Any one has any comments on the new Nikon 85/3.5 VR macro lens?

<p>Any one has any comments on this lens? I am interested in exploring macro photography (nature and stills). I have a D90 and a Panasonic GH1, which can take any Nikon lens with an adapter. I used the 55/2.8 micro on the latter and love it, but the working distance is a bit short, and without a tripod, it is very difficult to make a good sharp image. Beside the Nikon, I am also considering the Tamron 90mm lens, especially the old one with an aperture ring. However it is not stabilized so if I use it on the D90, I would have to use tripod all the time. Anyway, thank you in advance for the input.</p>

<p>A little soft wide open, but sharpens up quickly and by f/5.6 or so, the equal to most other Micro-Nikkors.</p>

<p>I did a small (and extremely non-scientific) shootout comparing the Nikon 85/3.5 VR against Tamron 90/2.8 (model 72E) and Nikon seemed to be better overall performer (on Fuji S5 Pro).</p>

<p>However VR is not that useful when you are taking macro shots. It helps some to certain extend, but for sharpest macro shots you still need a good tripod. VR works best in non-macro distances. I also might add that both are good lenses, so I bet you'll like the results no matter which one you choose.</p>

<p>You can find some results from the shootout & comparison photos from <a href="http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1020&message=34231458">here</a>.</p>

<p>This was shot with Nikon 85/3.5 VR Macro<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10494526-lg.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="455" /></p>

<p>How about the "bokeh" when shooting wide open? I figure for traveling, I can also use the 85/3.5 VR lens for candid people photography. I do have the 85/1.8, which does not have the greatest bokeh. F1.8 is certainly useful when the level of light is low but most of the time, I use this lens at f2.8-3.5 to get enough DOF to get enough of my subject in focus.</p>

<p>I actually did not do any straight OOF-area comparison between those lenses, but the bokeh and OOF area rendering of the 85/3.5 seemed fine. So for candid portraits it should work well too. I actually have the both lenses (1.8 & 3.5) standing on my desk at work, hope I can find some time to test them outside sometime before my summer vacation starts...</p>

<p>I didn't find that many sample pics from my hard drive that would show the bokeh of the 85/3.5 in non-macro shots, but hope you get something out from this:</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Janne, did you shoot and drive at 90 km/h? This is worse than talking on the cell phone. Thank you for taking the time to do these tests and your photos really show what a good lens this is.</p>

<p>Looks like the speedo is in the centre of the dash and was captured from the passenger seat or back seat. At least I hope so.</p>

<p>Popular Photography has a review on the 85mm/3.5 VR in this month's magazine.</p>

<p>CC,<br>

I don't think you can use Nikon G lenses and the GH (unless you do not want to change the aperture), am I wrong?</p>

<p>Similar to Benjamin, I was wondering if VR works through an adapter. I always assumed that VR was somehow "tied in" with the multiple focus points in order to work, but I can't remember where I got that idea.</p>

<p>There are several adapters on eBay that allow controlling the aperture ring of G lenses. The all have a pin that engages the aperture ring of the lens so I think they are all made by the same factory in China. You should be able to find one for around $50. Do a search using "Nikon G lens GH1 adapter." The VR will not work with these cheap adapters because VR needs power from the camera but there is no electrical connection between these adapters and the camera body.</p>

 

<p>CC, don't worry, it was just like Jay said - I was safely in the back seat.</p>

<p>Here is a quick and dirty OOF-area & bokeh comparison between 85/1.8 & 85/3.5 both at f/3.5. Light transmission & contrast seems to be somewhat different between the lenses, and the bokeh & OOF-area rendering in my opinion is more pleasing with 85/3.5 Macro but the 85/1.8D should be little sharper at f/3.5. Both were shot with D90.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>and the bokeh & OOF-area rendering in my opinion is more pleasing with 85/3.5 Macro but the 85/1.8D should be little sharper at f/3.5</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agree; thanks.</p>

<p>You'll need a tripod for macros with this lens too.<br>

A 105/2.8 VR is a viable contender as a universal lens with more reach. Personally I think that the size of these lenses make them a bit awkward on m4/3.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Personally I think that the size of these lenses make them a bit awkward on m4/3.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree. The 55/2.8 works well though as it is much smaller and it fills the hole in the lens line up in the m4/3 system that it currently lacks a cheap and fast 50 mm-ish lens. I use the GH1 for video, and it is a big plus when I can use an adapter to use all my Nikon lenses. I can also use the GH1 as a back up or second body together with the D90 when weight is not a major issue. When I need to travel light, I take the GH1 with the 14-140 kit lens and the 20/1.7 for low light shots. With the addition of 55/2.8, in the future I may take the 55 instead of the 20. </p>

<p>Janne, a more relevant comparison between the 85/1.8D and 85/3.5 VR macro would include both lenses stopped down to around f/5.8 to f/8. At f/3.5 the macro is wide open - there would be no multi-sided iris shape in the out of focus highlights because the aperture should be perfectly circular with lens wide open.</p>

<p>Aside from the shapes of the out of focus blobs of light, which aren't a relevant comparison, I'm not seeing any significant differences in the quality of the out of focus cars or foliage. Bokeh describes the subjective quality of the entire out of focus areas, not merely the shape of OOF blobs of light.</p>

<p>The elliptical shape of the out of focus blobs of light with the 85/3.5 VR macro are puzzling. I'm seeing similarly elliptical shapes in the out of focus car taillights in the previous sample photo as well. Most of my short telephotos wide open have nearly perfectly circular rendering of out of focus blobs of light, including my old, cheap and relatively primitive 135/3.5 Lentar preset T-mount. Were all of your sample photos using the 85/3.5 macro taken with VR engaged?<br>

<img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00U/00U0OV-156965584.JPG" alt="" width="700" height="560" /><br>

<strong>Nearly circular out of focus blobs of light with Lentar 135/3.5 preset T-mount wide open. Note one roughly football-shaped highlight near base of stem on glass.</strong></p>

<p>Hi Lex: for those of us who plan to use this lens for candid people photography, shooting it at f3.5 makes sense. Clearly to really look into the quality of bokeh, this test is far from thorough. To my eyes, it is slightly more difficult to make out the edges of objects in the background shot by the 85/3.5, although this could be partly due to the fact that the images from the 85/3.5 seems a bit darker. </p>

<p>While the highlight from the 85/3.5 is not a perfect circle, I like it better than the one from the 85/1.8. This cat eye effect reminds me of a lens review that I read recently from preview. When they reviewed the Panasonic 45/2.8 macro lens for the m4/3 camera, they noted the following: "At F2.8 it also has an appealing, 'swirly' character with a "cat's eye" effect towards the edges - a consequence of physical vignetting by the lens barrel design (and a reflection of the small diameter of that front element)." May be someone can make sense of these to be able to explain the behavior of the 85/3.5 lens. </p>

<p>Lex, you're naturally right about the aperture, I just provided what CC asked - an example how the bokeh is when the lens is used wide open. Also you're right about the terminology and the meaning of the term bokeh. But since I've seen many occasions when the word bokeh is used only to describe the "blobs of light", I tend to use both "bokeh" and "OOF-area" (which indeed seems rather silly now that you've pointed that out).</p>

<p>However, for me how the highlights/blobs of light look like has relevance on how I rate the bokeh of a lens, as they contribute to the quality of the entire out of focus areas. But as said, it is a subjective thing. Here is another example of the blobs, now shot with f/5.6 (they seem a bit elliptical because the light source was elliptical). The 85/3.5 VR Macro still seems a bit smoother (but since these are nearly 100% crops, the difference is not that relevant when the picture is looked as it really should be without pixel peeping).</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/11120353-lg.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="340" /></p>

<p>The elliptical shape of the highlights is puzzling, in the in-car shot VR was engaged, in the parking lot shot it wasn't. I'm not sure when and why the elliptical highlights appear, since I've taken photos with that lens with circular highlights as well (VR engaged). So VR does not seem to have any effect on it. Now that I went through the test shots I took with it, I found a photo that has both circular & elliptical blobs of light in it (street lights at a distance). It seems that further the highlights are from the center of the photo, the more elliptical they become, just like it was described in the review of Panasonic 45/2.8 that CC quoted.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/11120295-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="399" /></p>

<p>On the differences on bokeh between the lenses, there are minor differences, the 85/3.5 having a bit smoother bokeh IMHO. Are they significant differences and how significant & visible they are when we are not pixel peeping and the picture is looked as a whole - that's somewhat subjective. I like the bokeh of 85/3.5 Macro a bit better than the bokeh I got out from the 85/1.8D at the same apertures, partly because of the shape of highlights (or the blobs if you will) and slightly smoother rendering. Here is another example of bokeh details (which sounds like oxymoron :) ) from both lenses. Shot with same settings.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/11120291-lg.jpg" alt="" width="674" height="300" /></p>

<p>I meant to say smoother highlights, not shape of highlights - I'd rather have my bokeh highlights round, thank you. And while I'm at it, I might add that I'm not a huge fan of the 85/3.5 VR Macro, and would not buy it for myself. If I would be looking for a new macro, I would rather look for a FX macro with max aperture of f/2.8. But nevertheless, 85/3.5 is not a bad lens, in fact it is quite good one if you want 85mm macro lens and don't need FX compatibility and are OK with f/3.5 rather than f/2.8 as max aperture.</p>