| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/23/2013 04:45:14 AM · #1 |
Hi Guys,
A little time ago I got a new D600 together with a 50mm 1.8 Lens.
The 50mm is a very nice lens but I think it's time to diversify my collection. So I want to buy (in this order);
- a wide lens
- a portrait lens
- a macro lens
For the wide one I settled on the Nikon AF NIKKOR 20mm f/2.8D Lens and I think I'll go out today to get it.
I got budget for one more so I was looking at the Nikon AF DC-NIKKOR 135mm f/2D Lens which multiple friends recommended (also, nice 20% surprise price drop from Amazon).
However I've seen a lot of people praising the Nikon AF-S VR Micro NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED Lens for portrait use, so I was thinking that maybe I can kill two birds with one stone. I know that this is generally a bad idea when it comes to lenses ( or birds, DON'T KILL BIRDS! :D ) but I want to ask you first.
Is the 105 Micro that good with portraits or should I just focus and get one thing done right at one time?
Cheers,
Cristian
|
|
|
|
05/23/2013 07:28:51 AM · #2 |
| Go with the 105 and get two great lenses in one. I use my Sigma 150 macro for portraits, just make sure you close down a stop or two to get good focus on the face. |
|
|
|
05/23/2013 08:33:52 AM · #3 |
Most macro lenses in the 100mm to 180mm range make damn good portrait lenses. When you get to 100mm or above, f/2.8 is plenty wide enough for achieving thin DoF and separating subjects from backgrounds. And the optical performance of the macro lenses is usually beyond reproach. The one area where the macro lenses don't hold up is in AF speed, so if that is a critical factor for you, it is something to consider.
|
|
|
|
05/23/2013 12:41:38 PM · #4 |
The Nikon 105 micro is excellent for both macros and portraits.
On the wide end, however, the 20 f/2.8 isn't all that special. Unless you really need to go that wide, I'd get the 28mm f/1.8. It's a newer design, better quality, and very reasonably priced.
If you want a dedicated portrait lens, the 85 f/1.8 is probably the best bang for buck available. |
|
|
|
05/23/2013 12:46:51 PM · #5 |
|
|
|
05/23/2013 03:05:31 PM · #6 |
Actually, if you're looking to go wide, the 17-35 that  tanguera is selling in another thread is an excellent choice. It's a zoom, but for some crazy reason the ultrawide zooms seem to have better image quality than the primes. |
|
|
|
05/23/2013 05:30:08 PM · #7 |
It should be noted that the AF-DC does have a special place in the hearts of those who have used it. It is more specialized in use than the 105 micro, and also likely more difficult to get accustomed to. Having not shot with on myself, I can't say much more than that, but I did chat with a local fellow who loves his, like seemingly all the other owners of it. You'll find that there aren't a ton of articles about it and a lot of folks aren't even actually aware of what the DC does, so finding a lot of info is an uphill battle and finding examples of the dc in action is sorta weird since they're often not of subjects you would be shooting with it. Here's an alright review, but again, they use studio test subjects. Also remember it does not have AF-S, which could be a bit cumbersome depending upon what you're used to (I know I VASTLY prefer AF-S). The 135 receives good marks on sharpness, but keep in mind that is not the point of the lens, and this sharpness will decrease some as you use the DC.
The 105 Micro, on the other hand, has a very very good reputation across the board as well, so it's certainly a known quantity. |
|
|
|
05/23/2013 09:10:04 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Actually, if you're looking to go wide, the 17-35 that tanguera is selling in another thread is an excellent choice. It's a zoom, but for some crazy reason the ultrawide zooms seem to have better image quality than the primes. |
Thanks, Ann. One of the other surprising/cool things about the 17-35 is that is also a pretty darn good macro lens! |
|
|
|
05/23/2013 10:05:21 PM · #9 |
If you want to go wide - go wide. 8mm on crop, 12mm on full frame. ;)
Although, honestly, as mentioned above - Tanguera's 17mm is about the best quality lens you'll find in this range.
Judging by your first impulses, I'm thinking you really care about image quality (sometimes going really really wide is more important to me), and if that's the case, you'd be really happy with that UWA zoom I suspect.
Message edited by author 2013-05-23 22:10:29. |
|
|
|
05/23/2013 10:14:49 PM · #10 |
I think 50f1.8 is a very good portrait lens maybe better than VR105.
 
I see problem with the Macro lens, it show too much details
 
Many lens can do and have multipurpose usage.
Portrait / Landscape
 
Macro 1:1 / Portrait
 
Here kitlens with Raynox adaptor for magnification above 1:1. I guess DC135f2 and AFS17-35 can do that too.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/24/2024 02:00:54 PM EDT.
