NIKON 85MM F/1.8 AF ON D300

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by david_achille, Apr 15, 2008.

  1. I am currently looking at buying the Nikon AF 85mm f/1.8 to be used on a D300.
    How does it compare with the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 DI macro which I currently own as
    a Portrait lense?

  2. I hate to be one of those people that comments on things I don't necessarily own, but...

    I do have the 85 f/1.8D and it is a great lens - files are REALLY clean and sharp.

    As far as the Tamron 90mm Macro, I don't think I've ever heard a bad word about it. I'm not sure you'd be gaining much by getting a Nikon 85mm f/1.8D or non-D.
  3. It's one of the best price/performance lenses from Nikon. Almost as sharp as the 85, f/1.4.

    It's a fantastic piece of glass.
  4. I haven't used the Tamron, but it's regarded as a good lens. I'll probably try to test it at some point.

    Look here for some test results: The biggest differences are that the Nikon has less geometric distortion and CA. From a practical standpoint, I would say that the Nikon's benefit is that it's significantly faster and the focusing is quite good (can't say about the focusing on the Tamron, but AF and macro rarely mix well. Obviously the Tamron can do macro, while the Nikon is not good for that.
  5. So why do you need two almost identical lenses, that is the real consumerism question here.

    (We all know that there is a 1.something stop increase in speed and a longer minimal
    focusing distance for the 85mm ... BUT ? [Since you can just up the ISO...] ? ?)
  6. I second Franks's comment - I see no real reason to own both lenses. (This is not to say that you need a reason to own both ^^ I got both ^^)Either one is a great lens. If I would not shoot macro I would prefer the Nikkor for the better speed and the better build. How about a 50mm AFD 1.8 as a second portrait lens for cases where you might prefer a shorter focal length.
  7. I second Walter's suggestion. Although I do think the 85mm 1.8 is the best portrait lens I
    own, if you already have the Tamron I would get a 50mm 1.8 (or even the 1.4). That lens is
    about as close to free as you can get for a good quality prime. And with the 1.5 crop factor,
    it is just shy of what the usual portrait lenses would be on a 35mm camera.

    But yes, the 85mm 1.8 is spectacular. Have you considered buying one used? There is little
    to go wrong in them, so if there is no mold or obvious damage, it will probably last forever.
  8. I have had the 85mm f/1.8 AF Nikkor for over 15 years, and since I got a Nikon DSLR, it has been employed quite a bit with good results. The lens is used almost always at full aperture so that I can reduce the DOF and isolate the subject, and while on-paper the widest f-stop is the weakest, I can't find any fault when used at f/1.8. I can't make a direct comparison with your Tamron lens, but I like selective focus, and that extra stop-and-a-fraction from the Nikkor is welcome even in good light for my use.
  9. ... And a detail from that above shot. Not too bad for the weakest aperture.
  10. Isolation potential from f/1.8... 511 pixels are too few to see the clarity and contrast of the subject against the blurred background, so a frame filling 700 will come up with the link.
  11. I've owned both the f/1.4 and f/1.8 in AIS, and the newest version in AFS. The legend of the f/1.4 grows more and more blown out of proportion with every post. There are respected testers that give the edge to the f/1.8, and I wouldn't contest it. The newer version of the f/1.8 has better bokeh than the AIS on my D200. The f/1.8 is awesome for the money.
  12. Love the 85 1.8. Playing around indoor full open, 1600 ISO 1/80

Share This Page