85 1.4 or 105f2 dc???

Both have superb IQ. Decide by which focal length suites your style of shooting.

BTW, the madness NEVER ends.

 

If you just "want" one and have no particular FOV need, just flip a coin.

As reluctant as I am to suggest the 85/1.4, it's smaller and faster than the 105DC. The 105 is the superior lens otherwise but the differences are not discernable to anyone in normal pictures.

 

Waged that same battle and settled on the 105mm. The little bit of extra works better for my style and its seems friendlier in outdoor variable lighting conditions than the big 85.

A side benefit for me is the slightly smaller diametre, combined with the integral hood, which makes the 105 easier in and out of my bags. The 85/1.4 with its big hood needs a substantial hole to rest in.

Interestingly, I like the ergonomics of the mounted 105 better than the 85, just sits in my hand better. Very subjective, to be sure.

And another side note; I went through two new copies of the 105 DC and returned both due to rather excessive DC calibration issues. Nikon seems to get these lenses spot-on when they recalibrate for folks but I sure wish they had a higher rate of outta-the-box QC. I ended up getting a used keeper from KEH, they usually have an EX or EX+ in stock.

I wanted the 85/1.4 for low light stuff around the cities but found my keeper ratio much higher when using the 50/1.4 due to the shorter FL and easier handholding factor. If you consider the FL/1 equation and adjust for the DX sensor, the 50/1.4 is 2/3s stops faster than the 85/1.4 in real world use. That was the clincher for me - I just have to get a little closer with the 50.

The 105/2 is quickly replacing my 180/2.8 for street photography, great isolation and a bit less intrusive.

Drop a Canon 500D on the end of the 105 and it makes a nice close focus short telephoto. IQ doesn't seem to suffer at all.

Wish I could have both of these legends but I'm too poor for such extravagance!

 

I can second that!

 

I was intending to buy the 85/1.4 when a latest version 105/2 DC was offered to me at a price I couldn't pass on. In the year or so I've had it I have completely forgotten about the 85/1.4. I'd say the feature set of the 105/2 DC distinguishes it from 85/1.4 enough so that some of us could probably justify both lenses. My experiences meet with Robert's in that IQ, sharpness, and OOF are so similar I doubt I could tell the difference in similar images.

 

Both are good... HERE's the real problem..

Yesterday in a night concert... just one shot.. focused and exposed manually..

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

All the rest here

http://italy74.smugmug.com/gallery/2665509

 

105 F2

105 F2 NO DC APPLIED

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

105 F2 DC R5.6 APPLIED

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

105 F2 DC F5.6 APPLIED

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

Hope this helps  

 

nuteshack,

I own and use both of the lenses you are lusting for. While both are superb there are some subtle differences between them that make each better in certain situations. I prefer the 105 for shooting skin. The 85 has great micro contrast for detail work. The 85 can flare easily and doesn't do as well with flash, but its focus is dead on. Using the DC feature I swear I could take a portrait in a garbage dump and you wouldn't know it.

That is why I have both.  evil:

Good luck with the hospital.:smile:

 

Nuteshack

I have both and both are excellent. However I hardly use the DC control.

Since you already have the 180/2.8, i would recommend the 85/1.4.

You cannot go wrong with either one and both are nikon's best.

Tell us what you choose ( and why ? )

regards