105mm f2.5 or 105mm f2.8 micro or 85mm f2?

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>I've just bought a very clean F2 with 50mm lens. I now want something a little longer for general use, but portrait in particular.</p>

<p>Ai or Ai-d versions of these seem strong contenders. The 105mm f2.5 has universal praise. So does the micro with the added close-up ability. However, some say that it is too sharp for portrait work. </p>

<p>The 85mm has a good deal of praise saying it is as sharp as the 105 f2.5. Others say that some examples can have sharpness issues. It would have an advantage to me though in that I could use it for portrait work on my D300, while the two 105 lenses might be considered a bit 'long', although generally useable in ai or ai-d form.</p>

<p>Advice and comments would be greatly appreciated.</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>I have the old AI lenses for my F2 in 85, 105, and 135. All will do an excellent job on portraits. Personally, as a general use lens, I prefer the 135 / 2.8 as I think it is more flexible and gives some extra reach for other things. That said, the 85 is on my F2, 135 on my F3.<br>

Only you can make the choice, since it is based on your comfortable working distance and how you visualize the portraits you want to take.</p>

[john_harper9]

<p>I have the 85 and 105 since the early '70s and I rarely used the 85. The 105/2.5 was always with me and frequently used. For a D300, I find it a bit long for portraits (150mm equivalent).</p>

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>A very speedy update.</p>

<p>A dealer that I have bought from for many years, just listed a 105mm f2.5 auto P (pre ai) in quite superb condition, and complete with full keeper, lens cap and hood. A quick trawl on the web indicated that it is very worth trying, and I have ordered it. The condition made it too good to miss.</p>

<p>I would still very much welcome responses to my original posting, and on the P version I have just bought. Thanks for the two responses already.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>I've had the 105 2.5 since the late 70s and it was always my go-to lens for head and shoulder portraits. Fast, sharp, always looks great. Several years ago a friend getting out of the photo business gave me a bunch of gear, including the 85 and 135. I have used the 85 when shooting portraits in tight spaces. It is equally good but I like 105 better for dropping the background out of fcous easier at a given head size. I think the 135 is a little on the long side for head and shoulder and I've never used it.<br /><br />On paper, 105 could be long on a crop sensor camea. But I sometimes find myself putting my 70-200 at 100 when shooting portraits with my D200 and D7000.<br /><br />My first F2 came with a 50. First additional lens I bought was a 200 f/4 since I was shooting high school football at the time. Then a 28 f/3.5 since I needed a wide angle (would have liked something faster but I was in college and got a good deal on a used lens). Then the 105. For many years in my newspaper days that was all I had, and I carried an F2 and FM with the 28 on one and the 105 on the other as my standard setup, and switched to the other two lenses as needed.<br /><br />As for the micro 105, unless you shoot a lot of closeups I wouldn't go out of my way to get that rather than the regular 105. But I don't think there's any such thing as too sharp -- you can always put a diffusing filter or piece of saran wrap over it you don't like the look, or futz things up in Photoshop.</p>

[Sandy Vongries]

<p>Excellent! You might Google John White, at AI conversions, if that is of interest. I have had quite a few lenses done at modest cost. Excellent work and fast turnaround.</p>

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>Thanks Sandy, but I am in the UK. There is a company here that was doing this work. I've emailed to see if they still are.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>I echo Sandy: I have had my pre Ai (Sonnar version) 105 f 2.5 since the 1960's. I used it for lots of portraits on film. I had the AI conversion done by John White and it now meters with my D7100. I've done less with it digitally, mainly because of the manual focus. Here's a shot with the 105 with my D70 from a few years back.</p><div></div>

[sjmurray]

<p>Here's one done on film.</p><div></div>

[dan_brown4]

<p>The 105/2.5 auto P was from ca. '71-'74, and would be a nice choice, no doubt. A 105/2.5 K would be F2 era appropriate. Although, I would look for a 105/2.5 Ai-S, even though it's not truly era-appropriate.</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I used to own a pre-AI 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor-P, with scalloped metal focus ring. I didn't particularly like it and got rid of it in favour of the AI-s version. The old gold colour single-coating was prone to flare IMHO and mine, at least, wasn't as sharp as its reputation would have you believe.<br>

The AI-s version OTOH is a very nice lens that can stand up to use on current high pixel-count DSLRs. On 35mm film a lot of its sharpness will be lost, and an old Nikkor-P might do just as well. Both versions wide open show some loss of contrast and image softening that's suitable for portraits. And the f/2.5 aperture gives about the right balance of DOF while throwing the background sufficiently OOF.</p>

<p>The 85mm f/2 AI-s Nikkor I've always found to be a nicely sharp and contrasty lens, so I'm not sure why it sometimes gets a bad rap for being soft. I think a lot of people are swayed by a lens's reputation and not by the evidence of their own eyes. Although being an f/2 lens it is softer wide open than the 105mm f/2.5.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>I use Nikkors on a Sony A7. The 105/2.5 is used almost exclusively for portraits. The 85/2 is used for portraits, of course, but also for pictures of performers on stage, where its shorter focal length and greater speed are valuable.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

I've got both an Ai'ed Nikkor P and an AiS version of the 105. The AiS is a tiny bit better at the

widest aperture, but there isn't much between them. In my view, the 105 f/2.5 deserves its

reputation completely. Stellar lens. Enjoy it.

[jose_angel]

<p>I`d get a MF lens for the F2 and an AF one for the digital.<br /> Personally, having a 50mm I`d get the 105/2.5; a 105/2.8 Micro is a good one, too, but I prefer the 2.5. If I recall it correctly the 2.5 is slightly smaller, lighter, with a built-in hood (Ai-S), and personally, more pleasant to use. I also have a 85 on the closet which I rarely use.<br /> For the D300 I`d prefer an AF zoom. Very likely, you already have one.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>It has been a long time since I shot film with a Nikon -- but I did it for decades. The 105/2.5 was my favorite piece of glass for 35. </p>

[john_narsuitus]

<blockquote>

<p>"Advice and comments would be greatly appreciated"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I own and use three of the focal lengths you mention.</p>

<p>My personal favorite is the 105mm micro because in addition to portraits, it is also great for jewelry and close-ups of body parts.</p>

<p>The 85mm is great for half-length and head & shoulder shots.</p>

<p>The 105mm f/2.5 is great for head & shoulder shots and headshots.</p>

<div></div>

[Albins images]

<p>What John (above) said! ;-)<br /><br />My favourite would also be the 105/2.8, because of its double function (= large useable range from close-up to infinity).<br />The 85/2.0 is nice, has somewhat better bokeh, but is not dramatically sharp on modern camera's.<br />The 105/2.5 .. has a great reputation, and I have never used it.. :'-(<br>

Albin</p>

[02Pete]

<p>All usable, but with designs optimized for slightly different things. My take, for what it's worth:</p>

<p>85mm f/2 -- Compact, small and light enough to be convenient for travel, and takes 52mm filters (the old Nikon standard). Also good for available-light shooting, environmental portraits, and portraits. Delivers very good results. I've never had problems with image quality, although at least one online authority suggests it's not as good as prior and subsequent Nikon 85s. Nothing wrong with the older non-AI Nikkor 85mm f/1.8, though it's larger and heavier. If you want superb image quality at this focal length, or do a lot of available light shooting in dim light, you might consider the 85mm f/1.4 AIS -- just keep in mind that it's <em><strong>much</strong></em> larger, heavier and more expensive than the f/2, thus less suitable for travel, needs 72mm filters, uses a large lens hood, and has very shallow depth of field at maximum aperture so offers interest visual effects (subject in focus, everything else out of focus), but can be a challenge to focus accurately in dim light. Some of the best quality images I've ever obtained have been with the 85mm f/1.4 AIS, but the 85 mm f/2 is much smaller, lighter and more convenient in general use, more affordable, and not as difficult to focus at maximum aperture.</p>

<p>105mm f/2.5 -- The classic head-and-shoulders portrait lens. Since slightly slower (f/2.5 rather than f/2), not quite as suitable for available-light shooting as the 85mm. Note that there may have been roughly four versions. The older pre-AI version used a Sonnar design for the lens elements, had a screw-on lens hood, was somewhat larger and heavier than subsequent models. and built like a tank. The AI and early AIS versions were noticeably smaller and lighter than the pre-AI version, and the early AIS version had a slightly less stiff focusing helicoid than the AI version. The late-model AIS version had the same external appearance as the AI and early AIS models, but a somewhat different Gauss-derived lens element design offering slightly better image quality at close range, greatly improved coatings for better glare suppression under adverse shooting conditions, and a convenient built-in extendable lens hood. All four versions take 52mm filters. You can't go wrong with any of the four -- this is one of the all-time classic lenses. The late-model AIS version may be the best of the bunch for the reasons mentioned, but the pre-AI, AI, and early AIS versions are all exceptionally fine lenses capable of producing superb results, especially when used for portraits.</p>

<p>I haven't used the 105mm f/2.8 macro lens, so can't comment based on personal experience, but I assume that its design is optimized for macro (i.e. very close range) photography of small subjects. </p>

[mervyn_wilmington]

<p>Please can I record my appreciation for all the help that members have given.</p>

<p>I now have near mint SC 50mm f1.4, P 105mm f2.5 and a QC 200mm f4, and a film in the F2. Fuji converter arrived yesterday, and I was able to have a very quick 'go' with the 200mm. Contrast a little down but easily improved in Lightroom.</p>

<p>I am looking forward to further 'experiments'. If a really good 85mm f1.8 comes along, I may well acquire that too.</p>

<p>Thanks again to everyone.</p>