Which Nikon lens is better if I want to shoot both portraits and macro?
Asked 7/6/2012
4 views
2 answers
0
I’m choosing between the Nikon 85mm f/1.8, 85mm f/1.4, and 105mm f/2.8 Micro for a mix of portrait and macro photography. I’m leaning toward the 105mm f/2.8 or the 85mm f/1.8, and less toward the 85mm f/1.4 because of the price difference.
My main questions are:
- Is the 105mm Micro the best choice if I want true macro capability as well as portraits?
- Does VR on the 105mm help much for portrait or macro work?
- Is the 85mm f/1.4 worth the extra cost over the 85mm f/1.8?
- How do autofocus speed and usability compare for portraits versus close-up subjects like insects?
I’m also open to other macro lens suggestions if they make more sense for this kind of dual use.
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
14y ago
2 Answers
4
It partly depends on what body you are mounting it to, which you don't state.
If it's a DX body, I would recommend the AF-S Micro Nikkor 60mm f/2.8G ED, which on a DX sensor has a field of view closer to 90mm - which is great for portrait work. And it's about half the price of the 105 and 85 1.4.
If it's an FX body, I recommend the AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED, instead of the faster 85mm lenses.
The macro/micro lenses stop down to f/32, which gives you a huge advantage for maximum depth of field at close focus distances. I have the older AF 85mm f/1.4., and it's one of my favorites, but it's too fast for macro - only goes down to f/16. Not to mention it doesn't focus as close as the micros.
Also, with the smaller objective, the 60mm and 105mm can be reversed which provides greater magnification. Something I'd never do with the 85s - don't think it's possible actually.
With portraits, the slower lens is less of an issue as you have - presumably - more control of light.
The only reason I'd consider the faster 85mm is if I'm looking for stunning bokeh - but - I think - that'd be too much sacrifice on the macro side.
With primes, we're usually sacrificing a fair bit for a certain aspect of a given lens. Macro and portaiture go well together, with similar feature sets easily accomodated by the current line of micro lenses.
Originally by user13406. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user13406
13y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
If macro is a real priority, the 105mm f/2.8 Micro is the strongest fit of the three. It focuses much closer than the 85mm portrait lenses, offers true macro capability, and its smaller maximum aperture isn’t a drawback for macro where you usually want more depth of field anyway. Macro lenses also stop down further, which helps at close distances.
For portraits, the 85mm lenses are generally the better specialists. The 85mm f/1.4 gives somewhat better rendering and build, but based on the community feedback it’s hard to justify at more than double the price unless you specifically need that extra speed and look. The 85mm f/1.8 is widely seen as the better value for portraits.
The tradeoff is that the 105mm Micro is more versatile, while the 85mm lenses are more portrait-focused. One answer also noted the 105mm doesn’t autofocus as quickly and may not give the same bokeh character as the 85mm lenses.
So: if you truly want one lens for both macro and portraits, choose the 105mm Micro. If portraits matter more and macro is secondary, the 85mm f/1.8 is the better value.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI14y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Nikon D5200: Is the AF-S DX 40mm Micro a good portrait lens, or is the 35mm f/1.8 better?
Which Nikon prime lens is best for mountain biking and other action sports?
Nikon 85mm f/1.8G vs Samyang 85mm f/1.4 AE for portraits on a D7000
Is the Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar ZF.2 a good choice on a Nikon D800 for portraits and close-up work?
Can a 90mm f/2.8 macro lens also be used for portraits, and how is it different from an 85mm f/1.4?