85 mm or 105 mm

[tim_power]

Between these two lenses (old MF lenses) , which do you recommend to photograph still lifes (small objects, furniture, table top items) or is there a better manual focus lens out there to do this?

Price is no object..(that is not true, it is an object, but for now lets start at the top and work our way down).

 

Any comments welcome.

 

Tim

[larry n.]

How close do you want to get the subject? How much depth of field do you want? Willing to use a tripod?

 

If price is no object, then the MF 85mm PC (which I've only seen at shows, mind you) may be your best bet.

[coolpix5400]

I know you said MF but maybe the AF 70-180 f/4.5 - 5.6 micro is worth considering.

[douglas_green1]

whichever you prefer - you can't go wrong with either. Each MF version of both of these focal lengths was among the best prime lenses Nikon made. 105mm f2.5 is always a good start, but the newer 85mm f2 is much lighter and more compact. Both are razor sharp.

[joe_guzzi]

I have a 105 2.5 AIS, I find the working distance is too great for indoor table top. I use an AF60 2.8 micro instead. I should have bought a 55 AIS micro...

[douglas_green1]

I should also throw into the mix, 3 VERY fine 3rd party Macro lenses, There were OUTSTANDING 90mm f2.5 Macro lenses made by Vivitar for their Series 1 line, Tokina for their ATX line, and Tamron, for their SP line. All are exceptional, and they might well be the best Non-camera maker brand" lenses ever made for 35mm SLRs. I'd decide amongst them based on cost, availability, and the specific conditions of the lenses I actually saw.

 

I've owned both the Vivitar and the Tamron, as well as a range of Nikkor lenses. All of these are as sharp and as well built as the Nikkor AI lenses. I sold my Vivitar and bought a Tamron, strictly because I have multiple brands of SLRs (Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, and Leica). The Vivitar is, if anything, the best optically at close to 1:1, but at the 1/4 to 1/20th life size range you'll need, they are equal, and the Tamron is more compact. The Tokina is the only one of the 3 that will focus down to 1:1 without an extension tube, but I doubt that you need this feature, and the Tokina will be the hardest of these to find, while the Tamron will be the easiest, due to the Adaptall-2 mount system it used.

[lex_jenkins]

The 105/2.5 AI or AIS won't focus close enough for most tabletop photography. You'd need the 105/2.8 or other Micro-Nikkor for that.

 

Also consider your working distance. Even with a macro the 105mm might be too long for comfortable indoor use in close quarters. And, conversely, the 55mm Micro-Nikkor might not give you enough camera-to-subject distance, making it difficult to light your subject or even get a tripod close enough to a table. Get an idea of your typical working range before deciding.

 

However the 105/2.8 Micro-Nikkor is considerably more expensive than the 105/2.5. You could buy the non-macro lens and a top notch close up diopter for less money.

 

I use my 50/2 non-macro Nikkor about as often for still lifes and fairly close up work about as often as my 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor. Most normal lenses focus close enough for the kind of use you've described.

[Robert_Lai]

This is an interesting thread for me, as I've owned all the lenses mentioned so far:

55 f/2.8 micro, 60mm f/2.8 micro, 85mm f/2, 105mm f/2.5AIS, and 70-180mm f/4.5 - 180 micro.

Here's my feeling on them:

 

55 f/2.8 was fantastic. Sharp in macro AND infinity. Goes down to 1:2. A real do it all lens. I used to carry this lens as the normal lens instead of the superb 50mm f/1.8 AI, which the 55 is superior to. The only drawback on my lens was that if you had any shiny metal surfaces in the picture, it would flare more than I wanted, especially with flash. I sold it, but this was a BIG MISTAKE! NEVER SELL THIS LENS! This is my regret #1.

 

60mm f/2.8: Very sharp in the macro range, possibly sharper in that range than the 55mm lens. The infinity focus performance is not as good as the 55mm f/2.8. It goes to 1:1, which is what made me choose it in favor of the 55mm lens. It also has less of an issue of flare. However, it is BIG and BULKY compared to the 55mm lens. I use it all the time, and it is very good, but in my heart I still wish I had the 55mm lens instead of this one.

 

85mm f/2: A perfect portrait lens. Fast, small, light and razor sharp. Just the thing for head and shoulders shots. It comes with the HN-10 dedicated hood which I kept on the lens all the time, and just put a 72mm cap over the hood. For a while I couldn't decide between this lens and the 105mm lens, when I had both. In the end, I gave it to my brother and kept the 105. MISTAKE #2!! This lens is sharper than the 105 (minimally, but enough for me to notice), especially when wide open. The slightly wider view compared to the 105 was preferable to me.

 

105 f/2.5 AIS. Great lens, all around favorite portrait lens. You do have to step back a little with this one, and wide open the depth of field is quite shallow. This is good for head shots. The out of focus background highlights on this lens (the bokeh) are fantastic. The built in hood on the latest version is convenient, but doesn't offer the lens protection of the 85mm's metal hood. Older versions of this lens use a metal hood.

 

70-180mm f/4.5 - 5.6 micro Nikkor: This lens is sharp, but having 18 elements it needs some protection against stray light to prevent flare. I've written comments about this lens, which you can read here:

http://www.photo.net/ezshop/product?product_id=44

A two ring zoom, it is convenient for framing. However, the disadvantages are the variable aperture (hard to figure out exposure when using multiple flash units), and the slow speed. The other disadvantage is the size and weight. Compared to all the other lenses mentioned above, this is a big lens. Compared to the 200mm micro Nikkor, it's a small lens. Nevertheless, it does deliver some very sharp images. Only it's size discourages me from using it more often. When I bought it, I thought I could get rid of my 85mm and 105mm. After I got rid of the 85, I realized that I shouldn't have gotten rid of any of the primes. The primes are so much more convenient in the field, and brighter to focus with.

 

Based on your original question, I would get both the 85mm AND the 105mm lens. If I could only go with one, then I would stick with the 85mm. In general, Mike Johnson once wrote "Never sell a sharp lens - you will regret it". I can tell you from sad experience that this is really, really true.

[larry n.]

Robert: thanks for the wonderful summary of those lenses.

[klix]

I think your first step should be to identify which perspective you like better -- i.e., how do you personally see the world?? An 85mm would obviously offer a very different perspective than a 105mm lens. Secondly, do you need a fast lens for low light situations? My personal preference, assuming $$$$ is not a constraint?? For MF, I like the 85mm f1.4 AIS ($939.95 at B&H Photo); if AF is an option, then definitely the 85mm f1.4D AF ($1,019.95 at B&H). Obviously, I have a bias toward the 85mm perspective.

[tim_power]

Thankyou all for your informative answer.

Since i am planning on shooting lots of furniture and table top items I am

trying to figure the best investment. Since i do interior photography as well, i

have a 28mm PC as well as a 35mm PC.. I have heard before on this forum

from people who have used a teleconverter to make both of the wide PC

lenses 50-70mm PC lenses..............how would this be for doing furniture

shots? Advantages and disadgantages?

Any one tried this?

 

Thnaks

[Robert_Lai]

Tim, I've been doing a lot of interior photography lately for my own fun, as I just moved into a new house. I can't recall really needing anything longer than a 50mm lens, and often wanting as wide a view as possible. For that reason I purchased a 20mm lens. Unless you want to take items of small table top items, then I would say stick with what you have. If you really want to take photos of small items, then you would probably be better off with the 105 micro Nikkor (I've never tried it, but I'm just conjecturing that it's the same as my 105 with closer focus), or the 70-180 micro Nikkor zoom. The 70-180 is about $700 gray market, or close to $1000.00 with Nikon USA warranty. I went with Nikon USA's extortion only because of the complexity of the lens. If you get gray market, Nikon will NEVER service the lens for you, EVER.

 

The 60mm micro might do in a pinch, but depending on what you're photographing, you may not have enough working distance to put in lighting. I use the 60mm lens for a lot of document copying, photographs of artwork, that sort of thing.

[tim_power]

I have a 20mm 3.5 MF UD (sharp, but distortion is a problem) , a 24mm 2.8 MF (sharp, sharp, sharp) a 28 mm 3.5 MF ( a real dog) a 28mm 4.0 PC (very nice) and a 35 mm 3.5 PC (somewhat unpredictable) for my interior shots. My only other lens is 50mm 1.8 which a very nice normal lens. it sounds to me from what I have read that an 85mm woulde be nice for my 'still life' work, but i am curios about the 55mm micro or the 60mm lens that a few of you have mentioned. Where can i find more information on these 2?

[joe_guzzi]

http://www.lisp.com.au/~mmphoto/nikon/

 

http://www.nikonlinks.com/

[michellemandat]

They are not the better lenses for that purpose. I own these two lenses. I think that they have lack of resolution at short distances. If I would take pictures of small things I should plan to buy a macro lens even a third party lens like Tamron 90mm.