Next Lens: 105mm f2.8 or 85mm f1.8 - One or both?

10 Gauge

Senior Member
So I'm looking to make my next glass purchase in the coming months and I'm having a bit of a dilemma.

I'd like to have the 85 for portraits and just because it's such a great lens sharpness-wise. I'd also like to do some macro shooting.

Here's the question.... If I were to get the 105mm f2.8 macro lens, would it work equally as well for shooting portraits? The focal length seems to be in / close to that prime "portrait zone" that most photographers shoot at. I also don't feel like losing a couple of stops in the aperture would affect the DOF more than I'd likely desire when shooting a portrait.

Basically, could I make the 105 double as a good portrait lens or would it really be that important to have BOTH lenses? I'm not a pro, and if the 105 could come very close to producing the same kinds of results that the 85 would when taking portraits then I think I have my answer.

Thanks for all of your very much appreciated input.
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
So I'm looking to make my next glass purchase in the coming months and I'm having a bit of a dilemma.

I'd like to have the 85 for portraits and just because it's such a great lens sharpness-wise. I'd also like to do some macro shooting.

Here's the question.... If I were to get the 105mm f2.8 macro lens, would it work equally as well for shooting portraits? The focal length seems to be in / close to that prime "portrait zone" that most photographers shoot at. I also don't feel like losing a couple of stops in the aperture would affect the DOF more than I'd likely desire when shooting a portrait.

Basically, could I make the 105 double as a good portrait lens or would it really be that important to have BOTH lenses? I'm not a pro, and if the 105 could come very close to producing the same kinds of results that the 85 would when taking portraits then I think I have my answer.

Thanks for all of your very much appreciated input.
I could shoot portraits on a DX body using the Nikon 105mm f/2.8 Micro all the live long day. It's a great lens and the focal length is fine for shooting portraits.

The 85mm f/1.8G is one of my favorite Nikon lenses but if you want one lens for both portraits and macro then the 105mm f/2.8 is the obvious choice.
 

Krs_2007

Senior Member
We had a forum post on this that I couldn't find.

I have both and use both. The thing about the 105 is it gives you the macro ability as well. There really isn't much difference in the focal length that your feet couldn't fix.

Both great lenses
 

Pretzel

Senior Member
My instructor (when I get to take classes) raves about both, but says the 105mm is a great "all around" since it will do Macro AND portraits quite well. He also states that if you're more​ interested in portraiture than macro, the 85mm can't be beat.
 

Bill16

Senior Member
I've been debating getting as 85mm for portraits but my 105mm micro has been serving well, so I still haven't really put it very high on my list! I shoot way more macro than portraits anyway so far! Lol :)
 

Pretzel

Senior Member
Look at the DXO score between the Nikon 105 2.8 and the Tokina 100mm...

The Tokina is better, and 1/2 the price of the Nikon... ;)

I've always eyed that one as well, but the VR on the Nikon wins me over, as I shoot a lot of my "Macro" on the go (thus handheld). I know, it seems silly, but in my less-than-lab testing, I get better shots with the VR on my 70-300 combined with the Raynox than I do with same settings and the VR off.

Of course, that's at 300mm then magnified. Do you think it would make a difference at 105?
 

Bill16

Senior Member
Ooooooh I never considered the VR or lack of it on my macro! Maybe my shots would be better had I had VR on my 105mm micro Nikkor, but it is a af-d version!

I've always eyed that one as well, but the VR on the Nikon wins me over, as I shoot a lot of my "Macro" on the go (thus handheld). I know, it seems silly, but in my less-than-lab testing, I get better shots with the VR on my 70-300 combined with the Raynox than I do with same settings and the VR off.

Of course, that's at 300mm then magnified. Do you think it would make a difference at 105?
 

JDFlood

Senior Member
I don't take many portraits, but have all of Nikon's macro lenses. By an order of magnitude I use the 105mm the most. It is a great macro lens, but adding the value of the VR and distance from subject for macro shots and the value becomes great. I use the 85mm for travel as a normal lens to save weight, in case I really need a macro. I'd definitely start with the 105mm
 

Fred Kingston

Senior Member
I never use VR... I rarely shoot macro without a tripod... and I don't think VR is needed on a fast lens at the lower focal lengths... VR is a crutch for poor technique... :cold:
 

Pretzel

Senior Member
I never use VR... I rarely shoot macro without a tripod... and I don't think VR is needed on a fast lens at the lower focal lengths... VR is a crutch for poor technique... :cold:

1) OUCH.
2) There are times when I'm shooting macro, and there is no way in hell a tripod will fit where I'm going, or can be set up fast enough to catch the subject I'm after. (Try telling a jumping spider to wait a few minutes while you get a tripod into the bushes and lined up properly)
3) A FAST lens at lower focal lengths, yes, but once you get up over f8, you're killing the "fast" part. VR helps boost your technique when a tripod just isn't gonna work out...

Handheld 300mm with a Raynox DCR-250, f32 (not "fast" no matter what lens you own), 1/60 shutter with a flash on the bug (monopod used here, but still a bit shaky), 1/125 on the flower on my gut with just me and the camera. Even with VR on, I'm thinking that's at least some decent "technique"?

Green8.jpg

MacroFlower1.jpg
 

10 Gauge

Senior Member
I'll look in to the Tokina but I like the VR of the Nikkor. I will also be debating the Sigma variation as well since it's supposedly a super hot performer which also has OS and runs about $400 less than the Nikon.
 

Pretzel

Senior Member
I'll look in to the Tokina but I like the VR of the Nikkor. I will also be debating the Sigma variation as well since it's supposedly a super hot performer which also has OS and runs about $400 less than the Nikon.

Have heard great things about the Sigma as well!
 

Blade Canyon

Senior Member
drop.jpg

I have the 105mm 2.8 and the 85mm 1.4D. Both are great, and I do go to the 85 in extremely low light, but 105mm is a great all around lens. In college (film days), that lens was the best all around lens for everything I shot, including sports and portraits. In fact, I prefer a longer lens for portraits, especially "environmental" portraits (capturing your subject unposed while doing something...).

Plus, the 105 has the macro, which I used to get that water drop. (I am definitely NOT a bug guy.)
 
Last edited:
Top