Nikon 85mm f1.4 d vs. 105mm f2 D DC

[Roarasaur]

So, I'm looking to get a lens for my d700 and well, trying to look for an intermediate lens that would sort of replace my 18-200mm f3.5. I dont think I want such a wide range telescopic lens because it was so slow, and the 85mm and the 105mm would definitely be an upgrade in terms of speed. Main use would be some portraits, or just walking around with it taking some city shots and whatnot. Do any of you guys have experience with the whole DC thing? I hear the 105 is quite heavy for what it is.

I also have a 50mm so, would the jump from 50mm to another 85 mm be that different, and therefore just get the 105mm? they're both in the same price range but I'm not sure which one I should get. Or just avoid those two and get something else altogether?

[Mitsu3000gt]

The Nikon 85 1.4 G is a pretty amazing lens, and is a classic portrait lens along with the 105/2 DC. The 105/2 DC is screw drive, however, and may be due for a AF-S refresh. The DC can change the distortion characteristics of the lens and change what the out of focus area looks like. It is a VERY subtle change, not normally visible in the viewfinder. It is a purpose built portrait lens pretty much.

I would buy the 105/2.8 VR MACRO over the 105/2 DC, and then you get VR, nano coating, AF-S, and a top notch macro lens out of the deal as well. It's certainly more versatile. A lot of people prefer the 105/2.8 VR to the 105/2 DC because the 105/2.8 does portraits almost as well, but also is far more useful for other things. Also, in my opinion, I would definitely want VR on a 105mm focal length. It makes a world of difference at that focal length if you aren't using a tripod.

If you are open to options, however, I would buy a 70-200/2.8 VR II. It's as sharp as any prime within it's focal length, has the best VR Nikon has on any of it's lenses, and is extremely versatile. Lots of people use this lens instead of 85 and 105mm primes as well, which is another reason I suggest it. If you are OK with f2.8 instead of f1.4 or f2, then it doesn't get any better than the 70-200 VR II. This lens is the reason I don't own any primes longer than 50mm or shorter than 200mm except specifically for macro. A lot of people even got rid of their 200/2 monster lenses when the 70-200VR II came out, if they could handle the slightly slower aperture, because it is just as sharp. It's on my camera 90% of the time.

If you are actually looking to replace your 18-200 though, any of the things you are looking at will completely eliminate your wide end, so you will probably want to hang onto that 18-200 still or pick up some other wide angle zoom. Depends on what you shoot though.

EDIT: Do you mean D7000? or do you have a D700? The 18-200 you have won't even work on a D700 unless it's in crop (DX) mode.

[Go4Long]

most of the people that got rid of their chub for the 70-200 VRII soon realized it wasn't quite THAT sharp...lol...the chub is an incredible lens...I swear I will own one some day...

I have the 105 2.8 Macro and LOVE it...I also have a 105 2.5 Ai-S that I like to play with just for the manual focus fun...never played with the DC lenses, but I've heard raves about the 135, just not so much love for the 105 out there.

As usual, I agree with what mitsu is puttin down ;)

105 Macro ftw
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5251/5391163016_e5a19794c6_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/go4long/5391163016/)
January 26 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/go4long/5391163016/) by Steven Szabo (http://www.flickr.com/people/go4long/), on Flickr

[blitz]

Do you need the faster shutter of f1.4 or f2 or are you just looking for DOF and bokeh?

I've owned the 85mm1.4 AF-D, 85mm 1.8 AF-D, 135mm f2 DC and I vastley prefer my 180mm 2.8 AF. I got mine for $325 since it looks like shit, but you can get 8+ copy for about $450 used.

2.8 obviously isn't as fast as 1.4 or 2.0, but with the extra focal length your DOF is very similar.

As mitsu said, the 70-200mm VRII looks awesome (and I'll probably buy one at some point), but at $2k it's pricey too.

Did you just get the D700? What lenses do you have besides the 50mm?

[Roarasaur]

The 50mm is the only lens I have right now, as I got all my stuff jacked a couple of months ago, and havnt gotten much use out of the d700 yet, as I just got my battery for it (for some reason, the box that the d700 came in was lacking a battery and took a while for me to get that corrected) but I guess what I would be looking for is good bokeh and DOF, which was probably the only reason why I was looking at the DC aspect of the 105mm.

But the idea of a 105mm macro is appealing. How does it perform outside of the macro world?

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by Roarasaur
The 50mm is the only lens I have right now, as I got all my stuff jacked a couple of months ago, and havnt gotten much use out of the d700 yet, as I just got my battery for it (for some reason, the box that the d700 came in was lacking a battery and took a while for me to get that corrected) but I guess what I would be looking for is good bokeh and DOF, which was probably the only reason why I was looking at the DC aspect of the 105mm.

But the idea of a 105mm macro is appealing. How does it perform outside of the macro world?

The DC does VERY little, and is hardly noticeable. If you would be buying that lens just because of the DC, I would definitely suggest the 105 Macro instead.

The 105 macro is awesome as a non-macro lens too. It has VR, AF-S, and nanocoating to boot (none of which the 105 DC has). That is the beauty of macro lenses, they are typically top-notch lenses and nobody makes a bad macro lens, so they are popular for portraits too. Also 105mm is a very common macro focal length, which happens to be a common portrait length as well.

I would still recommend you pick up the 70-200 VR II unless you're specifically after macro. It's as good or better than the 105 macro at 105mm (I would actually say its a touch better). The VR is better in the 70-200 as well. Of course, you don't get macro ability with the 70-200 VRII, but with a Canon 500D closeup filter you can get pretty damn close without going through much hassle. That still would not replace a macro lens, though.

If you are after good bokeh, at 200mm f2.8 and a fairly close focus distance, the 70-200 should produce a nicer background than the 105 macro, if for no other reason than the longer focal length.

Since you were interested in both a 85mm and 105mm, the 70-200 VR II covers both those ranges perfectly (and has convenient markings on the zoom ring at those focal lengths), so you would get the best of both worlds. The 70-200 VR II also takes teleconverters amazingly well, including the new Tc 2.0 III. Unfortunately it's also $1000 more than the 105/2.8 VR or 105/2 DC, but it's like having 3 amazing primes (85/105/200) and everything in-between, so IMO it's more than worth it. It also focuses faster than any of those primes.

I'll try to find some examples of 70-200 bokeh for you. The bokeh will be even better on your D700 though, because I use a D300.

Here are a few pics that show off the boken pretty well. Most pictures have an unflattering background almost immediately behind the subject, which is why I love this lens so much because it totally gets rid of it. I apologize in advance for the one cat pic, but it happens to be a great example. Also some taken through glass so they won't be as sharp as they could be:

200mm, f2.8
http://mschlosser.smugmug.com/California2011/Aquariums/NKN1828/1191417596_bEg7u-XL.jpg

200mm, f2.8
http://mschlosser.smugmug.com/Prints/Prints/DSC3682/270205580_QnZB6-XL.jpg

200mm, f4
http://mschlosser.smugmug.com/California2011/San-Diego-Zoo/NKN0846/1191709888_VYVUM-XL.jpg

200mm, f3.2 - pic slightly out of focus but good example of a busy background. The bird is 1.5 inches tall:
http://mschlosser.smugmug.com/California2011/San-Diego-Zoo/NKN0969/1191723427_nasfW-XL.jpg

200mm, f2.8 from quite far away (probably 20-30ft) and busy background:
http://mschlosser.smugmug.com/California2011/San-Diego-Zoo/NKN1140/1191731431_a6Rfr-XL.jpg

200mm, f4
http://mschlosser.smugmug.com/Florida-2010/Gatorland/NIK4570/820874650_PmW8P-XL.jpg

200mm, f3.5
http://mschlosser.smugmug.com/Florida-2010/Discovery-Cove/NIK5414/820426100_WEj8V-XL.jpg

200mm, f4, ugly, dirty, busy background very close behind the bird:
http://mschlosser.smugmug.com/Europe-2010/Frankfurt-Zoo/NIK9053/1017827405_a7RDR-XL.jpg

This is actually a very poor picture but you can see how the background turns into cream almost instantly behind the subject:
200mm, f2.8
http://mschlosser.smugmug.com/Europe-2010/Frankfurt-Zoo/NIK8955/1017821965_eCzZ6-XL.jpg

Again, keep in mind, the bokeh will be better than this on your D700 but with less DOF (seems to be what you want). Also at 200mm on the 70-200VR II you can easily get sharp pics down to 1/20ish sec on DX, 1/10-1/15 on full frame (of course with a stationary subject).

[Roarasaur]

I would LOVE to get the 70-200mm but that is so so so much more than I can spend right now without a full time job to support that lens. It seems like the cheapest price at the moment would be to goto memory express and price match with TCS's price (but they dont have any in stock atm) and take advantage of that 10% price beat, which STILL makes its $1900. Ugh.

But I am seriously considering it now. It seems like I will either go with the 70-200mm or the 105mm macro. I guess I will decide within the next couple of days. Hopefully TCS will get some in stock soon so I can price match if I go that route.

Thanks. :D

[ex1z7]

Check our Sigmas 70-200 2.8.. Also a beautiful lens but half the price of Nikons..

[msommers]

85mmf/1.4 is a classic portait lens. Just google 85mm 1.4 and go into images...the bokeh is ridiculous. I own it and love it to bits. But I'm with Mitus on this one...70-200 would be well worth it for what it sounds like you're wanting. And after a year or whatever if you find you don't use it much, you won't lose much money, if any, if bought used. I went through that same process with the 70-200VRI from Go4Long.

[bcylau]

I am looking at the afs105 right now, how is the af speed compared to say the 85 or 70-200 vr1 or vr2? and on d300 or d700

[Go4Long]

Originally posted by bcylau
I am looking at the afs105 right now, how is the af speed compared to say the 85 or 70-200 vr1 or vr2? and on d300 or d700

all of those will focus much faster than the 105. It's one of the slowest focusing AF-S lenses I've ever used to be honest.

[bcylau]

darn... wanted to use it as a general lens too. thanks tho :)

[Mitsu3000gt]

Originally posted by bcylau
I am looking at the afs105 right now, how is the af speed compared to say the 85 or 70-200 vr1 or vr2? and on d300 or d700

The 105 AF doesn't focus as fast as the 70-200 VR I or II. The 70-200's are some of the fastest focusing lenses Nikon makes, next to something like the 200/2, which is probably THE fastest focusing lens Nikon makes. IMO at 105mm, the 70-200VR II is sharper than the 105 VR as well. If you don't need macro, or are willing to own a separate lens for macro, definitely go for the 70-200 VR II and you get prime-like quality at all focal lengths it offers. Another thing to consider is that the VR in the 70-200 VR II is noticeably better than what is in the 105 VR, which is optimized for macro use. The camera body won't make a difference if you're using a D300 or D700, it's top notch either way with the CAM3500 system.

[Roarasaur]

So, after a long debate with myself and an unthinkable amount of time sitting in my car outside of memory express, I took the plunge and bought the 70-200mm VRII. Took it as a long term investment that won't depreciate (+1 for being $200 off), at least thats what I keep saying to myself.

I havn't had alot of opportunities to take it out for a spin with recent midterms and work related things but it seems like an awesome lens so far. Never realized how big it is, and the 1.4 m minimum focus distance is further that I thought it would be. Now the hard part is finding a compact bag that will fit it and never realized how much of a storage problem it would pose until now. I also picked up a Kata 3n1-33 but realized it is way way to big for my short self. Probably going to return it and pick up something smaller, maybe a TT retro 20 or lowepro classified. What do you guys think?

[Go4Long]

I had a lowepro classified when I didn't have so much gear, the 70-200 will fit in it with the body attached, and it's a good bag, my 0.02

good choice on the lens, ironically I'm probably renting an 85mm 1.4 for the weekend for a shoot I have lined up for tomorrow

[blitz]

An TT Urban Disguise 35 V2 is great for long lenses. I love mine.

[Mitsu3000gt]

If you liked the KATA 3n1 33 but thought it was too big, look at the Lowepro Fastpack 250. That is the EXACT dilemma I had. I also have a Lowepro Slingshot 300 but I wanted a true backpack as well. The Fastpack 250 is also surprisingly cheap, and can easily store a 70-200 VRII with body attached.

The Kata 3n1 22 will NOT fit a 70-200VR II w/body attached, if you didn't already know that. That is the bag I tried to buy but it was way too small. I am much happier with the LP Fastpack 250.

PS: You are going to love that lens, there is nothing else out there like it. And, if the worst happened and you needed to sell it, you could probably get what you paid for it back if you got $200 off to begin with. Also Nikon lens prices are going up a bit due to the earthquake.

I don't like shoulder bags personally, so I've always dealt with backpacks or sling bags.

[Roarasaur]

Well, I was looking at so many different bags to be honest. I looked at the TT urban disguise and liked how it can be converted to a backpack using the backpack harness. I had the lowepro nova aw with my d300 and 18-200mm but even that with such a small body and lens didn't make me want to carry that bag around all day.

I hate to say it but I think one of the reasons why I dont want to get the fastpack 250 is that it is not very appealing to the eye (but then again, maybe thats a good thing to ward off those thieves) and harder to access the camera.

It also has to deal with why I switched to from messenger bags in high school to backpacks in Uni. I hate dealing with the weight on one shoulder all of the time. So I'm not sure where to make the compromise. Comfortably & Storage vs. Accessibility and size.

Decisions Decisions.

[Mitsu3000gt]

Camera bag shopping is super hard...there are millions of bags to choose from.

The Fastpack you can get in all black, or with blue, or red accents so you can make it more or less appealing to the eye, depending on your preferences. Mine is black with blue accents, but I also don't care haha. I chose it because it looks more like a standard backpack the way it's colored than an all black bag would - figured it would be less obviously a camera bag with some color on it.

Also, the Fastpack makes it just as easy to access the gear as a sling bag but with the comfort of a backpack otherwise. You simply drop a strap off one shoulder and it slings in front of you like a sling bag. Then you use the side access to get your gear. It's the perfect solution IMO.

I'm like you in that I hate all the weight on one shoulder, but I liked the functionality of sling bags. The Fastpack perfectly solves both issues. My only complaint with it is there is no chest strap, but you could add one super easily.

[ZeroGravity]

Originally posted by Mitsu3000gt
Camera bag shopping is super hard...there are millions of bags to choose from.


I started out with a Lowepro Sling AW200. Then as the amount of gear I put in it increase, my back started to tell me I should get a back-pack styled bag.

The fastpack was actually one of my top choices. Lightweight, can still access gears sling style, have laptop compartment, and a good price. The only thing which stopped me from getting it was the lack of a rain cover.

I was caught in heavy rain several times with the Sling AW200 which had the built-in rain cover. I guess this kind of explains why my sling bag`s strap deteriorated (became thinner and thinner... no more padding), it was probably due to the rain and my sweat...

Long story short, I got the Kata 3n1-33 for my trip last year. It was big. But it held all the gear I wanted to bring... straps are quite comfortable. If you don`t need the laptop compartment, there`s also the 3n1-30. Same size as for as other compartment goes as the 33, just missing the laptop portion. And the 30 will probably fit underneath the chair in front of you on the plane. 33 is too thick.