Help with my lens setup

<p>Belatedly... I used to use my Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro as a short portrait lens (I <i>did</i> have a 135 f/2). I eventually got frustrated enough at the lack of isolation that I got a Samyang 85mm f/1.4. Shortly after, Nikon came out with the 85 f/1.8 AF-S, which I've recently acquired, because manual focus is a pain when subjects don't hold still.<br />

<br />

I tend not to care much about short, fast lenses. You still don't get that much subject separation, and the wide angle means camera shake, and therefore shutter speed, is usually less of a problem. I do care about fast, long lenses.<br />

<br />

However, I agree that 85 f/1.8 is only a bit faster than the 105 f/2.8 when it comes to subject separation. I'm not totally sure I'd justify having the 50mm prime as well as the 85mm, but if we're talking the f/1.8 versions then neither is exactly big. (The AF-D 50mm is pretty tiny, unless you compare it to the manual focus versions.)<br />

<br />

For three lenses, I'd probably not argue with Dieter, with the proviso that I don't really care about normal zooms. So actually, I'd probably go 10-20, 70-300, and plug the gap with a 50mm (or 60mm f/2 macro). But that's just me. Maybe 10-20, 18-140 and the 105mm macro would be more flexible (I'd want more reach than 105mm), but you'd be shooting short portraits at a slow aperture.<br />

<br />

Actually, I'd a) save up, b) end up with a large credit card bill, and c) get a bigger camera bag. I'm so terrible at travelling light I don't know why I'm even trying to help!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, I agree that 85 f/1.8 is only a bit faster than the 105 f/2.8 when it comes to subject separation.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>but you'd be shooting short portraits at a slow aperture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hey Andrew! You got me confused right there. Is the 85mm really worth it over the double duty provided by the 105mm? (Not only talking portraits, which is the certain thing that both can accomplish, but everything else one could do with either the 85mm or the 105mm).</p>

<p>I think you can do an awful lot with a 40mm equivalent lens, in you case 28mm. If you get away from your original set, a 28mm and just two more lenses could do a lot. Maybe add a 105mm VR for macro and portraits. Add your wide zoom and you have it. A 90mm Tamron could replace the 105.</p>

<p>Hey Roy.<br>

I guess so. That's what I'm planning on doing, eventually.<br>

Though I don't see why I'd get a tamron 90mm. My current dilemma is keeping the 85mm 1.8 vs the sigma 105mm 2.8 macro.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Though I don't see why I'd get a tamron 90mm. My current dilemma is keeping the 85mm 1.8 vs the sigma 105mm 2.8 macro.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Just thinking a little shorter for portrait with macro, but the 105 is great. I have always liked a 28mm on DX, and now I have a 40mm for my Df, and it is more handy than any other FL, IMO.</p>

<p>Perhaps a different idea, why not let a friend of your hold the lenses that you don't take. This way you will have them when you come back, plus if you find you need/want a lens you left behind have your friend mail it to you.</p>

<p>Thanks gordon, that's a nice idea. However some extra cash could be good right now. And since I bought the lenses in the US but I'm not in the US, I'll actually get a little bit more than I paid for when I sell them.</p>

<p>I'm leaning towards keeping the 105mm over the 85mm. Any objections?</p>

<p>I don’t think we could tell you what to bring Allan because that will depend on too many factors that ultimately only you can decide as a photographer. As you can see, everybody have a different opinion about your question. You should be able to determine by yourself, exactly what is it that you need. <br>

For example, if you like to shoot architecture, antique buildings ( inside and outside ), etc, I will definitely bring a wide angle lens ( 11-16 Tokina or any other in that range ); if you like macro photography, then a 100mm Tokina or 105 mm f/2.8 Nikon will be the answer; again, only you know what type of photographer you are and what is it that you need. <br>

Listen to your inner voice and needs and you will decide exactly what to bring. Nobody know you better than yourself and everybody will have a different approach to make this kind of decision. Have a happy shooting ! </p>

<p>Ah, you had me at 35, 50 & 85 primes!</p>

<p>The 85 f/1.8 is a <i>bit</i> better at subject isolation than the 105 f/2.8, but generally it comes down to the distance to the subject and the distance to the background. Depth of field is generally mostly controlled by relative aperture, for the same subject framing - if the background is near to the foreground, it will be blurred more by an f/1.8 lens than an f/2.8 lens (wide open) no matter the focal length. Distant background blur is affected by focal length (because you proportionately zoom the blurry background more with a longer lens), and the numbers eventually cancel out so that it's the absolute size of the aperture that counts. And 85mm/1.8 is not much bigger than 105mm/2.8. So if you like blurry ears, the 85mm probably has a more significant effect than if you like blurry mountains.<br />

<br />

There's an argument that the "classic" portrait lengths are between the film equivalent of 85mm and 135mm - depending on how much of the subject is included. Longer than 135mm (such as the 150mm+ that you get from using a 105mm macro on a DX body) arguably makes portraits look a bit "flat" - the nose is typically shrunk, the ears enlarged compared with a closer view (face-on, obviously). Frankly, I find the effect minor, and I'm more worried about being so far from the subject that I have to shout - Joe McNally uses a 200mm f/2 for portraits, which makes me feel justified in doing the same. Still, if this bothers you, maybe the 85mm has some merits over the 105.<br />

<br />

However, I tend to want as much working distance as I can get with a macro lens (with the occasional exception of wanting to shoot straight down on a table), so I'd take the 105 over the 90mm. As I said, I actually went with the 150mm, which was my best compromise between a long lens and still having f/2.8 isolation (this was before the Sigma 180mm came out, but there's a big premium for that lens).<br />

<br />

Anyway. No advice, and it will depend on your own style of shooting. Just commenting on the pros and cons of these lenses.</p>