Exchanging my Micro AF-S VR 105mm 2.8

H

hsiehjon

Senior Member
Hi guys,

I've only had this lens for about a week now and so far the quality has been superb with excellent bokeh and sharpness. However, because I use a DX body (the very light D5300), the effective range and weight of the lens makes it difficult to use.

So, not taking Macro into consideration, which prime lens would you guys recommend: 50mm 1.4G or 85 1.8G?

The 85mm would still give me a rather long effective range for portrait/everyday use, so I'm leaning more towards the 50mm 1.4 prime. However, I already own a Sigma 17-50mm 2.8, so the 50mm range is already covered...

What are your thoughts? Any other lens recommendations?

(I plan to upgrade to FX in the future so I need a lens that is compatible with both DX/FX)

Thanks in advance!
 
J

jay_dean

Senior Member
Macro is more difficult than it looks! There are some on here who do it very well though. Firstly, i'll admit i'm no 50mm lover, i know i go against the grain on this. When i had DX i did have both 35 and 50mm's. I found the 50mm a bit long, but the 35mm felt better for general purpose imo. Obviously, the 35mm on a DX is the equivalent of a 50mm on an FX frame
 
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
On a DX body, and assuming you want a Nikon lens, I'd suggest either the 35mm f/1.8G, the 85mm f/1.8G or both and in that order. My GF shoots with a D5300 and a 35mm prime almost exclusively and it's a killer combination. She's recently latched on to my Sigma 35mm f1/.4 DG HSM so now I'm screwed if I decide I want one of my own. Still, if you have the budget for it, that's the 35mm prime to have, IMO. The Sigma Art lenses are just extraordinary... As my GF is starting to figure out. I also think the Sigma 35mm balances very nicely on her D5300 but I have pretty big mitts. It is not a light lens, though. If that's a big consideration, fall back on the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G instead.

....
 
Last edited:
H

hsiehjon

Senior Member
jaydean said:
Macro is more difficult than it looks! There are some on here who do it very well though. Firstly, i'll admit i'm no 50mm lover, i know i go against the grain on this. When i had DX i did have both 35 and 50mm's. I found the 50mm a bit long, but the 35mm felt better for general purpose imo. Obviously, the 35mm on a DX is the equivalent of a 50mm on an FX frame
Click to expand...

It really is a lot harder than it looks. Oh well, I gave it a shot haha!

Horoscope Fish said:
On a DX body, and assuming you want a Nikon lens, I'd suggest either the 35mm f/1.8G, the 85mm f/1.8G or both and in that order. My GF shoots with a D5300 and a 35mm prime almost exclusively and it's a killer combination. She's recently latched on to my Sigma 35mm f1/.4 DG HSM so now I'm screwed if I decide I want one of my own. Still, if you have the budget for it, that's the 35mm prime to have, IMO. The Sigma Art lenses are just extraordinary... As my GF is starting to figure out. I also think the Sigma 35mm balances very nicely on her D5300 but I have pretty big mitts. It is not a light lens, though. If that's a big consideration, fall back on the Nikon 35mm f/1.8G instead.
Click to expand...

I've never owned an f/1.4 lens before, is there a noticeable difference (other than bokeh) between f1.4 and f2.8? That is two full stops right? So if my f2.8 lens shoots at 1/30th in a dark room, would I be able to shoot at 1/120th with an f1.4 lens?
 
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
hsiehjon said:
I've never owned an f/1.4 lens before, is there a noticeable difference (other than bokeh) between f1.4 and f2.8? That is two full stops right? So if my f2.8 lens shoots at 1/30th in a dark room, would I be able to shoot at 1/120th with an f1.4 lens?
Click to expand...
Your math is correct but also bear in mind there is a direct relationship between aperture and depth of field to be considered. While it isn't necessarily difficult to focus at f/1.4, it can be difficult to get your subject in good focus, particularly when the camera-to-subject distance is short. This is because depth-of-field depends on the camera-to-subject distance and when you are close to your subject, the depth-of-field will be shallower than when you are further away. I have a pair of excellent f/1.4 primes but I very rarely shoot them THAT wide for that reason.

Just my two-cents of course...
 
Last edited:
H

hsiehjon

Senior Member
Horoscope Fish said:
Your math is correct but also bear in mind there is a direct relationship between aperture and depth of field to be considered. While it isn't necessarily difficult to focus at f/1.4, it can be difficult to get your subject in good focus, particularly when the camera-to-subject distance is short. This is because depth-of-field depends on the camera-to-subject distance and when you are close to your subject, the depth-of-field will be shallower than when you are further away. I have a pair of excellent f/1.4 primes but I very rarely shoot them THAT wide for that reason.

Just my two-cents of course...
Click to expand...

Yup, I experienced that with this lens when shooting up close for a macro shot. Would you recommend getting a the Sigma Arts 30mm 1.4 prime? It is almost half the price of the Sigma Arts 35mm 1.4.
 
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
hsiehjon said:
Yup, I experienced that with this lens when shooting up close for a macro shot. Would you recommend getting a the Sigma Arts 30mm 1.4 prime? It is almost half the price of the Sigma Arts 35mm 1.4.
Click to expand...
I'm going to say yes to that but read on...

I put not one, but two, of those very lenses on my D7100 and I loved the focal length. It felt like it was just about tailor made for the D7100 (which I still have) and I'd still like to have one those Sigma 30mm's for it to this day. Problem was, neither copy I had would auto-focus correctly using anything but the center focus point. I sent the first one back for an exchange, and the second one, though better was still horribly off; and I mean HORRIBLY. Again, use the center focus point and everything was ducky... Move away from the center focus point and everything went to hell. Which sucked HARD because 30mm on a DX camera was rockin' my world and the two Sigma Art lenses I have now are just fantastic.

So... Do I suggest you try one? I do. I feel confident my experience was atypical. Both of my 30mm lenses came from the same vendor and I suspect I got two lenses from the same batch. Not too mention this was some time ago. To be on the safe side, though, I might suggest you buy from somewhere like B&H, Adorama or Amazon... Places with generous and no-hassle return policies just in case it turns out my experience was NOT atypical.
 
H

hsiehjon

Senior Member
Horoscope Fish said:
I'm going to say yes to that but read on...

I put not one, but two, of those very lenses on my D7100 and I loved the focal length. It felt like it was just about tailor made for the D7100 (which I still have) and I'd still like to have one those Sigma 30mm's for it to this day. Problem was, neither copy I had would auto-focus correctly using anything but the center focus point. I sent the first one back for an exchange, and the second one, though better was still horribly off; and I mean HORRIBLY. Again, use the center focus point and everything was ducky... Move away from the center focus point and everything went to hell. Which sucked HARD because 30mm on a DX camera was rockin' my world and the two Sigma Art lenses I have now are just fantastic.

So... Do I suggest you try one? I do. I feel confident my experience was atypical. Both of my 30mm lenses came from the same vendor and I suspect I got two lenses from the same batch. Not too mention this was some time ago. To be on the safe side, though, I might suggest you buy from somewhere like B&H, Adorama or Amazon... Places with generous and no-hassle return policies just in case it turns out my experience was NOT atypical.
Click to expand...
In that case, I'm gonna have to give it a try and go with the 30mm Sigma Arts lens. I purchase all my gear from B&H so if I do end up with a faulty lens, I'll be able to exchange for a different one. Thanks again.
 
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
hsiehjon said:
In that case, I'm gonna have to give it a try and go with the 30mm Sigma Arts lens. I purchase all my gear from B&H so if I do end up with a faulty lens, I'll be able to exchange for a different one. Thanks again.
Click to expand...
No doubt the people at B&H are top notch and, odds are, your copy will be fine. I think you'll like the lens... A lot.
....
 
SkvLTD

SkvLTD

Senior Member
hsiehjon said:
Mainly for everyday use (street, family and friends) and occasionally portrait. I don't plan to do micro.
Click to expand...

Well 17-50 can well stretch these parameters, but what it nor any non-macro can't really do is well, macro. And trust me, the more working distance you can get w/ macro, the better. Bugs don't like close visitors. I'd keep the 105 or if you want to recover its ridiculous cost, perhaps Tamron SP 90 or Tokina ATX Pro 100 macro in its stead (for 1/2 if not 1/3 the price) - you won't have VR not AF, but you can do well without that since you will want to use a flash and focus by moving camera when lens is at its minimal focus distance.
 
Top