Nikon 50mm 1.8 or 85mm "Portrait" lens ?

[al_peterson1]

I feel it's time to add a prime lens to my small collection (18-55 kit lens, and 70-300 VR) . I'm hoping

to purchase a D80 soon, and I understand the 50mm 1.8 will autofucus on the D80, not my D40. This

is not a problem for me, nor is it the only reason for me to upgrade to a D80.

 

This Summer we plan to spend a few days in Yellowstone Natl. Park, we hope to capture lots of photos

including the Sun setting behind the mountains. I also enjoy taking lots of flower photos (macro) when

we visit Florida in the Winter. I would love the increased sharpness and low-light capability of a prime

lens.

 

The Nikon 50mm 1.8 is about $110 new, the 85mm is about $400. I'm leaning towards the 50mm as

the best bang for the buck, but would appreciate comments about both lenses re. my applications.

 

I also hope to add an 18-200 VR soon, which will likely stay put on one of the cameras as a walk

around lens.

 

Thanks in advance for your insight, experiences, advice.

[eigtball]

I think since you said Macro/Flower, you might be interested in the 60mm 2.8G Nikkor Micro AF-S. Its a tad more expensive. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/545660-USA/Nikon_2177_AF_S_Micro_Nikkor_60mm_f_2_8G.html. It's right around that 50mm focal length, and its Nano-Crystal Coat, Pro quality lens. 1:1 reproduction, 185mm (7.28inches) close focus.

 

Just a thought.

[michael_darnton1]

The 50mm is a great lens, a real user, and dirt cheap. I bought that one first. The 60m Micro is nice, and a great lens, but extremely heavy, and a stop slower. I find mine redundant unless I'm specifically doing close up work--but you did mention you'll be doing some.

 

The 85 is probably the next lens I'll buy (I also have the 20 and 28--the wide range is more important to me), but I've been putting it off because the effective 127mm focal length is longer than I usually find myself using. I haven't seen it in the skin, but it doesn't look that big or heavy.

 

Anyway, my vote is for either the 50 or the 60 Micro, depending on the importance of weight, cost, and close-up ability.

[bwcombs]

I think everyone should have the 50mm f/1.8 in their bag for sure. It's cheap, sharp and compact.

 

The macro situation is a question on how close you want to get to your subject. I have the 60mm Micro, but rarely use it for macro, instead I use it for portraits and studio work. It is an incredibly sharp lens. I would think that having a bit of length to a macro lens would help the shooter in most situations. So the 85 or 105 would be a bit handier there.

[User_276104]

Since you mentioned flower photography, close focus is definitely a consideration. Both lenses will give you great, clean images.

 

Here are examples of each lens' magnification at close focus.<div></div>

[User_276104]

And the 85mm f/1.8 at close focus.<div></div>

[brentlaverphotography]

I agree with the previous posts. The 50mm f/1.8 is a great lens for basically the price of a filter. I use it all of the time for low light. That said I have had great success with the 85mm f/1.4 as a portrait lens, but the price difference is pretty considerable. If in doubt just get the 50mm...you won't regret it.

[johninjapan2000]

Extension tubes on the 50mm f1.8? I'm a bit out of practise but can anybody advise the OP about this option?

 

Both the 50mm f1.8 and the 85mm f1.8 handle well on my D60, issue of AF aside. Nice balance, etc.

 

john

[nickwhite]

Since you are likely to get a D80, you should perhaps also consider the range of Sigma macro lenses.http://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lenses/macro/macro.htm

 

I use the Sigma 50mm (on a D80), and have also owned the 105mm version (although I have the Nikkor now); I think the newer Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro could suit you ideally, due to the slightly increased working distance over the 50mm focal length and 1:1 lifesize reproduction to get you in on the flower details, and yet an ideal length for portraits too (equiv to 105mm on full frame).

You could still get the 50mm f1.8 if you really need that one extra stop (or even the f1.4) but personally I have never felt the need for it, since I shoot mainly macro, nat history and animal portraits.

[nickwhite]

For extension tubes, the best option is the Kenko N/AF DG set since they will retain full compatibility with any of the lenses mentioned. You can also use tubes to reduce the closest focusing on long lenses (usually losing the AF function).

 

There are no optical elements in tubes to degrade the image but there is the extra light loss to be considered the closer you focus.

[samuel_padgett]

I'd also look at the Tamron 90 2.8 macro lens. It's cut-yourself sharp and great for both flower and people photography. It costs about the same as the Nikon 85 1.8.

 

If you want to go with a Nikon 85mm prime, I would save up for the legendary 85 1.4, but that's just me. It's at least twice as expensive :(

 

The 50 1.8 is a great lens to have in your bag and probably the best bang for the buck of any Nikon lens.

 

They're all great options.

[carl_becker2]

The 50mm f1.8 is a great value if you use that focal lenght. I went to Yellowstone June 2007 with four lenses for my D200. A 17mm, 24mm, 180mm and 400mm. I shot landscape vacation snapshots and mammals. I did not need a fast short tele for that. If I where you I would spend the money on a Macro lens. If you want to shoot mammals I would get at least a 300mm f4 which would be much sharper wide open than your zoom. If you wanted to go real wide I would add a wide zoom, Nikkor, Sigma or Tokina depending on your needs. I used the 17mm, 24mm (stopped down) and 400mm (wide open) the most. Your 18-55mm would have met most of my needs except mammals (bear, elk, moose, wolves, coyote, etc). I prefer to keep my distance with wild animals for everyones safety. A Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 may give somewhat better results then your current lens and is faster.

 

In hind sight I should have had a taller tripod then the Gitzo 126, a better ballhead and rented a 500mm f4 AFS with 1.4TC. I might still be there taking pictures. Extra cards and batteries are handy also.

[eric_arnold]

as the owner of both a 50/1.8 and a d80, have to say it's kind of a no-brainer considering the cost. the 50 is great, especially for those times when you want your camera/lens set up to be inobtrusive. candids, portraits, low-light, the 50 is very versatile. it's not a macro lens, though, but i have heard of people using extension tubes with it. the only drawback is, it's really more of a short tele on DX than a normal lens, but the 85 would be no better in this regard.

 

this is an easy decision, and one that's light on both the camera bag and the wallet. the tougher one lies ahead: the 85 or the 60 (if you do go for the 60, i'd go for the older version since you don't need AF-S for dedicated macro work). i'm considering the 85 for low-light concert work (a nice kit alongside the sigma 30/1.4 and the nikon 50/1.8), but i just got a sweet manfrotto tripod+ballhead, so i'm also thinking a macro to add to my "outdoors" kit (tokina 12-24, nikon 70-300 ED). lens lust never dies, does it?

[acbeddoe]

Since you have 18-55mm and 70-300mm, the<b> Micro-Nikkor 60mm AF-D f/2.8</b> might be just right. It is a macro lens, it fits in the focal length gap you have, it is sharp and fast, and it makes a great portrait lens. Less than $400, even less used.

[peter]

While on the subject of alternatives - Micro Nikkors specifically, I can suggest that a second hand 55mm f2.8 Micro Nikkor is a top lens for less than half the price of the later 60mm one. I have one and am very impressed. While the 60mm one is said to be a little better, I think you would be hard pressed to see the difference in use unless you are a real perfectionist and most of the "improvement" is cosmetic (the later one is designed to look more like the current round of Nikkors). The 55mm also has two advantages - superb image quality at infinity and it focuses 1:1 without any extension ring. While you will pick up a 50mm 1.8 for around $100 the 55mm Micro Nikkor will set you back about twice this (compared with up to four times this for the 60mm.)

[lilly_w]

<The 55mm...focuses 1:1 without any extension ring.> The lens alone offers a reproduction ratio of 1:2. A 27.5mm extension ring (PK-13) is needed for 1:1.

[ned1]

If you're going to spend $400 on anything and you are going to Yellowstone, why not the 35/2.0 at $300? It becomes a 50mm on you D60 which makes it a more general purpose lens than the 50, which becomes a 75.

 

For landscapes you probably want the 24/2.8, also $300.

 

But if you're only interested in portraits (waist up) then the 50 will do. If you want head-shots get the 85.

 

And just to confuse things, there's always the Sigma 30/1.4, which is supposed to be quite good.

[roman_thorn]

Just Get the 60mm 2.8D....It will meet all your needs.

[peter]

"<The 55mm...focuses 1:1 without any extension ring.> The lens alone offers a reproduction ratio of 1:2. A 27.5mm extension ring (PK-13) is needed for 1:1."

 

Maybe I should have been more explicit but I was talking about the AF version which will focus to a 1:1 ratio without any extension ring. The MF version does not, as you say, except with the addition of the ring.

[albert_smith]

<I>I also enjoy taking lots of flower photos (macro) when we visit Florida in the Winter. I would love the increased sharpness and low-light capability of a prime lens...</I><P>

 

Not on your list, but worth considering is the 35mm f/2.0 AF. It gives the angle of view of a 50mm (35mm equiv) on digital, so it would be fine for mid torso to head portraits. Additionally, it focuses very close, not true macro, but pretty tight. The aperture allows you to isolate, while still using the background to show the subject in context. As a supliment to your zoom, this can be a good prime.<P>

 

FWIW... I have the 50mm f/1.8 AF and 85mm f/1.8 AF for my D40, and like both. The 85mm on a full frame film camera is nice, but I find it a bit too narrow on digital, especially indoors with window light, so I find that I use the 50mm more, and even more so the 35mm f/2.0.<P>

 

I'll post two shots to show the difference between the 50mm f/1.8 and 35mm f/2.0 in regards to their close-up ability. The 35mm, while wider, gets much more selective in close. If you like flowers, this lens can be effective.<div></div>

[albert_smith]

... And the 35mm AF<div></div>

[nsfbr]

Umm, why not the 50 1.4 instead. It is still less than the 85 1.8 (which is one of my

favorites). My rule is never scrimp on primes. And for $285 (the current price at B&H) It is

still less expensive than having to lose the shot when you need the 2/3 stop.