It's like a nightmare for me: I want a stunning portrait lens.
I have several options and money can be a problem... but at least I'd like to know your opinions:
135mm. f/2 Defocus (I can find it at 1100-1200 euros)
105mm. f/2 Defocus (800-900 euros and there's a guy who sells it for 600 euros)
85mm. f/1.4G (1300-1400 euros)
85mm. f/1.4D (1000-1100 euros)
Hey Alex Ive used both the 85 G and D not much difference in my opinion but great glass nonetheless. Havent used the Nikon 105 but have used the Sigma 105 and it was awesome so Im sure the Nikon is just as good if not better. If had to choose on a budget I would go with the 105 or 85D. Just my 2 cents.
Nikon is famous for the purity of its 105mm optics. When I shot film, my Nikkor 105mm was my go-to lens whenever possible. It's a great portrait lens. The DeFocus version sounds like a stunning lens to me.
The lenses you list are all great. Choosing between them is probably a matter of personal preference.
Other options, especially if money is a problem...
Any of the various 105 Micro-Nikkors are very good portrait lenses.
Also, the 105 f/2.5 AI and AI-S are legendary. They're manual focus, so the focus speed is *really slow*, but they produce wonderful images. I paid $130 USD on eBay for mine.
I thought about manual focus lenses (there's the stunning Samyan 85 1.4) but considering that I could use the lens for my job I necessarily need autofocus.
As people have said, they are all great lenses and it really boils down to focal length preference. I think there may be some difference in the two 85mm's but mainly on the focusing accuracy and speed as opposed to the optics (although i have read a few reports that say that the newer 85mm 1/4G has less CA and is maybe sharper but, because of that, lacks some to the older D's dreamy charm. Again, at this level it's down to personal preference i'd say)
Personally i'm more than happy with the 85mm f1.4D as it's a focal length that is just right for me and i love its character. Saying that though, i have been lusting over the 135mm f2 for a while (the 105mm is too close to the 85mm for me). It's not a focal length i really need though as the 85mm (and, on rare occasions i need longer, my 180mm) is generally perfect for work and personal purposes.
Tom and Clive, your comments are really appreciated :)
I'll go with 105 if it's in good conditions. Of course 85 1.4 is a great lens, it was one of the options and 135 Zeiss is like going to the moon walkin'... a dream ^_^
My choice for the 105 is because I can try it, it's not pricey and the seller lives here and will come this afternoon to my place. And also because I wanted to have a longer lens (but not too much like 135mm.)
I think if you don't already have an 85mm or a 135mm then the 105mm is a great choice. Particularly when paired with your 50mm 1.4G. I very rarely use a 50mm as i've settled into a 24-35-85 trinity way of working for the time being (although i'll pop my manual 50mm on occasionally for personal work or as a walk around lens)
I very rarely use a 50mm as i've settled into a 24-35-85 trinity way of working for the time being (although i'll pop my manual 50mm on occasionally for personal work or as a walk around lens)
Maybe someday I'll get the trinity, it's probably the best option, but surely quite expensive for now. Having 24-70 2.8, 50 1.4 (as you mentioned) and probably now 105 2 I can relax for a few months (maybe a couple of years). I have a 50 1.4 manual as well and I use it the same way you do. Manual lenses and lenses with the aperture rings are useful for me since I use them to shoot videos as well.
I don't think there is just one prime trinity really. It's all preference. At the moment i like the 24-35-85 and it suits me very well but a 24-50-105 would be just as good. You are definitely all covered once if you get a 105mm.
I don't think there is just one prime trinity really. It's all preference. At the moment i like the 24-35-85 and it suits me very well but a 24-50-105 would be just as good. You are definitely all covered once if you get a 105mm.
I'm curious about the discussions which went on in the marketing department when they decided to name a lens "DeFocus" ...
Yep, that's what I thought. Probably the best way to sell less lenses, at least in the US. This is what Ken Rockwell says about it: DC stands for Defocus Image Control. A lot got lost in the translation on the way from Japan. The key word is control, not defocus.
To tell the truth, the defocus control set at its maximum level is similar to a soft focus effect.
I know the Nikon terminology for lenses suited to APS sensors is DX, but the DC has me immediately thinking Digital Crop, and when you're skimming lists of lenses (from multiple manufacturers no less) I think it's easy to overlook those. The price sure is a telltale though.
I'm curious about the discussions which went on in the marketing department when they decided to name a lens "DeFocus" ...
Yep, that's what I thought. Probably the best way to sell less lenses, at least in the US. This is what Ken Rockwell says about it: [i]DC stands for Defocus Image Control.
At least someone had the sense not to use all three initials ... ;-)
I have the 85mm f1.4D, the 105mm defocus, 105mm macro, and 85mm PC, and have enjoyed them all as good portrait lenses. You will not go wrong with whatever your select. I use to own the 135mm but got rid of it as it offered less for me. I use both FX frame and DX frame bodies and found it to be too long for my style of portraits and my shooting space. I prefer the 105mm defocus lens the best.
