# New Nikon 85mm 1.8G or used 105mm DC F2 - Portrait Lens Decision



## madtonic (Jan 11, 2015)

I just want to start out by saying that I have posted equipment questions here before and feel I have always been steered in the right direction.  So since I have a new dilemma, I figured I would return to the people that helped in the past. 

I bought the D750 and am just loving it.  I debated back and forth but in the end went for the 24-120 F4 kit lens rather than spending a whole bunch more on the 24-70.  I think in a year or two I may upgrade but for now I would like to see how using that lens intermixed with some primes will do for me.  So far I am very happy with the lens.

I am looking at getting a lens that will mainly be for portrait work.  I currently use the 70-200 VR1.  I have no complaints with it.  Looking for something not quite as long and imposing.  If I save some weight that is a bonus.  If I get some awesome bokeh then even better.  I am happy with the bokeh from the 70-200 but hear very good things about the lens I am interested in also.

Initially I made my mind up when I bought the D750 to purchase the 85mm 1.8G.  I thought this would be paired well with my 50mm and my 35mm (some issues on FX but usable).  It is currently $520 at a camera store in Canada.  That's just shy of $600 for a new, fully warrantied piece of glass.  The 105mm DC F2 can be had used on ebay for just under $900 Canadian.  That is not an incredible stretch in my books.  I have heard many great things about this lens.  Unfortunately I have never seen one in the real world and don't know anybody I can borrow from to try it out.  I am basing all my decision on info gathered from the web.

Interested in peoples thoughts when comparing the two lenses for portrait work.  Other than that, they may be used for some street photography but essentially for portraits.  I take a lot of portraits of both young children, teens, and couples if that makes any difference.  Occasionally even solo men.  I will be using it mainly outdoors but occasionally in studio for headshots and tight shots.  My other passion is sports and this purchase would not get any use for that.

Thanks in advance for the input.


----------



## Designer (Jan 11, 2015)

I voted for the 105 DC.  I think 105 would be about the minimum length for portraiture on a D750, and longer would be my choice, but I've been intrigued by the DC lens and would certainly consider buying one.  

I think if it's blur you're going after, you're looking at the wrong end of the portrait.  Portrait first, blur second.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 11, 2015)

I hear they aren't sharp wide open and exhibit a lot of CA.


----------



## Designer (Jan 11, 2015)

Thanks, Braineack, you save me at least $900.

So now to the OP: forget the 105 DC.  

What is your budget?


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 11, 2015)

Given the two choices, I'd go with the 105.  I'm old-school.... when it comes to portraiture, the longer the FL the better.

If there's optical flaws in the lens (CA, etc.), is anyone going to make 40x60 prints so it will be visible (assuming you don't correct those flaws in post)?


----------



## Designer (Jan 11, 2015)

madtonic; with a 35mm-sized sensor, I would go to at a least 135mm or 200mm.  If you can find a good lens in that range it would be better IMO.


----------



## D-B-J (Jan 11, 2015)

I've thought of the 105 DC or 135 DC for my D800, but I think they're past their time.  They're old, and the new high-MP sensors really draw out their flaws.  I love the 85 1.8G, but it DOES have some strong CA wide-open.  Most of it's correctible in post, but it's an added step.  To be honest, there is NO good mid range (100-150mm) affordable but sharp prime for portraits for Nikon.  The DC lenses are old and past their time. The 105mm macro is good but 2.8 isn't really a portrait f-stop.  The zeiss 135 f2 is incredibly expensive and MF only.  Maybe SOMEDAY Nikon will make a modern 135 f2G.... Maybe...


But, for you, the 85 1.8G is a solid performer. 

Jake


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 11, 2015)

D-B-J said:


> ........To be honest, there is NO good mid range (100-150mm) affordable but sharp prime for portraits for Nikon.  ..........



I beg to differ. If I had to shoot portraiture again, I would not hesitate _one bit_ in mounting my "old/past it's time" 135mm Ai on a D600 or D800. It's the second sharpest lens in my arsenal, bested only by my 50/1.8 G.

Good lenses don't mysteriously get worse as they age.  They just get more wear marks on the barrels.


----------



## D-B-J (Jan 11, 2015)

480sparky said:


> D-B-J said:
> 
> 
> > ........To be honest, there is NO good mid range (100-150mm) affordable but sharp prime for portraits for Nikon.  ..........
> ...



Maybe it's because I haven't used one.  

What I mean is there's no.. "fancy" option.  With a f2 aperture, nano-coated glass, VR, ED elements, etc.  

Jake


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 11, 2015)

If a lens gets you the results you want (sharpness, bokehlicious, etc.), who needs all the bells and whistles?


----------



## D-B-J (Jan 11, 2015)

480sparky said:


> If a lens gets you the results you want (sharpness, bokehlicious, etc.), who needs all the bells and whistles?




I guess I just worry about the CA on the 135.  Is it there?  Sometimes I've found myself avoiding 1.8 on my 85 because of that issue.

Maybe you should send it to me so I can play with it and join the "lover-of-that-lens" group 

Jake


----------



## tirediron (Jan 11, 2015)

Which would I prefer or which would I buy?  I might prefer the 135DC, but would I buy it?  Probably not.  Why?  Because the 85 is much more reasonably priced, and most of what you're paying for in the DC price tag (the "DC") is of limited use because of the specialized nature of its design.  I have shot tens of thousands of frames with my 85mm 1.4D and have NO complaints about it whatsoever.  Would I like a 105, or 135 with equivalent optics?  HELL ya'!  Do I want to pay a several hundred dollar premium for a feature I'll rarely use?  NO.  THANK.  YOU.


----------



## madtonic (Jan 11, 2015)

Braineack said:


> I hear they aren't sharp wide open and exhibit a lot of CA.


I have read a number of comments from people who say it isn't the sharpest lens, but can't that sometimes be a good thing sometimes?  I am looking for a portrait lens not a ultra sharp macro lens. My worry is that there seems to be a lot of variation between copies, even more so since some of these lenses are over a decade old and somewhat worn.  I am happy with the sharp but not super sharp copy but would be deflated if I bought one off ebay and it was soft all around.  I guess that is the risk of internet shopping.


Designer said:


> Thanks, Braineack, you save me at least $900.
> 
> So now to the OP: forget the 105 DC.
> 
> What is your budget?


Initially I was thinking about buying the 85mm 1.8 because it was a cheap prime lens that had a lot of bang for my buck.  At the time is was $460 plus tax in Canada.  Of course I didn't jump on it so it is back up to $520 this week.  Then I started thinking outside that box and came to the 105.  For that I am looking around $900.  I don't know how much more I want to stretch from the original idea but I don't think much more than $900-$1000.  I am now getting paid for shoots but I am not a full out professional.  Although I want the best pro equipment, for me to run this as a proper side business I have to slowly progress.  Maybe in a couple years I will be looking at the 200 F2 or the 85 1.4 but for now my budget has to fit with my business plan.  Plus any money I save on the lens can be used for other items.  I do need a lightmeter.


Designer said:


> madtonic; with a 35mm-sized sensor, I would go to at a least 135mm or 200mm.  If you can find a good lens in that range it would be better IMO.


I have a 50mm 1.8 for the short side of portraiture and for the long end I use a 70-200 2.8 (mostly at 200).  I was looking for something in the middle without the bulk and weight of the 70-200.

I also don't get why people always start to push longer lenses for portraiture.  I have read all the theories and understand most of the principals but then I see the 85 1.4 is one of the go to lenses for professionals.  And I also read that 105mm is the "classic" focal length for Nikon portrait lenses.  I have taken many great shots at that range.  I appreciate it both from the results in the photo and the closeness (yet not too close) I can have with my "victim".

Any way thanks for the responses.... frankly I am maybe more confused than before though.


----------



## goodguy (Jan 11, 2015)

Used to shoot all my portraits on my Nikon 85mm 1.8G, now its only my Tamron 70-200mm 2.8 VC on my D750.
Super sharp, super flexible


----------



## chuasam (Jan 11, 2015)

I'm a professional portrait photographer. I shoot mostly with my 70-200. Unless it's a super long day and/or I'm using a tripod, then I would use my 85mm f/1.8D. I've been meaning to get the G version but I've found other things that needed buying. 

get the 85mm...in truth, your vision and people skills and ability to read your subject counts for FAR FAR more than any possible lens.


----------



## Mr.Photo (Jan 11, 2015)

I do agree with the people that recommend the longer focal length with the full frame sensor, but the 85mm 1.8G is also a great portrait focal length and even in the film days was one of the "must have" lenses in a photographers bag. 

I have the 85 1.8G, and would not trade it for anything in the world.  It is amazingly sharp (even wide open), and produces beautifully creamy backgrounds even when stopped down slightly.  Below is a sample taken with my 85mm at f/4 on my D7000.




DSC_2701 5x7 by Gary C&#x27;s Photography, on Flickr



480sparky said:


> D-B-J said:
> 
> 
> > ........To be honest, there is NO good mid range (100-150mm) affordable but sharp prime for portraits for Nikon.  ..........
> ...



I agree with this.  I love using my "old" Ai 135mm 2.8 even on my D7000.  It is amazingly sharp!

Here's a sample taken with the "old and outdated" lens.




DSC_2685 5x7 by Gary C&#x27;s Photography, on Flickr


----------



## greybeard (Jan 12, 2015)

What focal length and f/stop do you usually shoot at with your 70-200 when you are taking portraits?  I personally never shoot at anything faster than f//2.8 , more like f/5.6 for me.  You can always make it softer in PP, can't do much if it too soft to start with.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 12, 2015)

pixel peepin' the 105 DC f2 vs. the 105 AI-S f2.8, I'd pick the AI-F every time.   I can't find one sharp image using the DC.


----------



## jaomul (Jan 12, 2015)

Good info coming from actual users. One person made a point that lenses don't get bad as they get older. That is true, hense some lenses can be a lifetime purchase. I do think though that resolution of some lenses are not what newer ones are.

 This probably isn't a real problem if you are taking and printing photos at anything up to 12x8 or maybe a bit bigger, but if you zoom into a 24mp at 100% you may see resolution flaws that newer lenses would not have. 

Digital sensors have different properties than film, so there is a good chance newer lenses designed for digital cameras will be better. No doubt some older lenses have and will take lovely photos and a lot is down to the person than gear but with improvements in tech etc I think newer is better.

As for your dilemma, check 85 and 105 on your zoom. See which you prefer. It probably doesn't really make that much difference. For your budget I wouldn't rule out the sigma 85f1.4 either


----------



## jake337 (Jan 12, 2015)

480sparky said:


> D-B-J said:
> 
> 
> > ........To be honest, there is NO good mid range (100-150mm) affordable but sharp prime for portraits for Nikon.  ..........
> ...



I love my 135mm f2 ais.  One of my favorite lenses.


----------



## ruifo (Jan 12, 2015)

Among the two options your list, I'd go with the 85mm. Or the 135mm DC, not teh 105mm.

In my own case, I went with this other option instead:
*Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG OS HSM Macro 1:1*

See this about it:
micro 105 2.8G VR with D3200? | Photography Forum
micro 105 2.8G VR with D3200? | Photography Forum

It's great for both Macro and Portraits. The sharpest macro lens for Nikon F-mount and excellent smooth bokeh for portraits as wel. The links above give you sample shots and a discussion about portraiture at the 105mm range with macro lenses.

Good luck.


----------



## jake337 (Jan 12, 2015)

I'd like to add that I've read that the 135mm f2 ais/DC lenses get sharper at standard portrait distances, 10-15 feet.  I can concur with my personal experience with the 135mm f2 ais.  It is pretty soft wide open at its minimum focusing distance but improves at 10-20 feet.


----------



## Microbois (Jan 12, 2015)

If it helps the debate about the sharpness of old vs newer lenses, I've read something, somehere, about 1 year ago, that may hold some valid explanations. I honestly do not remember the source, and if it can be trusted, but it was going like this : Old lenses are designed in a way that the light hits the film at different angles, but newer lenses are designed in such way that the image on the sensor come from light hitting the sensor at 90 degrees. This is why older lenses would be more prone to CA and purple fringing.

It kinds of make sense and would explain why some old lenses are still good while some others exhibit flaws on digital cameras.

If someone in the know can comment on this, please do.


----------



## goodguy (Jan 12, 2015)

greybeard said:


> What focal length and f/stop do you usually shoot at with your 70-200 when you are taking portraits?  I personally never shoot at anything faster than f//2.8 , more like f/5.6 for me.  You can always make it softer in PP, can't do much if it too soft to start with.


My favorite f stop for portraits is f4 but of course it depends of different parameters, sometimes I will go wider and sometimes even F8


----------



## greybeard (Jan 12, 2015)

goodguy said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > What focal length and f/stop do you usually shoot at with your 70-200 when you are taking portraits?  I personally never shoot at anything faster than f//2.8 , more like f/5.6 for me.  You can always make it softer in PP, can't do much if it too soft to start with.
> ...


So, with that written, what are either of these 2 lenses going to do for you that your 70-200 f/2.8 isn't?


----------



## goodguy (Jan 12, 2015)

greybeard said:


> goodguy said:
> 
> 
> > greybeard said:
> ...


I admire flexibility, the 70-200mm gives me the focal flexibility that I relish so much without any compromises sharpness wise.
Only main drawback will be its sheer size and weight but that's a price I am willing and lovingly pay.
Had a little portrait session with my daughter, mounted the 70-200mm and flash on my D750 and I must admit the who package was fairly heavy even for me after holding it for few long minutes.
BTW I will shoot it at f2.8 if I have no other choice, its still extremly sharp at f2.8 but the shallow DOF is obviously challenging for portraits.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 13, 2015)

and another option has magically appeared:

Samyang 135mm f/2.0 ED UMC Lens for Nikon F Mount SY135M-N B&H

manual focus only.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 13, 2015)

Braineack said:


> and another option has magically appeared:
> 
> Samyang 135mm f/2.0 ED UMC Lens for Nikon F Mount SY135M-N B&H


 Interesting... at that price it's almost worth trying!


----------



## Mr.Photo (Jan 13, 2015)

I agree.  I've played around a little with their 85 1.4 and it's not bad at all.  I've seen several reviews online that praise it as well.  I'm intrigued by this one as well.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 13, 2015)

9-curved blades is nice, compared to the 7-straight of the others, but manual focus only stinks.

but with the way the 135 DC focuses so poorly and slowly [so i hear], that might be an improvement over the Nikon


----------



## tirediron (Jan 13, 2015)

Braineack said:


> 9-curved blades is nice, compared to the 7-straight of the others, but manual focus only stinks.
> 
> but with the way the 135 DC focuses so poorly and slowly [so i hear], that might be an improvement over the Nikon


 Manual focus for portraiture (I can't really see using this for anything else) isn't a big deal.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 13, 2015)

no, it's not really.


----------



## Phoenix77 (Feb 8, 2015)

I recently bought a nikkor 105 DC .I also considered the 85 f1.8 G version as one of the choices but I ended up buying the 105 DC.  I know its an "old" technology lens but reading on reviews and articles I decided it was a better option for me. I am from the Philippines, the 105 DC is also not readily available here as compared to the 85mm. I thought that if ever I will need a 85mm lens, I can  buy one since its more readily available here. 

Yes, CA can be a issue but it can be corrected by post processing or can be avoided anyways. The 105 DC is also tack sharp, even when set at F2. Auto Focusing is fast enough but manual focusing can also be easy achieved. I haven't fully utilized the DC feature but I am anticipating that it can be a handy feature. Its more expensive than the 85 f1.8 but comes close to the 85 f1.4 D price. 

Overall, I am very satisfied with the nikkor 105 f2 DC.


----------



## Trever1t (Feb 8, 2015)

I have both the 85f1.4 and the 135DCf2.

I have tons of images on my Flickr with the 85 and the most recent with the 135DC. Take a look if you like, link in signature. 

My opinion...the older lens is better. Not as sharp, no. Not as good contrast control, especially in backlit situations but it seems to be warmer, create softer, creamier oof elements. Both are good but now the 135f2  is glued on.


----------



## Mike_ (Feb 10, 2015)

tirediron said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > 9-curved blades is nice, compared to the 7-straight of the others, but manual focus only stinks.
> ...



I guess it depends on one's shooting style.  To me it wouldn't be a big deal because the vast majority of my portrait work is MF.  For this type of work I prefer bigger focusing rings, a longer focus throw, and a more solid focus feel that a manual focus lens is going to offer compared to most AF lenses.  What I really like about the 135/2 DC it's one of the few AF lenses that has close to a MF feel about it.  As far as I'm concerned, lens handling is a huge issue for a portrait lens, especially for 35mm that I'm more likely to use off the tripod.  A lens might be the sharpest in Nikon's lineup, have the least aberrations, and focus the fastest, but if it doesn't handle well it's probably not the one I'm going to reach for.

As far as the previous comment about the 135 DC focusing, that doesn't match my experience.  AF is fast and precise on my copy.  It may not be as fast as some AF-S lenses, but for a screw drive lens it's about as good as it gets and I don't really see myself using this lens for anything that requires the fastest focusing.


----------

