Hello all
I have found a good offer for a Micro nikkor 85 AF-S, and am thinking about finally getting a macro lens.
So what I would like to hear from you, is if there are anyone that have experience with this lens or has some other informed opinion?
I am aware that the rather slow f/3.5 doesn't make it a great portrait lens, but would it be usable anyway?
I have the Nikon 60mm and 105mm macro lens, but not this one. I'd bet it was a fine macro lens though, they all are.
Re portrait lens: Portraits don't have to be shot wide open. In the portrait studio, f/8 or f/11 is vastly more normal, to insure everything is sharp. Those pictures are often to be sold, and sharp sells. Maybe we might need to open aperture for small speedlights, but with sufficient light, f/8 or f/11 rules.
The wide open lens thing is about portraits outdoors, not for a better portrait (for which f/1.8 is of course counter-productive), but instead to blur away distracting backgrounds. In the studio, we provide non-distracting backgrounds.
But there are other better ways to eliminate distracting backgrounds. A longer lens, towards telephoto (which on DX, the 85mm lens is) zooms in to crop away most of the distracting background, simply not seen in the picture area any more. The longer lens also provides less depth of field (due to focal length), arguably more effective (f/1.8 is not always enough to help much in a wider view). Then we can choose to shift camera position slightly, to pick a less offensive part of narrow part of background that that we actually see and show. And the longer lens (when relatively close, and at its wider apertures) is extremely effective to blur that which we still see.
Comparing, if the lens is twice as long, then when it is twice as far, it sees the same view, and the same aperture has the same depth of field as the shorter lens. When it is closer than twice as far, it has less depth of field than the shorter one. We can use that.
Anyway, I would argue the 85mm might be your best tool to eliminate distracting backgrounds, more effective than f/1.8 might be in a shorter lens. My notion is, for portraits, f/1.8 is more an amateur approach, and the longer lens is more a professional approach.
85mm DX might be slightly long for portraits, great for head shots, but you will have to backup some (11 feet?) for typical waist-up shots, but this too is great for proper perspective (to not enlarge near noses, etc).
An 85 mm lens on DX, at 11 feet, has a field of view of 2x3 feet, and at f/8, has a depth of field zone 18 inches deep (sounds ideal, sounds like a portrait). f/1.8 is NOT the big plus, except maybe when it is dark.
