Nikon 85mm Prime OR 55m-200mm

sorabh

Senior Member
Hi, Guys

I know this question has probably been exhausted but my situation is a little different...

I come from a photoshop editing background so I enjoy taking my pics in RAW and correcting them. Bearing that in mind, and knowing I can create the fade out Bokeh effects from any picture, is it beneficial for me to buy the 85mm prime over the 55mm-200mm other than for low light conditions? I doubt I would be ever using the lens except in broad daylight as I already have a 35mm prime which does most of my jobs very nicely. Im just finding it a little short to take nice portraiture

I use a dx 3200 nikon

thanks!>
 

pkzipper

Senior Member
I've tried so many bokeh software but they come nowhere close to the real bokeh with the lens like 85mm even when I had the Canon's version. Especially when the background is in odd angles it's very difficult to replicate the bokeh accurately not to mention the editing time.
 

sorabh

Senior Member
Thanks for your comment friend. Yep - definitely not easy but if you know about layering and the different blending modes it can be achieved quite simply with texture packs. Little hard to explain in a few sentences but there are videos on youtube.
 

fotojack

Senior Member
Do yourself a favour...stay away from the 55-200. You will NOT be happy with it at all! If you want to go zoom, I suggest either the 18-105, which is a great all around lens for practically anything, or the 55-300, which is a much better zoom than the 55-200.
As for the 85.....yeah, that's a no brainer. Awesome lens for what you want to do with it.
 

sorabh

Senior Member
Hmmm so im guessing it doesnt matter how good an editor you are if the lens is bad.

I have heard the tamron 70-300 fairs better than the 55-300 Nikon. Would you agree?

I have a 35mm so im covered for all the normal shots. I just need something nice for portraits but didnt really want to spend £300 + ..........I guess you get what you pay for!
 

fotojack

Senior Member
To me, the difference is negligible between the Nikon and Tamron. The Tamron is cheaper, however. Your choice. :)
And yes, you get what you pay for.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Personally, it would not so much as even cross my mind to do any kind of serious portraiture with the Nikon 55-200mm f/3.5-5.6G VR, unless I effectively had no other lenses to choose from.

The 85mm f/1.8G, on the other hand, is a fantastic lens and I'm not just referring to focal lengths or it's use for portraiture.

If you want a lens for the long haul, consider the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD. You'll pay up front but my gawd... You will NOT be disappointed.
...
 

fotojack

Senior Member
Personally, it would not so much as even cross my mind to do any kind of serious portraiture with the Nikon 55-200mm f/3.5-5.6G VR, unless I effectively had no other lenses to choose from.

The 85mm f/1.8G, on the other hand, is a fantastic lens and I'm not just referring to focal lengths or it's use for portraiture.

If you want a lens for the long haul, consider the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD. You'll pay up front but my gawd... You will NOT be disappointed.
...

The 70-200 f/2.8 would cost more than his camera. I don't think he's gonna go there! :)
 

carguy

Senior Member
Beautiful pictures - did you go through any post picture processing or are these the unedited images?
Thank you.
Most of the sports/action images are processed as I was green at shooting sports and played with my settings. In hindsight, the ISO and SS were a bit too low for that :)
 

Chito

Senior Member
I would also suggest the 85mm f1.8. I'll just warn you that getting a great lens leads to buying a better camera. :)


Sent from my mobile computer.
 
Top