Nikon Announces AFS DX 85 f/3.5 VR Micro Nikkor

<blockquote>

<h3 >NIKON’S NEW AF-S DX 85mm f/3.5 MICRO NIKKOR LENS ENABLES FURTHER CREATIVITY WITH SOPHISTICATED TECHNOLOGY AND DESIGN FOR CLOSE-UP PHOTOGRAPHY</h3>

 

<p><strong>MELVILLE, N.Y. (Oct. 14, 2009) –</strong> Nikon Inc., today introduced the new medium telephoto AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 85mm f/3.5G ED VR lens designed specifically for extreme close-up photography, yet perfectly suited for portrait, nature, and general imaging as well. Focusing as close as 0.9 ft., this new 85mm Micro lens allows photographers to capture breathtaking close-up images with life-size reproduction ratios up to 1:1, helping to ensure that even the subtlest of subject detail is reproduced faithfully. The new 85mm Micro NIKKOR lens, in conjunction with Nikon DX-format digital SLR cameras, renders a picture angle equivalent of approximately 127.5mm (in the 35mm or FX-format), providing a natural perspective along with a desirable and practical lens-to-subject working distance.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>http://press.nikonusa.com/2009/10/nikons_new_afs_dx_85mm_f35_mic.php</p>

<p>It will be interesting to see how that stacks up against my Tamron SP90 2.8 which I rate as being as good as if not better than my Micro 105/2.8 AFD.</p>

<p>The only negative I found in use is the push/pull AF clutch, but then the lens is in manual focus for macro shooting anyway.<br>

Big positive was the longer distance bokeh and warm rendered colours.</p>

<p>The lens is described to be also good for portrait. So my question to the experts is: is f3.5 enough? Clearly f3.5 is implemented to save weight and bulk. Will this lens replace the excellent 85/1.8 AFD lens?</p>

<p>At $530, they are not going to sell (m)any 105's, and it will be one for the scalpers. <br>

My guess, in that price range, it may match the rez. of a 50 with a T filter (which isn't really bad.)</p>

<p>Wow, another 85mm lens.</p>

<p>Still, I'm kinda slightly interested in it.</p>

<p>it's not the 85/1.4 VR we all wanted...</p>

<p>Looks like a versatile lens, AFS/VR, prime for portraits and macro work. Good affordable price. I would like to have it.</p>

<p>A slow 85 mm lens only for DX...ho humm... If the 105/2.8 is too expensive, buy a 60/2.8; one gets nanocoating, larger aperture, coverage for FX and high quality. I for one use 55 mm on DX all the time, so the 60 would be a solid choice. For longer reach, 105 is clearly longer. But a slow 85 that won't work with FX...I really can't see the point in this one.</p>

<p>I have looked at all of the Nikon announcements and tech specifications on this lens and can find no statements regarding use with extension tubes, either Nikon's non electronic ones or other manufacturers. Does anyone have any real info on this matter? <br>

Joe Smith</p>

<p>One thing to remember about macro lenses is that "f/2.8 is not f/2.8" (or something like that). As soon as you change focus from infinity f/2.8 goes bye-bye. I don't see f/3.5 as a limiting factor for this lens.</p>

<p><em>As soon as you change focus from infinity f/2.8 goes bye-bye. I don't see f/3.5 as a limiting factor for this lens.</em></p>

<p>The aperture loss is cumulative i.e. at 1:1 it'll then be f/7, which means a very dark viewfinder. Unless Nikon invokes substantial focal length loss (greater than that of other micro nikkors if the aperture is to be the same at 1:1). Not good... This seems like a cheapo macro option for D3000/D5000/D90 users who want to travel light and not do any general (non-macro) available light photography with the lens. The 105 VR already has very dim corners wide open - this is more of the same. What is gained in high ISO is then lost by going to slower and slower glass.</p>

<p>I really fail to see why Nikon found this lens necessary, especially at this price... <br>

So probably Ken Rockwell will find it a swell lens (which he never used), Google will pick up on this 'review', and Nikon sells enough of them to justify its existence.</p>

<p>I use D300/105VR for macro photography in the field. I think this 85 could be quite a useful lens. Why lug around a full-frame lens if you don't have to? Note that DX has DOF and working distance advantages over FX for macro. In addition, the 60mm macro has far faster focussing than the 105VR, so if the 85 is in between, that's another advantage. Admittedly, users like me may represent only a small share of the market.</p>

<p>Meh ... at that price, I'm still much more interested in the Tamron 60/2, which appears to be three lenses in one: macro, portrait and low-light.</p>

<p><em>Note that DX has DOF and working distance advantages over FX for macro. </em></p>

<p>Working distance, yes; DOF, no. All you have to do to match DX DOF is stop down about 1.3 stops more when you're using FX than what you would with DX, and increase ISO to get the shutter speed up. The quality should be similar. </p>

<p>I agree with Oskar, not much point to this lens. I don't think 127.5mm is a good portait length (DX equivalent) and I don't think f3.5 is fast enough. I can't think of a time I'd want it in place of my 60 or 105 macros. If it was weight I wanted to limit, I'd carry the 60, if not the 105. When would I use the 85? Not really long enough, not fast enough, just not right.</p>

<p>BTW, I'm not saying this because I'm hung up on full frame, I love the new DX35/1.8.</p>

<p>It's a DX lens?!?!?</p>

<p>Oh Snap! That is nuts.</p>

<p>To me it indicates Nikon's continuing committment to the DX format.</p>

<p>I'm not so excited about it being DX either, as I couldn't use it with my F100. I also thought it was a little odd that Nikon chose to release a new DX lens along with the release of an FX camera, the D3S.<br /> <br /> This new lens could be a great combination with a smaller camera such as a D40/60/3000/5000 though. The VR, focal length and macro capability could have advantages in a small package.</p>

<p>It's f3.5? Yawn. Where's the 300mm f4 VR?</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

I'm waiting like forever for 400mm f5.6. VR or not. Tthat would be dim lens I'd use a lot.

<p>The rumored long lens is the 100-500/4-5.6 VR for next year. Would be desirable to me.</p>

<p>Max 3.5 is lame, not a disaster for macro but will not double for portrait / low light. MTF looks good though, sharp across the frame already at 3.5. Working distance should be about 14 or 15 cm, which is much more reasonable than Nikkor AF-S 60mm and also an improvement over say Tamron 90.</p>

<p>I recently got the 105 VR - so this specific lens doesn't really interest me at the moment.</p>

<p>I'm interested in the move to f3.5 though - I appreciate the DOF nature of wider aps (although for Macro with such narrow DOF I guess this is less of an issue).</p>

<p>With the announcement in BJP for the D3s with even higher ISO performance quality - is there a shift for faster camera performance, and less reliance on faster lenses ? - and is this born out by this lens ?</p>

<p>Martin</p>

<p>When doing macro, there will frequently be situations where a fast lens is required due to the difficulties of framing and focusing in low-light (and often the good stuff is found in the low light). I'm getting by with slower lenses, but the Zeiss f2 macros are definitely appealing to me. It doesn't matter whether one uses optical or LV focusing, both get problems when the light gets low.<br>

A bigger problem is the target audience; focusing in macro is manual. The viewfinders of anything below the D300 are not sufficient for critical manual focusing. The lowest end cameras don't have live view. This means that there's only a limited number of cameras for which this lens is useful and personally I think this would be the least useful of Nikon's macro lenses (I'm a D300 owner, I do macro, I own several macro lenses). I think that if cost or size is a problem, it's best to buy an old MF macro lens for macro and a proper portrait lens for portrait. If macro is only occasional, buy a 50/1.8 and extension tubes.</p>