50/1.2, 1.4D, or 105 Micro D or alternative?

Might be able to do a little shopping once again, but it will have to be extremely purpose-built. I lack a GOOD FX prime with AF for low light as much as I lack a GOOD FX 1:1 outta the box macro lens that I could do lots of fun things with. Or well, perhaps some kind of 85 for portrait purposes with decent bokeh (though I could probably double up a 105 for this and 2.8 isn't that terrible). 1.2 just sounds extremely intriguing no matter how you look at it.

Thoughts? And p.s. while my 35/1.8DX can hold it's ground, I'd rather have a more proper low light piece.

I've never found the need for uber-fast glass. F/1.8 is good enough for me. A 1.4 is only 2/3 stops more, and 1.2 is an expensive 1/3-stop more. With the superb ISO handling of today's DSLRs, I just can't justify spending that much scratch for another stop.

The 50/1.8 D is cheap enough, light, sharp and even has the aperture ring if you ever want to get into reversing, and a good copy of a used 105 Micro is easy enough to find.

If you're more into portraits, I'll suggest the 85 1.8 G. It's a wonderful lens for the price. And if you have money left, maybe get the 50 1.8 D that is such a bargain. And it is sharp, very sharp.

See:

Only thing about 85 is that, I have that length covered by 24-85 and 70-300 already and by itself it only really adds bokeh and slightly crispier details to the equation. 105 loses a tiny bit on bokeh, but adds a proper macro and I feel it's a bigger bargain.

Nikon F1.2 is manual focus. The 50mm F1.2 is a pretty sharp lense at F2 and the build is solid. Use it for that look wide open, rather than for its low light ability (modern DSLR's ISO does that for you)

I would personally go for the 105mm Macro. If you are interested only in macro shots then the MF AIS is excellent, else the modern AF.

Macro/portraits, if I aim for the 105 (or something else like Tokina 90). I would NEED (well, probably not NEED, but really really like) AF since I'll be going after insects out in the wild and MF might prove a bit too slow. No reason not to trust the camera with focusing initially.

SkvLTD said:

Only thing about 85 is that, I have that length covered by 24-85 and 70-300 already and by itself it only really adds bokeh and slightly crispier details to the equation. 105 loses a tiny bit on bokeh, but adds a proper macro and I feel it's a bigger bargain.

Click to expand...

You need the 105mm in your life....

ShootRaw said:

You need the 105mm in your life....

Click to expand...

We all do, we all do.

I think you have a good idea on which lens to get, it's just a matter of which one to get first.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SkvLTD said:

Macro/portraits, if I aim for the 105 (or something else like Tokina 90). I would NEED (well, probably not NEED, but really really like) AF since I'll be going after insects out in the wild and MF might prove a bit too slow. No reason not to trust the camera with focusing initially.

Click to expand...

You may be surprised at the camera's AF. In low contrast or cluttered back ground the AF may miss focus. For macros where the DOF is quite shallow, MF gets razor sharp focus where you want it, rather than where the camera thinks. That said, any AF lense can be switched to MF. The reason for getting an MF macro is that there are less electronics/motors to go wrong.

aroy said:

You may be surprised at the camera's AF. In low contrast or cluttered back ground the AF may miss focus. For macros where the DOF is quite shallow, MF gets razor sharp focus where you want it, rather than where the camera thinks. That said, any AF lense can be switched to MF. The reason for getting an MF macro is that there are less electronics/motors to go wrong.

Click to expand...

Agreed, but there will be situations where time will be of the essence. That and doubling it up as macro.

So, really down to Tokina ATX 100 or Tammy 90 SP. Thoughts? Read really good overall things on Tammy even though both extend to get that close focus thing. As does the 105, so perhaps superfluous grief right there.

Ended up grabbing a Tammy 90 SP 2.8 from Japan via ebay. Non-Di, CPU, 1:1 and I gathered some nice reviews. Di versions seems to be just marketing hype and extra 1-200 along with it.

I shoot the 35mm f1.4 as normal, sometimes switch to 50mm f1.4. I shoot in forests, in city in afternoon and evening so I never used f1.8 versions. If you do portraits I'd go 50mm, or 60macro... It's f2.8 but also a macro, if you don't need light gathering. The 105mm is a telephoto... That is all there is to it... Great lens, but a tele.