Nikon 60 mm f/2.8 Micro vs. Nikon 85 mm f1/8 Yes, an apples vs oranges question BUT budget is currently limited (previous camera bag w/all gear stolen at airport). Need a lens for portraits, indoor sports, but would like to do macro photography is well. Ultimately would like both. Which is the best lens to start with? Nikon 60 mm f/2.8 Micro vs. Nikon 85 mm f1/8 Yes, an apples vs oranges question BUT budget is currently limited (previous camera bag w/all gear stolen at airport). Need a lens for portraits, indoor... » Read More Nikon 60 mm f/2.8 Micro vs. Nikon 85 mm f1/8 Yes, an apples vs oranges question BUT budget is currently limited (previous camera bag w/all gear stolen at airport). Need a lens for portraits, indoor sports, but would like to do macro photography is well. Ultimately would like both. Which is the best lens to start with? « Show Less
1354103
Hello :) I want to know if its a True Full frame FX Format Lens on a Pro Nikon D800?Or am i forced to use it in DX Crop mode?....I'm Sure some one out there Know what I MEAN?I Just want to use the Correct Macro like the Nikon 105mm f/2.8 where i will get the full frame Lens View benifit of a True Full Frame Lens, without the Crop View?Basically i want a True full Frame Macro Lens for my Full Frame Nikon D800...is this IT? THANK YOU :- :)
141676
Wouldn't we all. If budget is limited, go with previous 60mm micro; it's outstanding. Not a huge saving, but a saving nonetheless.
1354104
Sorry to hear about your loss. I hope you had insurance. You can easily add a rider to your home insurance and it's not that expensive.Get the 85mm f/1.8. Lots of excellent used ones on the market, now that Nikon has announced the new 85 f/1.4. I use it for basketball, along with a 50mm f/1.4 and 35 f/1.8, but I work from the floor, not the stands. In action sports, it's all about speed. You can always use a set of close-up extenders for macro, and you'll like the extra working distance you'll get from the 85.
2024381
I don't have both for a one on one comparison of the image quality, but the 35mm f2.8 macro generally has slightly better ratings. Check out the reviews on the Pentax Forums web site. The main reason I purchased it was for the macro capability. It also has metal vs plastic housing which may or may not be an issue depending on how you use it.
1674522
I bought the 24-105 lens recently because I thought the IS would make up for my lack of a higher aperture in low-light situations. It does to an extent, but I have decided that I want the f/2.8 for other reasons. So I'm trying to sell my 24-105 so I can buy the 24-70. I do wish the 24-70 had IS, but it's really not necessary because it's just a faster lens. It really depends on your use. If you are using it for weddings, you may want to consider the 24-70 because of the faster focusing and better handling in low-light situations. If you are using it for a general walk-around lens, the 24-105 will do just fine. I love mine and I almost want to keep it and buy the 24-70, but I can't afford both right now and I need the 24-70 for my business. You can see some sample photos from the 24-105 at my website: www.sarakelley.net. Email me there if you want more input or have any questions.
101690
I don't have enough information yet....what other lenses do you own, and what camera would you be shooting with? Are you the main photographer? Are you bringing lights or at least a high(er) powered flash unit?This is a great lens for macro use, but with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 this cannot be considered a fast lens at all. While a 50mm lens is fantastic for shooting in a more photojournalistic style, you will probably want something a little longer for portraits (especially if you're using a full-frame digital or film camera). Please respond with what camera(s) you'll be using and what other lenses you own and I'll give you more detail I don't have enough information yet....what other lenses do you own, and what camera would you be shooting with? Are you the main photographer? Are you bringing lights or at least a high(er) powered flash unit?This is a great lens for macro use, but with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 this cannot be considered a fast lens at all. While a 50mm lens is fantastic for shooting in a more photojournalistic style, you will probably want something a little longer for portraits (especially if you're using a full-frame digital or film camera). Please respond with what camera(s)... » Read More I don't have enough information yet....what other lenses do you own, and what camera would you be shooting with? Are you the main photographer? Are you bringing lights or at least a high(er) powered flash unit?This is a great lens for macro use, but with a maximum aperture of f/2.8 this cannot be considered a fast lens at all. While a 50mm lens is fantastic for shooting in a more photojournalistic style, you will probably want something a little longer for portraits (especially if you're using a full-frame digital or film camera). Please respond with what camera(s) you'll be using and what other lenses you own and I'll give you more detail « Show Less
1000371
I have the DA 35/2.4. It is an amazing piece of glass for its price point. The 50/1.8 will give you tighter shots (better for portraits) with a better depth of field at f/1.8 (greater separation of your subject from the surrounding environment) and it will perform much better in low light situations thanks to the large aperture, leading to fewer noisy/blurry images.
1130016
I have both. The f/4 has only two advantages: it's much more portable, and it's much cheaper. But if you can afford the f/2.8, and if you can bring it where you want to use it (it's big, and you will probably want at least a monopod)--well, it's an amazing lens. Haven't regretted buying mine for an instant.
678611
It depends of the use of the lenses, the 2.8 is much better and for small quantities of pictures you can handle the lenses, but for a continuos use the best option for this lenses is a monopod.
1041294
I would recommend 23mm 1.4. The 35mm is a great lens, but 23mm is more useful as general purpose, also AF is faster and quieter. If you are not willing to spend for 23mm's cost, then 35mm 1.4 is next choice. Compare to 23mm 1.4, the AF of 35mm is slower, noisier. Also, 35mm is too narrow as general purpose while it's too short for portraits in my taste. I think 23mm 1.4 and 56mm 1.2 are great lenses to have, if you can afford them both.
575775
If you can afford it I would definitely keep both. First, the 85 1.8 gives you the wide aperture that you do not get with the 70-200 f/4. It is also much more compact and allows you to be less noticeable when shooting. The size and color of the 70-200 make stealth next to impossible. If you are indoors in low light you will definitely be reaching for the 85 1.8.
735066
I have both lenses. Are different lenses for different uses. With the 50mm 1.8 you can get a great bokeh to 1.8. (In my opinion the great problem for this lens is the quality of imagen is not good in the edges at 1.8). The 50 mm 1.8 is perfect for begins in the bokeh. Personally, I bought the 40mm 2.8, because is the smallest lens in the market. I can carry my camera with this lens every where. This lens (40mm) has a great quality of imagen from 2.8 to 22. If you look for a lens for portrait, buy 50 mm. If you look for a compact lens with excelent quality, I recomend 40mm.
678605
In my opinion it depends on what your main reason for using the lens is. If you don't NEED the 2.8 then go with the 4, I don't think IQ is dramatically better or worse. Unless there was ever a time while you were using the f/4 that you were like "man I wish I could stop down to 2.8," I would just stick to the f/4.Edit: Just saw on another reply you said something about portraits, if you are going to use the lens for portraits at all the 2.8 is amazing, the bokeh is simply stunning.
1787338
Any thoughts for general / home photography? I have a Digital Rebel XSI and recently bought the 70-200 mm F2.8 IS version mainly to photograph school events without the annoying flash, and take closeups of my rapidly-growing kids. I have been going back and forth between the two lenses (24-70 F2.8 vs. 24-105 F4.0 IS) but my instinct is that F2.8 is much better than F 4 even with IS. Any guidance appreciated from a professional.
1579847
I have both and the 85mm has a much better build quality, longer focal length, and more robust colors and image quality is significantly better. I rarely use my 50mm anymore. I keep it because of its low price and the resale value isn't worth it.
1346884
The 50mm f/1.4 doesn't offer enough of an image quality boost over the 50mm f/1.8 to justify buying it. The 85mm f/1.8 offers faster ring type USM focusing, the 50mm f/1.8 does not. The 85mm f/1.8 has a rich and creamy bokeh that is as good or better than the 50mm f/1.4. While still being a great traditional portrait lens, the extra reach of the 85m f/1.8, makes it great for concerts, plays, and gymnasium sports. I like to say the 85mm f/1.8 is the lens that every parent should own (and anyone who wants to sell photos to parents too).
982739
If you can afford it, buy the 28/200 or the 28/300 macro lens. It is much more convenient as you do not have to change lenses when shifting from one type of shot to another. It is ideal for the amateur / semi-pro who wants excellent photos. Of course, if you are a professional, you already know that you need many more types of lenses and filters for every situation conceivable.
1244449
If you are already committed to the Nikon brand, then this 60mm Micro-Nikkor is an excellent choice. If your Nikon has a DX sensor like the 5100, 5200, 3100, and so on, then this lens will frame up as if it were 90mm, which is a bonus. 90mm is an excellent length for portraiture and with the Nano coating and the ED glass you will have breathtaking results and because it's a macro lens you could even move in and take photos of precious little hands and feet as well. Good luck!
928326
If you meant a D600, then that's a great lens and I'd definitely recommend it. Also look at the 14-24 if that's within your budget and you don't need to use filters.If you actually meant D60, then this lens would not make sense to use on your camera unless you're planning to move to full frame soon. 16mm isn't very wide on DX and f4 isn't anything special. If you are going to stick with a Dx sized sensor long-term, then I would look at the new Sigma 18-35 for a similar zoom range with the huge bonus of a 1.8 aperture. The 17-55 Nikon is also good but it's getting old. If you're looking for an ultrawide for DX, take a look at the Tokina 11-16 or Nikon 10-24. If you meant a D600, then that's a great lens and I'd definitely recommend it. Also look at the 14-24 if that's within your budget and you don't need to use filters.If you actually meant D60, then this lens would not make sense to use on your camera unless you're planning to move to full frame soon. 16mm isn't very wide on DX and f4 isn't anything special. If you are going to stick with a Dx sized sensor long-term, then I would look at the new Sigma 18-35 for a similar zoom range with the huge bonus of a 1.8 aperture. The 17-55 Nikon is also good but it's getting old. If you're... » Read More If you meant a D600, then that's a great lens and I'd definitely recommend it. Also look at the 14-24 if that's within your budget and you don't need to use filters.If you actually meant D60, then this lens would not make sense to use on your camera unless you're planning to move to full frame soon. 16mm isn't very wide on DX and f4 isn't anything special. If you are going to stick with a Dx sized sensor long-term, then I would look at the new Sigma 18-35 for a similar zoom range with the huge bonus of a 1.8 aperture. The 17-55 Nikon is also good but it's getting old. If you're looking for an ultrawide for DX, take a look at the Tokina 11-16 or Nikon 10-24. « Show Less