medium telephoto questions...

[hnl_imaging]

<p>I currently own an 85 1.8D. I like the focal length, but the lens is pretty mediocre at best. It has a few traits that make it a little less than desirable so I have been contemplating augmenting it with a somewhat similar lens. It looks like the 1.8D doesn't sell very well so I will probably end up being kind of stuck with that lens. <br>

I have contemplated the following: 105/2 DC, 105/2.8G VR, 105/2.5 Ai-s, 105/2.8D, and lastly possibly 85/1.4D. I have also looked at the tokina 100/2.8 and the tamron 90/2.8... <br>

My primary uses will be portraiture and the occasional landscape where I want the extra reach over my other lenses. Macro wouldn't be a bad option. I use a D7000. <br>

The primary problems I have with the 85/1.8D are: <br>

1) May sound stupid, but people don't have eyelashes with this lens, at least my copy. Even if you get the eye in really good focus the eyelashes are almost non-existent. Sounds crazy, but if I were to take similar shots of my daughter with a 35/1.8g, just about any other lens I have ever used, and the 85/1.8D she would have more substantial eyelashes with the other lens than the 85. I know, its crazy... <br>

2) LoCA.... <br>

3) If I try and shoot anything at a distance, at least with my copy, things start to get really ugly. LoCA, from a tripod with timed shutter release and at f11 even things in the focal plane are not well defined or resolved. Trees render very little distinction between branches, it just doesn't seem to resolve that well. Something seems a little odd about the color in this situation as well. <br>

I am hoping to at least overcome some of these issues with a slightly different lens. The 105/2 is the one I really desire but... <br>

Does any one have any suggestions? <br>

Please, no "go buy such and such zoom," or "those lenses are too long for DX!!!," type comments. I am not particularly interested in zooms as the ones I would want are well outside my price range. I also know the focal length from pretty extensive use of either a 100/2.8 Pentax that is, sadly, now gone and my current 85. I have also used a number of 50mm 1.8/1.4/2 variants and my priority is a decent 85-~100mm lens at the moment. </p>

 

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I think 105mm is too long for DX.. and yet... when I had one with my D90, I LOVED it!<br /><br />I had the 105mm f2.5 AI. It was luscious. So much so that I will probably buy it again to use with an adaptor with my µ43 rig.</p>

<p>And it's super cheap to try!</p>

[Two23]

<p>I have a Nikon 105mm f2.5 AiS, but only use it on my F3T. I don't really like it on my D800E (it doesn't have enough contrast.) I also have a Nikon 105mm f2.8 Micro, which is a great lens, but I just don't use it much. I looked over what lenses are available for my D800E and put together what seemed to be the very best available. For 85mm, the Nikon 85mm f1.8G was consistently ranked the best. I've been using it for a year now, and it's just outstanding. About the only thing that beats it is the $4,000 Zeiss Otus. I'm perplexed this didn't even seem to make your list.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

[hnl_imaging]

<p>Peter, nice! I keep seeing that that lens (105/2.5) is pretty decent. You don't happen to have any examples with your D90 do you?<br>

Kent, the 1.8G is really on my list, in a suppressed sort of way. It's price is definitely more in line with what I am willing to save for... The two issues I have with it are 1) it (like the 85/1.4D which is on the bottom of my list) are more of a direct replacement for something I already own and probably wont be able to get rid of very easily. 2) Shun and some others have pointed out that the purple fringe is strong with this one as well... So that kind of scares me a bit. <br>

I recently went to the stock show with my family and and two things really hit me about my 85D. I don't usually take photographs of these kinds of things, was bored, but I took a few of the horse drawn wagons with lots of shiny parts... the resulting images were almost all purple! Then, I took a photograph of my daughter while we were inside of a building and I was looking at her with the door in the background. Eyes, hair, all edges of her head and face were purple. Some of it was so bad that I couldn't fix it in post with out a significant amount of work. IF the 1.8G is better in this regard, it may be my best option for sure. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>On DX, I did quite like the 105 f/2.5 (on FX it's better though) - it is a bit long, but for me it wasn't too long. It's a great lens, and with a good DX viewfinder quite doable to focus. If manual focus is no issue whatsoever, it would be my choice since it's the cheapest on your list, and a very good performer. It may not do out of focus rendering as smooth as the 85 f/1.4 lenses, but the way it transitions from in focus to out of focus is brilliant, and suits portraits perfectly in my view. Get one, even if it's not the main solution to your current question ;-)</p>

<p>I also have the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 and that is a very underrated lens. It has fantastic out of focus rendering, and it's quite sharp from about f/3.5 on. It's relatively cheap too. AF isn't the fastest you'll ever see, but the focus limiter helps a bit. The Tamron 90mm is equally high regarded. I do not believe these lenses to be too sharp for portraits, as some claim. They make good options. The Nikkor macro lenses are equally good, but cost more.</p>

<p>On DX, mostly for portraits, at present, though, my choice would probably be the 85 f/1.8G that Kent mentions. As much as I adore the 105 f/2.5, the slightly shorter lens on DX is probably just a bit easier to manage, Af is a nice to have, and everything I saw from the 1.8G impresses for what the lens costs.</p>

[paul_k1664875007]

<p>Based on the experiences with my copy of the 1.8/85mm AF D I get the impression that as far as the eyelash issue is concerned, it's your copy of the lens that's to blame<br>

<br />This is what I can get with a posed headshot<br>

http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/161812117</p>

<p>The lens is also still plenty sharp when pushed to it's AF limit<br>

http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/161812114<br>

(Situation sketch: model walking towards me, while I'm walking backwards; consequently camera bouncing around, and AF point not aimed at the same spot all the time).<br>

Note the sharpness of the lace fringes of the black dress despite the above described shooting conditions.</p>

<p>Similarly in this picture of the model<br>

http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/161832071<br>

with regards to the details in the white dress and the shoes held in her hands</p>

<p>Don't use it for landscapes etc. so can't say anything based on personal experiences as far as you comment on Loca (Longitudinal aberration?) is concerned.</p>

<p>It does however has some chromatic aberration, as mentioned in the, quite thorough, review on Photozone<br>

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/622-nikkorafd8518ff?start=1<br>

which shows in color shadows when shooting in high contrast situations, (a phenomenon inherent with longer lenses, and more evident in the older AF D lenses like the 1.4/85 AF D or 2/135 DC which I also use) but I have had in the degree you describe</p>

[andrew_powers]

<p>I also have a D7000, and I have the 105 2.8 D micro. It is a little long on some landscape shots, but it has excellent IQ in my opinion. But for landscape shots I actually prefer my Sigma 50MM 1.4. But we all have our preferences of course.. I use the 105 more for closeup flower shots.</p>

[hnl_imaging]

<p>I have had mixed feelings about manual focus. My old Pentax 100/2.8 M was great, for the most part. I actually sold it to fund a 70 ltd because I thought that AF would help me when photographing my daughters. That has some good and bad points, the first is that I have gotten images that I really enjoy that aren't necessarily in perfect focus, however, I have pictures that I like ALOT that I was able to get because I wasn't dealing with the failure to fire due to lack of auto-focus confirmation. The manual focus on the 70mm was horrid in comparison. I have often thought about going to an all MF lens set for that reason alone.... not sure if its really where I want to be though. The 100/2.8 also had what many would consider a "busy bokeh" but the micro contrast and color of that lens more than made up for it to me. It was pretty darn sharp too. </p>

 

[hnl_imaging]

<p>The purple/ green fringe issue I have with this lens is that it's so much worse than the other lenses that I have used. It can be pretty bad. <br>

I have the 17-55/2.8 which I was able to buy after selling some of my pentax gear. Its not perfect, but I like it better than any of the alternatives for various reasons. That is why I am not really interested in a 50 at the moment. Would love a 50/1.4 some time, maybe... but I feel like I have that well covered at the moment and would like something a little longer. </p>

[chip_chipowski]

<p>Jason, since you said you like the 85mm focal length then I concur with the above 85mm 1.8G suggestion(s). It sounds like your 85mm 1.8D is not a good copy if the sharpness is that poor. I have used the 85mm 1.8G for a few weeks now and I really like it. </p><div></div>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>Just did a quick comparison shoot: 105/2.5, 85/1.8G, Sigma 150/2.8 APO OS (on a D810): <a href=" </p>

<p>I had the 85/1.8D previously - about the same amount of LoCA as visible in the test shot above. From what I've seen, all the f/1.4 and f/1.8 Nikon AF and AF-S 85mm lenses show about the same amount of LoCA. The 105/2.5 shows about the same amount too. The Sigma is pretty good (as one would expect from the APO designation); it's one reason I like to use the lens for portrait (on FX, it's a bit long on DX). If I recall correctly, then the non-OS version of the Sigma 150/2.8 fared about as well. I haven't tried the Leitz Apo-Telyt 180/3.4 because its large MFD and poor bokeh make it not a good choice for portraits anyway.</p>

<p>Regarding the 85/1.8G - haven't seen the same purple fringing behavior the 85/1.8D was known for showing quite pronounced.</p>

<p> </p>

[hnl_imaging]

<p>I do like the 1.8G. I don't really understand what the big issue some have with the bokeh is same with the D lens for that matter.<br>

I may be able to exchange my 85/1.8 for another. That may be worth it if I actually have a crummy copy, which is what I have started to believe based on comparison of my images to those of others. I may not be the best photog around but if I can make it happen with other lenses and other people can make it happen with the same model lens I have, there may be something wrong with my particular lens.</p>

[andylynn]

Tamron has a new version of the 90mm macro coming, but it's not very different (new coatings, new barrel design,

weather seal but the same optical formula). They also have a new 85mm 1.8 with VR coming, and if it's like their recent

35 and 45 it should be excellent. The Nikon 85 1.8G is also a nice upgrade over the 1.8D. It's sharper with much better

bokeh.

[keith_burdett]

<p>I exchanged my 80-200 2 ring and sigma 180 macro for 85 1.8g and sigma 150 macro non os. Couldn't be happier. CNX2 seems to correct the 85's CA pretty well. The 150 d<br>

oesn't have any, not even loca. It's long on dx of course but you do get a superb macro.</p>

[hnl_imaging]

<p>Yeah, I saw the new tamron offerings in a BH news letter! I agree with your statements. I think I would be very interested in their new 85 offering if it is anything like what I have seen of the 35 & 45mm. <br>

Dieter, nice comparison, the the 85/1.8G and the Sigma look a bit sharper/more resolved. the 105/2.5 doesn't look horrible but not on the same level. That is unfortunate. </p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>Despite it's reputation for sharpness I don't think the 105mm f/2.5 Ai-S is very good on DX - not wide open at any rate. The 105mm Micro-Nikkor is sharper wide open. As too is my 85mm f/2 Ai-S Nikkor when stopped down to f/2.5 or f/2.8.</p>

<p>LoCA? Are you sure that's what you're seeing Jason? LoCA usually results in a green/magenta or cyan/red fringing with OOF subject areas, not in a lack of sharpness in the plane of focus.<br>

See below for a 100% crop from the Ai-S 105mm f/2.5: Top @ f/2.5, bottom @ f/5.6 on a D7200. Now <em>that's </em>LoCA!</p>

<p>I would agree with others who've suggested you may have a poor copy of the 85mm f/1.8 D. Any chance of seeing some 100% crops from it?</p><div></div>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>the 105/2.5 doesn't look horrible but not on the same level. That is unfortunate.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wouldn't read too much into it - this was a quick test - not entirely certain that the focus with the 105/2.5 isn't altogether just slightly off. In addition, as Kent already pointed out, the 105/2.5 has a bit lower contrast and is not the sharpest wide open - which endears it to many for shooting portraits.</p>

<p>Some years ago, 105/2.5 Ai on D200 at f/2.5 - not bothered in the least by the lack of sharpness wide open:<br /> <a title="Portrait 3" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3040/2937073830_aa4738c0f1_z.jpg" alt="Portrait 3" width="512" height="640" /></a></p>

<p> </p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>And yes, the AF-D 105/2.8 is "scary" sharp even wide open (just a test shot in the store - left without buying the lens):<br /> <a title="Untitled" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5092/5530900144_572cbafb0b_z.jpg" alt="Untitled" width="466" height="640" /></a></p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>I also have the Tokina 100mm f/2.8 and that is a very underrated lens. It has fantastic out of focus rendering, and it's quite sharp from about f/3.5 on. It's relatively cheap too. AF isn't the fastest you'll ever see, but the focus limiter helps a bit. The Tamron 90mm is equally high regarded. I do not believe these lenses to be too sharp for portraits, as some claim.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>+1 on the Tokina 100. my copy is sharp from 2.8 onwards. a little long on DX but definitely a high-quality optical instrument at a good price. i would also consider the tamron 60/2 as a portrait option for DX, as well as the voigtlander 58/1.4, though the latter is manual focus-only.</p>

[User_6502147]

<p>I can vouch for Tammy 90 as excellent, but you may want to look at Sigma 70mm/macro also....I mean two things in one and on D7000 you'd get the 105mm look. As much as I am a fan of 105/2.5 (and own one), I think several of these recently made lenses (Tammy 90 included) exceed the clarity. But, good images are not always about razor-sharp optics. </p>

<p>Les</p>

 

[Didier Lamy]

<p>135 mm f2.8 AIS. Excellent, small, light, perfect to carry in a backpack in case it is unsafe to zoom with his feet..<br>

Example: <a href="/photo/17861592">http://www.photo.net/photo/17861592</a></p>

[hnl_imaging]

<p>Dieter, nice shots on both... either one of those have a bit more of what I am looking for. <br>

Leszer (sorry if I didn't get your name right...), I agree, razor sharp isn't always perfect. I may be getting too nit picky here but I would really like to be able to see a bit more definition... <br>

I'll post some comparisons of my lens to what I expect... </p>

[hnl_imaging]

<p>These are from my 85/1.8...</p><div></div>

[hnl_imaging]

<p>Crop from the same....</p><div></div>

[hnl_imaging]

<p>These are from another lens of about the same price...</p><div></div>