105VR or 85/1.4

[Czechman01]

The 85 1.4 is magic with people and focuses well in dimly lit studios.
If you want a macro lens that works well in the studio, get the 60.

 

[mingaun]

Changing focal length of the lens changes the field of view. Moving closer to or farther away from the subject changes the perspective. So in the situation you described, you have moved in order to capture the same field after changing lenses, and the difference in camera position with respect to the subject is what has changed the perspective.

Thanks Gerry. That made a lot of sense. :smile:

 

[mingaun]

The 85 1.4 is magic with people and focuses well in dimly lit studios.
If you want a macro lens that works well in the studio, get the 60.

I find it incredible that everyone here gives the nod immediately to the 85/1.4 over the 105VR for portraits. Looks like i am starting to be swayed again. I have been up and down this for dont know how many times, it really is tiring:Confused:

I keep reminding myself that at the end of the day it is still the photog's skills that captures the moment and not the lens. Perhaps i should try to concentrate on that more ... sigh

 

[mingaun]

The 85 1.4 is magic with people and focuses well in dimly lit studios.
If you want a macro lens that works well in the studio, get the 60.

Woody, just had a look at your works and they are very very good. I guess coming from you, the 85/1.4 is certainly magic. Anyway i still feel even the 105VR would be magic in your hands :wink:

The more i look at portraits the more i realise that the real skill is in the manipulating of the lights. Those that know this skill well seems to have something more in their pictures. And yikes i dont have a single flash in my stuff and dont even know how to operate one Lots of work for me ... :Ouch:

 

[Nuteshack]

might consider the tammy 90 2.8 macro...it has a reputation for portraits as well and can be had on the cheap, now ...;-)

 

[Samer]

Changing focal length of the lens changes the field of view. Moving closer to or farther away from the subject changes the perspective. So in the situation you described, you have moved in order to capture the same field after changing lenses, and the difference in camera position with respect to the subject is what has changed the perspective.

Let me also add the (obvious) practical argument. Even though, technically only distance changes perspective, in the real world of non-infinite resolution, generally, a short lens will not be good for portraits. Two reasons, to reduce distortion you would stand far away relative to the field of view of the lens, i.e. the subject will be a small fraction of your frame (the same distance away with a long lens and the subject would be nicely framed). Secondly, you will not have the option of throwing the background out of focus from that distance, with that lens.

 

[mingaun]

might consider the tammy 90 2.8 macro...it has a reputation for portraits as well and can be had on the cheap, now ...;-)

thanks for that idea.

 

[mingaun]

Let me also add the (obvious) practical argument. Even though, technically only distance changes perspective, in the real world of non-infinite resolution, generally, a short lens will not be good for portraits. Two reasons, to reduce distortion you would stand far away relative to the field of view of the lens, i.e. the subject will be a small fraction of your frame (the same distance away with a long lens and the subject would be nicely framed). Secondly, you will not have the option of throwing the background out of focus from that distance, with that lens.

Thats true, thanks.

 

[jryoung1947]

Tamron 90

Ciao Mark

I think you could have a fourth, cheaper, choice, even if of course the ones mentioned are really great lenses.
I'd suggest you to evaluate the 85 F1.8 and the Tamron 90 F2.8 SP DI, or the Sigma 105 which are both excellent macro lenses. I guess you should pay both them as the 105 VR, more or less.
A macro lens is really fun to play with. But I'd keep it for THAT task. Not because it isn't good in portrait, nay, sometimes it's excellent and better than other primes, but just for the fact that indoor and lowlight environment requires always the faster lens you have. You won't have never enough light. If you take snapshots, only a very fast lens (F2 or faster) can give you safe shooting times without raising too much iso and noise.

All the best and good luck for your choice, though.

I have a Nikon 60/2.8 and the Sigma105. If you follow the link below you will see some shots taken by a lady in Japan with a Tamron 90 /D80. Very impressive as they are all great lenses.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/14376024@N00/

 

[italy74]

an 85 shot

Nothing special, but you can really enjoy a 3D effect.. just give a look to my sister in law right hand or face.. noticeable, isn't it?

Shot at F4

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Czechman01]

Woody, just had a look at your works and they are very very good. I guess coming from you, the 85/1.4 is certainly magic. Anyway i still feel even the 105VR would be magic in your hands

Thanks for the kind words.

I tried the 105 micro (pre VR) in the studio and sold it. It's a great lens, but for portraiture the 85 1.4 is what I prefer for color and the way it renders skin. While most lenses can capture an image, only a few can caresses it the way the 85 1.4 and the 28-70 2.8 can.

Although I have never used either, both of Nikon's DC lenses (105 and 135) have a strong following.

 

[Czechman01]

I keep reminding myself that at the end of the day it is still the photog's skills that captures the moment and not the lens. Perhaps i should try to concentrate on that more ... sigh

That's very true but once you become proficient at your chosen specialty you begin to appreciate the slightest nuances in your gear and processing. Thus the popularity of certain lenses like the 85/1.4.

See my "capture vs. caress" comment above.

 

[mingaun]

Thanks for the kind words.

I tried the 105 micro (pre VR) in the studio and sold it. It's a great lens, but for portraiture the 85 1.4 is what I prefer for color and the way it renders skin. While most lenses can capture an image, only a few can caresses it the way the 85 1.4 and the 28-70 2.8 can.

Although I have never used either, both of Nikon's DC lenses (105 and 135) have a strong following.

Thanks Woody. Looks like you have successfully sold me to the 'Cream machine' and cost me a few extra bucks along the way

Thanks to all that have contributed to this thread, its really amazing how people power can sway a man's decision. This forum has its dangers :smile:

 

[epgcomp]

I have the Nikon 105mm and it works fine for portraits but you need to have a lot of room to photograph with this lens when you are in a studio. I am going to place an order within the next two weeks for a Nikon 85mm f1.4, this lens will give me a better range for portraits plus it is great for low light conditions.

 

[airbiscuit]

To me...the 85 1.4 is just a dream that will never come true. Oh well...at least I can dream on and on and on by looking at what the 85 can do here :redface: