range (how close you can stand, and where you can stand). you can also frame up a bunch of different types of shots (team, one player, multiple players interacting, etc.) from one position. maybe i'm just lazy and like to stand in one spot, but for situations where things can occur anywhere anytime, i prefer to have a zoom. portraits or planned shots, primes are perfectly usable. maybe grab a 80-200 or 70-200 vr1 (or vr2 if you're planning on moving to fx). you're right that the primes are generally optically superior, but you are also making your comparison vs. the 18-55. i'd suspect the 70-200 is on the level of the 35 if not more.

you are correct, the field of view on both lenses will be the same. VR is nice... when your subject is not moving. 1/4 sec exposures aren't very useful for a live subject. that plus the additional flexibility with DOF make wider apertures > VR imo. I've owned the 85 1.8D. very nice bokeh, very sharp lens. it's one of the few lenses i would shoot wide open. it's kind of a weird range on DX. really tight for everyday indoor shots, but not quite reachy enough for it to be a great sports type lens. although for kids sports/plays you might be able to get close enough where this isn't an issue, and it makes a great portrait lens. I have not used the macro, but being a macro i assume it is sharp. but imo the 1.8 was not lacking in that department, the bokeh was oh so nice, and the extra stops come in handy.

here's a wide open shot with the 85 1.8 on a D7000:
VPN_3336%282%29-XL.jpg
 
Last edited:
My opinion is: buy the 85mm 1.8 AF-S G instead of the micro-Nikkor macro lens. The wider aperture is MORe valuable than VR in low light. Also, I suspect the 1.8 will autofocus better than the macro lens will, overall, and especially at longer distances. I own the 1.8 AF-S G model, and it is a fine lens. I have seen the 85mm micro used for $400 recently. It is *not* a good seller, by the way.
 
To zoom or not ;)
Zoom lenses, as was mentioned are a nit ore flexible but the ones you emtioned do lack the higher end quality. 18-200 is a good lens bn 20-170mm at f6.3-16 but outside of those parameters it isnt that great.
One thing i learned well over the years is that its better to spend that extra $ for that "better" glass then rip the hair and curse at self for not doing it the right the first time.
Back in those film days I never had vr and even now rarely use it.
 
Thanks for the input. I think for indoor shots of school plays/recitals, the 85mm f/1.8 is the way to go. On the other hand, for sports shots you've made good points in support of the flexibility of a zoom lens. I can't justify spending the $$$ to get a 70-200 VR (1 or 2). That brings me to the MUCH cheaper 55-200 or 55-300 VR lenses. Since my goal would be to use them for sports action shots taken with quick shutter speeds, how much would the limited aperture values in these lenses limit their usefulness? I could guess that they'd be fine for well lit outdoor sports, but not very good for indoor basketball or volleyball photos. I'd appreciate if anyone with experience with the 55-200 or 300 zooms could chime in with your experience shooting both indoor and outdoor sports with them. Thanks in advance!
 
My 85mm (Sigma 1.4) is my #1 used lens on both DX and FX because of the exceptional quality. That said, I don't think it is what you're looking for. I have a 70-200 VRII that I bought because I had too many shoots with young kids where my "foot-zoom" just couldn't cut it. At the same time though, I'm not a huge fan of the superzooms you're looking at as I find they give up too much in terms of IQ. Therefore, I would recommend that you look into the Nikon 70-300 VRII. While it doesn't have the low-light capabilities you might want for indoors (you would need a 70-200/80-200 2.8 lens for that!), it is an incredible zoom for outdoor action and will serve as a 135-450mm on your DX camera. The AF is extremely fast, it has great optics when you have the light for it, and the VR is very useful on it.
 
Thanks for the input. I think for indoor shots of school plays/recitals, the 85mm f/1.8 is the way to go. On the other hand, for sports shots you've made good points in support of the flexibility of a zoom lens. I can't justify spending the $$$ to get a 70-200 VR (1 or 2). That brings me to the MUCH cheaper 55-200 or 55-300 VR lenses. Since my goal would be to use them for sports action shots taken with quick shutter speeds, how much would the limited aperture values in these lenses limit their usefulness? I could guess that they'd be fine for well lit outdoor sports, but not very good for indoor basketball or volleyball photos. I'd appreciate if anyone with experience with the 55-200 or 300 zooms could chime in with your experience shooting both indoor and outdoor sports with them. Thanks in advance!

I may be a bit behind on this conversation but I came across it looking for other information. I don't have the 55-200 but I do have the 70-300 vrii and love it! Mostly. Like you, I would love to have 2.8 zoom glass but I just can't make the cost justification at this particular point. I shoot with a Nikon D3200 (love it!) and recently over memorial day weekend I used my 70-300 almost exclusively to shoot my sons baseball tournament in Memphis. They were all daylight games and I had good to very good access to get good angles (including behind the home run fence). This was my first chance to really put this lens through its paces and I'll just say that any shot that didn't work I know was because of my technique and/or lack of experience. I shot manual in RAW using single point with auto ISO (I have another tournament this weekend and I'm going to try it with 3D tracking). Understand that I shoot RAW more as a learning tool and honestly a crutch to a degree but I am highly focused on getting it right out the camera as I don't want to spend my time post-processing everything. Back on topic, the images with the 70-300 came out fantastic! Crisp, clean, even in the 200-300 range though a noticeable difference enlarged. I had not problem with focusing, speed or high shutter speeds. The images were so good (not said boastfully) that I posted them for parents to see and they're buying images (or cd's) from me. Another parent has has asked me to do his family portrait with their new baby (and is paying) and another has a very small scale wedding that they want me to shoot. Did I mention that I'm not a professional?

If I could afford the 70-200 2.8, I'd get it in a heartbeat because the 70-300 does suffer as the sun goes down. You can still get some shots but unless there is phenomenal stadium lighting, you'll definitely be pushing the ISO up. But after seeing the daylight images it just really makes you disinterested unless it's a great shot. For now, I have a very comfortable work around in that at least half of our baseball games are in good daylight. So I can get good sweeping field shots with the 70-300 during those times. As the sun goes down or night games I go with my 50 or 85 1.8g's and just work with the focal length for the best shots I can get. Obviously the advantage of those lenses are the wider apertures. Finally, the 70-300 just doesn't cut it for me for indoor sports...indoor anything for that matter. I guess if I had an application where I could use a tripod it would make sense but for indoor events I use my primes and just find the best way to use their focal lengths for the best shot possible.

Hope this is helpful.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top