What do you think of the new nikon 85mm f/3.5

Ozzwald

I was wondering what you guys though about this lens, i really cant figure it out. Why didnt the update the previous F/1.8/1.4 model...do you think 3.5 is a good F stop? Do you think it will have a decent shallow DOF?

ziggy53

The DX Micro Nikkor AF-S 85mm F3.5G VR is a true "macro" lens designed for the Nikon crop 1.5x cameras. It is not a replacement for the full-frame 85mm, f1.4 and f1.8 lenses and has an entirely different application and market. It can be used for some of the same purposes as the standard prime lenses, but that is not its primary design, which is macro photography.

Qarik

Ozzwald wrote:

I was wondering what you guys though about this lens, i really cant figure it out. Why didnt the update the previous F/1.8/1.4 model...do you think 3.5 is a good F stop? Do you think it will have a decent shallow DOF?

I imagine it will be sharp and be very good macro lens and good protrait type lens. It will never be a great protrait lens because of the DOF. It will not be good low light lens either. The lens puzzles me as well. Why not 2.8 like all other prime macro lens? If you are not doing macro..i don;t see any point in buying it. If you are doing macro I would consider it but their are other great macro lens that have better f stop at similar price points.

Ozzwald

Ya, i wish it had a lower Fstop but in terms of it differing from the faster 85mm primes...how big is the gap in DOF and quality overall? Will the DOF be the biggest Difference between the two?

Grainbelt

Qarik wrote:

f you are doing macro I would consider it but their are other great macro lens that have better f stop at similar price points.

I have the Tamron 90mm F2.8 macro. I can't say I have ever shot it at F2.8 in a macro situation - the DOF would be impossibly thin. In that way, a larger aperture isn't necessarily 'better' for a macro lens.

Qarik

Grainbelt wrote:

I have the Tamron 90mm F2.8 macro. I can't say I have ever shot it at F2.8 in a macro situation - the DOF would be impossibly thin. In that way, a larger aperture isn't necessarily 'better' for a macro lens.

agreed, that is why I say it will be fine as a macro lens. But the lens becomes limited in it's use other then a macro with the lower f-stop. If you are a serious macro shooter this won't be your lens. If you aren't serious macro shooter and then lens will be used for other purposes then then this is not your best bet either.

jthomas

Using the online depth-of-field calculator, At 85mm, 10ft from the subject and f/3.4, the DOF is 0.55 ft. At f/2.8, it is 0.46 feet. Thus the difference is 0.11 feet, or about 1.2 inches. I consider this negligible.

Ozzwald

Thanks for the reply.

Im thinking 4 feet is a decent range when shooting portraits...so f1.4 & f/1.8 0.04ft. at f/3.4 0.08ft...doesnt seem like a significant difference. I think i may pick this lens up in the future pending on reviews.