Nikkor 85mm 1.8G vs. 105mm 2.8 Micro: help me decide, please

[Matt F.]

Hi, Everyone!
Been a while since I've posted on here. Been enjoying my 50mm 1.8G and my 24-70mm 2.8 Nikkor lenses.
I've figured out that I am a bit limited when it comes to range with the 24-70mm. I am now looking to the 85mm 1.8G and the 105mm 2.8 Micro lens for a nice mid-range lens.

I also do occasional macro photography, but haven't had the chance with my current two lenses. I guess my question is: how well does the 105mm 2.8 Micro do as a standard portrait lens? If I can kill two birds with one stone (portrait and micro), then the choice is clear. Is there anything the 85mm 1.8G would give me over the 105mm?

I have to tell you that the "Made in China" has even had me consider buying the 85mm 1.4G, but it seems the reviews for the 85mm 1.8G and the 105mm Micro VR have been good, so...

Love to hear your thoughts.

Thanks!

 

[sobierad]

I have 100mm macro lens but for portraits 85/1.8G is my first choice. If I were you I would get macro extention rings for 50/1.8G + 85/1.8G. It's awesome lens.

 

[snagglepuss31]

I have 100mm macro lens but for portraits 85/1.8G is my first choice. If I were you I would get macro extention rings for 50/1.8G + 85/1.8G. It's awesome lens.

If macro is something you want to have access to but prefer the 85mm length for portraits, the extension tubes are definitely a good option. Here is a small test of the 85/1.8G on tubes for an example what it is capable of.

https://picasaweb.google.com/snagglepuss31/AFS85F18WithKenkoTubes#

In fact you can get the 85/1.8G + a set of Kenko tubes + a used manual focus Tamron 90/f2.8 for less than the cost of the 105F2.8.