Portraits: Nikon 85 1.8G vs. Tamrom 90mm f/2.8

[idcanyon]

How much additional background blur can I really achieve at f/1.8 vs f/2.8 at 85mm?

I'm considering adding a Nikon 85mm f/1.8G to my kit. This is all about portraits. I already have a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro 1:1, which is a decent portrait lens. Though the Tamron is usable at f/2.8, I'm not completely happy with its sharpness until I stop down to f4 or beyond.

This is mostly for an FX camera, a D600. Though it may see action on a D7100 as well.

Would I be wasting my money?

 

[Braineack]

the 85mm is sharp at 1.8; and you can make an 85mm perform close to the Tamron with extension tubes for macro work:




their MTF suggests it's the sharper lens:

vs. the Nikon:

higher is sharper. But that's also 2.8 vs 1.8.

honestly, on paper that looks impressive -- but dxo mark testing suggests the Nikon is much sharper at all stops, and especially in the corners.

 

[JonA_CT]

I pick up my 85mm lens for nearly all or my portraiture, unless I have a really good reason not to (usually space and larger group related, where I typically use my 50mm instead).

I wouldn't hesitate to buy it.

 

[Dave442]

I've borrowed an 85mm f/1.8D lens when needed and find that it does a much better job than my 60mm f/2.8G lens for portraits. The background blur is just better. I'm using a crop sensor body. Will it make a difference to you or your customers - I can get by without it so even though I would like to buy one I would not make enough use to justify.

 

[jaomul]

Wide open portraits at 85mm- if they are important then the f1.8 is better. But generally f2.8 at 85/90 is probably wide enough. F4 probably is also. Do you really need portraits to be razor sharp?

 

[idcanyon]

Thanks for the thoughts and opinions, all. I ordered one. I'm really wanting minimum DOF for a project this coming Friday. Probably again mid February. After that, who knows. I seem to be shooting portraits more and more. I'll see how they feel side by side and then either keep both or sell one.