Need Help choosing between two lenses: Nikon 105mm AF-S f2.8 VR Micro vs Nikon 105mm DC

[p_ghosh]

<p>Hi guys- first post here:<br>

I'm looking to build out a whole new Nikon setup and am having a hard time decideing between these two lenses. <br>

I'm joining the vast world of Wedding Photography, in the past I have done it with cheap gear, and while my customers enjoyed what I gave them, in the end I knew I was limited by my equipment.<br>

I used Canon stuff and sold it awhile back, and am looking to switch to Nikon. I have a Nikon D7000 and a D90<br>

I am definitely getting the Nikon 35mm 1.8g, Sigma 50mm 1.4, Sigma 8-16mm, Nikon 18-105mm (kit lens, I'll upgrade at some point to the 17-55), and a Tele/Macro option.</p>

<p>Now I have heard a vast amount of things about both lenses, Some review sites state that the 105mm VR is not the best macro because of "breathing" (Ken Rockwell stated this), but optically it's very nice. <br>

I'm looking to use this lens as a portrait lens for during ceremonies and headshots etc. I will also use the camera for some macro work (Rings, Table Settings etc etc)<br>

The 105mm DC of course is favored as one of the best Bokeh Lenses ever and it has me intrigued simply because of this fact.<br>

The way I see it is the 105mm VR Macro has this going for it:<br>

-Macro<br>

-VR<br>

-AF-S and newly built</p>

<p>On the other side of the coin, the 105mm DC has:<br>

-Defocus Control<br>

-World Class Bokeh<br>

-Pro Built body</p>

<p>I can get the 105mm VR for 840+ taxes new (Canada) and the 105MM DC from 600-750 on Ebay.<br>

If I was going the 105mm DC I would end up buying the 40mm Micro lens that just came out too just so I have a Macro option.<br>

Thank in advance!</p>

 

[mihai_ciuca]

<p>If I'd be in your shoes, I'd look for a different wedding setup in the same budget probably.<br>

Tokina 11-16 / 2.8 <br>

Tamron 17-50/2.8<br>

Tamron 60/2 or Nikkor 40/2.8 for macro (Tamron is very good for portraits too)<br>

Sigma 85/1.4 - that wipes down with the two 105 you are mentioning in the portraiture - shallow DOF and incredible bokeh. Also 105 is quite long on DX for portraits IMHO.<br>

This is a versatile fast lenses kit that can help you better to manage a wedding.<br>

At a later time you can look for a Sigma 50-150/2.8 and you are completely covered.</p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<p>i myself would get the 105 DC, but then i have a macro lens already (tokina 100). for what you do, the 105 VR seems like the best bet if you are specifically planning on taking handheld macro shots during wedding events, since the other lens can't do that.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I would recommend the 105 VR because of more accurate focusing. The 105 DC is a great lens, but it's tricky to focus and at wide apertures on DX it is not that impressive IMO. </p>

[dennis_d._hardenburger]

<p>I think by stating you want our need a macro lens you have answered your own question.<br>

Get the 105 VR<br>

How ever if you take the macro photos out of the need, I would get the 105 f2 AFD DC, I had both lens and I don’t do much macro work so I sold the 105VR. And after using the 105 DC for several months I also sold my 85 F1.4 AFD. I love the 105 f2 DC it has become my most used lens, not just as a portrait lens were it really does shine but as an extremely sharp general purpose lens. I much prefer the DC lens for flowers and that type of close ups. <br>

Hard decision, good luck with your choice, you can’t go wrong with either lens.<br>

Dennis</p>

[monika_epsefass]

<p>The 105 VR is a great lens.<br /> A 40 macro, as recommended by Mihai, is much too short, if you use it for real macro purposes that are not still life. A 60 will just pass... (speaking from experience). Nevertheless, having the option is perfect, in particular for wedding photography, when you may need to take a close up of decoration, rings, or small items.<br /> <br /> Forget the kit lens, they're always a compromise. Get a good macro with a decent range instead (or the 85/1.4) and a 70-200 if your budget is flexible. While the first is an excellent portrait lens, the second will allow you to keep a good distance during weddings, but still be close.</p>

[p_ghosh]

<p>Thanks Ilkka, one thing I was worried about and something I know happens is the fact that if it take sa while to setup a shot, usually I just won't be able to get it. Time goes by so fast. I know that having VR and that focal length, I'm sure the VR will probably be good.</p>

<p>My priority is Portraiture for sure. So I need the Macro Lens to be a good portrait performer as well. Though seeing as the past models of the 105mm from Nikon have been rave hits I can't imagine the newest one not being one. How is the bokeh on the Nikon?</p>

[p_ghosh]

<p>Do you guys think I'm missing out on having a good walk around lens and that should be higher priority?</p>

[JakeQ]

<p>I have used both. The Micro-Nikkor with VR is a very versatile lens. It`s quite good for macro work but doesn`t really excel in this field. The AF is fast and reliable and the bokeh is very nice. It`s pretty much an allrounder more than a dedicated macro. The DC lens is the better lens for portraiture and at least one stop faster (the VR is not really 2.8), but AF is slower and not as reliable as the VR`s. I sold the VR and kept the DC as I needed a portraiture lens more than a macro lens, but for your kind of work the VR would be the better choice I guess.<br /> (Another thing: For portraiture I use Softar filters a lot and for some strange reason the VR lens gives lousy results with softars. Plus you won`t be able to find an original Zeiss Softar in 62mm.)</p>

[p_ghosh]

<p>I think I have decided against the 105mm DC, though I'm sure it gets amazing bokeh, it seems many other lenses achieve beautiful bokeh these days with not so much trouble. I'm worried the 105mm will take me awhile to get use too and I'd rather not have to worry about that during a frantic wedding.</p>

<p>But! I am now completely confused on my setup with many saying 85mm is still a good choice for portraits on a DX lens. <br>

The only macro shots I can see myself doing is table settings, rings, and decor etc so I wonder if the 60mm tamron would suffice, though it costs 500 bucks too.</p>

[monika_epsefass]

<p>Ah, if it's stills you will do, then get the 60 mm. That's largely sufficient on a DX camera.</p>

[p_ghosh]

<p>Well looks like I've made some tweaks to the overall setup.<br>

Budget-Wise, I'm going over about 100 bucks without a macro lens. So I just need to find a cheap macro lens. Looking at the Tokina 100mm vs the Tamron 90mm, both are around 300-350 on ebay. Also the Nikkor 40mm isn't out yet, because I'll mostly be doing Rings, Decor, Objects (all still life), problem is even at 40mm, I'll have to be soo close that I'll probably end up casting a HUGE shadow over the object itself.<br>

Here is the overall setup. <br>

I'll have to upgrade the Telephoto in the future, but don't have the $$ right now.</p>

<ol>

<li>Nikon D7000</li>

<li>Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 non-VC</li>

<li>Nikon 55-200mm VR</li>

<li>Sigma 8-16mm </li>

<li>Nikon 35mm f1.8g </li>

<li>Nikon 50mm 1.8g </li>

<li>Sigma 85mm f1.4 </li>

<li>Tokina 100mm Macro or Tamron 90mm Macro or Nikkor 40mm all f2.8g <---can't decide!!</li>

</ol>

 

[Matt Laur]

<p>On DX, I'd give serious thought to the 60mm/2.8 Micro. Longer than that, and you've really got to have some room to shoot things like flowers or plated food, but you can still use it just fine for ring shots. Let that Sigma 85/1.4 you mention be your bokehlicious portrait lens.<br /><br />You might also think about their 30/1.4 in place of that 35/1.8. Partly because the extra speed is nice, partly because the extra 5mm is <em>very</em> noticeable, and partly because that lens will share the good looking OoF backgrounds that the longer portrait lens produces, and that will help with a consistent look in wedding series when you're going from torso-type shots to full-length bodies. In fact, I'd skip the 50/1.8 in order to pay for the upgrade to that 30/1.4. The Tamron 17-50 will take care of 50mm for you, just fine.</p>

[tony_defilippo1]

<p>Nice line up, I'm sure you'll do very well with it for a long while!</p>

<p>I just shot a wedding primarily with a D300/D90, 24-70/2.8, 50/1.8, 105 VR Micro and 180/2.8. I liked the shots I got out of the 105 VR quite a bit but I was a bit shocked at the size and overall robustness of the 105 VR... I don't think that is talked about as much as it should be. In comparison to the old 105 Micro it is really a beast.</p>

<p>Unlike some of the other commentors I am a big fan of 105mm DX portraiture... yes it is a couple steps back so I guess if you are in studio and limited for space its a problem, but outdoors it is not so far back that you can't easily communicate without shouting to your subjects and I've found especially with shooting a couple giving them that space lets them create a better mood anyway.That being said I have heard only good things about the 85/1.4 from Sigma and Nikon.</p>

<p>Since this is fun for any N.A.S. 'sufferer' I'll throw another line up at you. I'm assuming that these are all new or new-to-you purchases as you've just come to Nikon, given that if I was working the same budget here is how I'd line it up;</p>

 

<ol>

<li>Nikon D7000/D90</li>

<li>Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 non-VC</li>

<li>Sigma 8-16mm</li>

<li>Nikon 35mm f1.8g</li>

<li>Nikon 60mm f2.8 Micro (AF-D or AF-S/ED version)</li>

<li>Nikon 80-200 f2.8 AF/ED (still available brand new at $1100)</li>

</ol>

<p>I think that is a bit under what you currently have on the list... I think the 60 gets you your DX short tele and macro, and doesn't overlap your 17-50, the 35 gives you the ability to go to 1.8 at a 'normal' focal length and the 80-200 gives you a world class portrait lens and the reach for ceremony shots. I myself am not sure whether a 85/180 or 105/180 combo of two primes would be better for me personally but in this fictional set you'd have 2.8 zoom coverage of all the basics plus a two of nice affordable primes that do a bit extra. </p>

<p>Welcome to Nikon!</p>

<ol> </ol>

 

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I worked in a church and helped with the weddings for years (and will again... between positions right now), usually helping the photographer get around our facility.</p>

<p>I have ever seen ONE of them use an ultra-wide lens (I don't think more than one of them even carried one). I just don't think you need it for wedding and event photography. It might be nice to have, but it's the least necessary. Wait on that.</p>

<p>I also don't think you need to carry many primes. Get great high quality zooms and some good lighting (for when you can use it - not the ceremony) and don't be afraid of ISO 1600 in low light.</p>

<p>I'd get, to start, D7000, 17/18-50/55 f2.8 zoom, 70/80-200 f2.8 zoom, and a 60mm Micro, plus some lighting. I'd recommend you have two bodies, in fact, one with the standard zoom and one with the tele, and only pull out the 60 when you need it. A slow consumer tele zoom like the 55-200 is a total waste of money for weddings, imho. too slow.</p>

<p>Virtually everybody that has shot weddings in the church I worked at shot with two bodies, one with a wide-short-tele zoom (like the 17-55) and one with a 70/80-200. They'd pull out a macro for those ring shots and such only. And the best ones had some GREAT lighting with them, too, which I don't see that you've really talked about.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>While at first I did not quite get the use of a 40mm macro lens, I think I might get this lens, and I think it may actually be quite useful for what you want to do. The somewhat wider angle combined with extreme close focus, well, I think it gives more oppurtunity to include some context. Currently I have the Tokina 100mm (very nice lens, nothing wrong with it), and in the macro area, you really only have the subject, it's too long to make it "contextual"; I think the 40mm may allow that.<br>

The one lens on your list I do not fully get is the Sigma 8-16. It's just insanely wide, and I wonder whether you actually end up using these lengths a lot. I'm no wedding pro, but the weddings I did cover, well, my Tokina 12-24 contributed something like 5 photos, really just a few. The rest that was shot wide was done with the standard zoom I used. I'd prioritise a good f/2.8 telezoom a great deal over getting a slow aperture extreme wide angle. Such a telelens will probably see much more use.<br>

And I'd skip the 50mm. The Sigma 85 will be much greater at portraits, and I do not really see what else the 50mm would add.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p><br />You might also think about their 30/1.4 in place of that 35/1.8. Partly because the extra speed is nice, partly because the extra 5mm is <em>very</em> noticeable, and partly because that lens will share the good looking OoF backgrounds that the longer portrait lens produces, and that will help with a consistent look in wedding series when you're going from torso-type shots to full-length bodies. In fact, I'd skip the 50/1.8 in order to pay for the upgrade to that 30/1.4. The Tamron 17-50 will take care of 50mm for you, just fine.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The one lens on your list I do not fully get is the Sigma 8-16. It's just insanely wide, and I wonder whether you actually end up using these lengths a lot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1. also, if cost is a factor, a tokina 12-24 or sigma 10-20 would likely do just as well in those situations, for a lot less.</p>

 

[david_pinkerton]

<p>I also agree. The Sigma 8-16mm is very slow and not good indoors. It's also not good for people shots (high distortion). I would instead recommend a fast lens like the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 for indoor events like this.</p>

[p_ghosh]

<p>Some really good advice here! I'm looking into either the Nikkor 60mm micro or the Nikkor 40mm micro. It does sound like the application of 40mm would work well for table settings etc, but I think a 60mm might just fight the bill for the best "in between".</p>

<p>It seems that having a 50mm is almost essential on a DX Camera to get that "Portrait range". but the 30mm 1.4 would be great for venues all around.</p>

<p>The 8-16mm is pretty slow but very sharp @ 4.5. I do Archtecture on the side and as a hobby and having a lens @ 12mm (8mm *1.5) is just too tempting!! I have had both the Tokina 11-16mm and the Sigma 10-20mm, and I actually preferred the Sigma 10-20mm. </p>

<p>Gonna mull some more things over. I do have a second body (D90) and am investing in alot of things I didn't mention here. </p>

[andylynn]

<p>I think if you have the 60mm micro you could skip the 50mm and not really be missing out...</p>

[p_ghosh]

<p>Well, thanks for the help everyone, really helping me out.</p>

<p>I went to my local retailer today and tried some of the sigma lenses out. The 85mm is easily going to be my #1 lens, it was amazing!</p>

<p>Anyways here is almost final list, stuck between two decisions. I've bolded them, any advice on these two? I know the Nikon 80-200mm is well regarded but doesn't use AF-S (HSM on Sigma side) focusing. They can be had for around 700 dollars on ebay it seems. The Tokina and Sigma UWA's are a tough choice. I know I like the 10-20mm (which was 16-32 on canon), since Nikon is 1.5 crop then the Tokina would still be 16-24mm. I never really used the f2.8 before because I was never in low light, but I will be for indoors so I think that might be the better choice.</p>

<ol>

<li>Nikon D7000</li>

<li>Nikon D90</li>

<li>Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 Macro HSM</li>

<li><strong><em>Sigma 70-200mm or Nikon 80-200mm</em></strong></li>

<li><strong><em>Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 or Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6</em></strong></li>

<li><em>Sigma 30mm f1.4</em></li>

<li>Sigma 85mm f1.4</li>

<li>Nikon 60mm Micro f/2.8</li>

</ol>

<p> </p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Partho,</p>

<p>with all due respect, what kind of events are you shooting where you could actually use an 85mm prime lens as your #1 lens? Seriously, I can't remember EVER seeing a wedding photographer even BRING one of those. Perhaps you do indeed have a good use for it, but I can't imagine it... Enlighten us, please.</p>

<p>And I still think you absolutely don't need an ultra-wide for wedding events either.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>The Sigma 70-200 have had quite a few revisions; I tested the original 70-200 f/2.8 HSM Macro ("mark I") against the AF-D 80-200 f/2.8 (2 rings model), and bought the Nikkor. AF speed difference between the two was minimal, the Nikkor sharper at f/2.8.<br>

The later models of Sigma improved a lot, though, more to clarify: AF-D screwdrive does not necessarily mean "slow and unsuitable for action". If that's the main worry about this lens, then you're fine. However, since the rest of your lenses are all Sigma, the Nikkor would be the only one that zooms the right way (Sigma uses the Canon direction to zoom). Not everybody is equally sensitive to me, but to me it would be huge nuisance having one lens zoom reverse.<br>

Agree with Peter, wide angles and wedding have fairly little to do with one another. If you get that lens for architecture, then how important is f/2.8?</p>

<p>So, how about taking it all a whole lot more relaxed? Get a decent 17-5x f/2.8, a 70/80-200 f/2.8 (and something to back up those lenses too), a pair of SB900s and start shooting weddings. Then in time, find out whether you need the primes, the macro or the wide angle. There is no need to buy a full bag immediately. Keep the money, and spend it wiser later on.</p>

[p_ghosh]

<p>Hi Peter,<br /> I meant the 85mm 1.4 will be my #1 Portrait lens. It's a bit more on the tele length for a portrait but still fits the bill pretty nicely. I tried the 85mm 1.4 and the 50mm 1.4 and really found the bokeh on the 85mm to be very creamy.<br /> I enjoy using UWA's here in British Columbia, lots of out door weddings. To each their own I suppose but I fancy them very much.</p>

[p_ghosh]

<p>PS: I should've stated this before but I have the D7000, D90 + SB900 and a SB600 already. <br>

I would like to pony up and be able to get an IS/VR version of the 70-200mm but I think I'll wait off and get a few more events lined up before doing that and get that later on. <br /> Going to try and find a 2 ring version of the 80-200mm f2.8 and have that on my D90 permanently so I don' t have to switch it on and off, while having the D7000 change between the walk-around and primes.</p>

<p>Thanks for the help guys! Means alot.</p>