Nikon 85 f1.8 or Tamron 90 Di

Bill Wallace said:

I am going to get the 85 f1.8 and evaluate my macro needs a little
longer...I live in Minnesota so it'll be a while before we see
flowers...we just got about 14" of snow this week.

Click to expand...

Good choice, Bill... I live north and west of you across the 49th, not a lot of snow here but still a long way off for the flowers.

Let me know about my email.

Terry

--
Graham Fine Art Photography
http://grahter.sasktelwebsite.net
http://www.reginaphotoclub.com/MemberGallery/TGraham
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PrairiePhoto/

Bill,

I hope you have fun with the lens. I'm very glad I have one, too. But as some other posters have said, you can always sell it and move on if it doesn't fit you well. I definitely agree. The only problem (if you could call it that) would be you probably couldn't bring yourself to sell it, but isn't that a nice thing? So much better than having a slight feeling of remorse. The 85mm won't do that to you. Nice reasonable lens. It would be cool if all lenses were like that.

Guy Moscoso

Bill Wallace said:

I am going to get the 85 f1.8 and evaluate my macro needs a little
longer...

Click to expand...

Great little lens. My only concern is you're planning on buying a 70--200VR, which will do a better job at 85mm than the 85/1.8. That's why I thought the Tamron 90 macro might be the better choice, as it will serve as your portrait + macro lens, and after you get the 70-200, it will still offer unique abilities as your macro lens. Jmho.

--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank

Yes I do have the 70-200vr but I thought the unobtrusiveness and extra light gathering ability of the 85 would be of benefit, I know the vr would offset some of the advantage of the faster lens. There are times i.e. family functions...discrete event photography..etc. that I thought the smallness of the 85 would come in extremely handy, especially if one wanted to travel lite. My in-laws at family gatherings are at times pretty touchy about having my Oly gear stuck in their face, wait till I pop that 70-200 on them, they'll scatter.

Food for thought, thanks UF,

Bill

--
Bill Wallace
dpreview & pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/papa51

Very interesting point Uncle Frank made, and it got me thinking, but as you said, the "stealth" factor is one more thing to consider.

Another thing I just played around with here in my house has to do with using a flash. When you have a very sensitive lens, it requires very little extra light from the flash. Of course if the flash points forward, then the flash will be ready to fire again quickly because very little stored up juice was used. Secondly traditional bouncing works better, too. But incredibly enough, unconventional bouncing like pointing into the totally opposite (wrong) end of the room often gives an interesting light that normal lenses stuck at f3.5 could never benifit from.

I've played with taking the same picture of a single subject while bouncing hard left, hard right and straight back and angled up to different parts of the ceiling. The effects are simply wonderful. Often the least practical gives the most interesting results.

Also being able to REALLY use Depth Of Field as a part of flash photography is a joy, for me, especially coming from the Super-zoom style of shooting.

I hope you get some good ideas from us and show us some good work.

Guy Moscoso

gmosc said:

Another thing I just played around with here in my house has to do
with using a flash. When you have a very sensitive lens, it

requires very little extra light from the flash.. Also being able to REALLY use Depth Of Field as a part of flash photography is a joy, for me, especially coming from the Super-zoom style of shooting.

Click to expand...

This is an awfully expensive suggestion... but if you have the 70-200VR, the portrait lens that best complements it is the 85/1.4. It works well with flash, too.





--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank

Guy,

F2.8 of the 70-200 won't exactly overwork the flash either, especially at ISO 400 or 640 ( I use 640 most for wedding reception coverage anyway).

As to stealth, you can't get much more stealth than shooting from across the room at a focal length of 200mm. The 85 can't do that, they will know you are in their face, where they may not at 200mm.

The 70-200 is a good portrait lens, I can't really say the 85:1.8 would be much better except to be lighter weight. The 70-200 can get to be a hand full but you can't knock it for image quality and candids for sure !!

I've been bouncing from behind myself with the Qflash for years, long before the 70-200 was even thought of, in fact back when I was using ISO 800 film in medium format and those lenses were F4 if you were lucky.

David

gmosc said:

Very interesting point Uncle Frank made, and it got me thinking,
but as you said, the "stealth" factor is one more thing to consider.
Another thing I just played around with here in my house has to do
with using a flash. When you have a very sensitive lens, it
requires very little extra light from the flash. Of course if the
flash points forward, then the flash will be ready to fire again
quickly because very little stored up juice was used. Secondly
traditional bouncing works better, too. But incredibly enough,
unconventional bouncing like pointing into the totally opposite
(wrong) end of the room often gives an interesting light that
normal lenses stuck at f3.5 could never benifit from.

Click to expand...

Guy:

Very interesting, I will be getting the baby flash (sb600) so I will try your effects. Thanks for the many tips and thoughts, you all have gone overboard with help and believe me it is much appreciated. Reminds me of the Oly forum not so long ago....

UF:

I would really like that 1.4 but I just can't swing it, I had certain funds set aside and we have home improvements going on here so I am really at the end of the budget (if not over). I have seen your galleries many times and thanks fro posting your gear and what it will do, it is oh so helpful to people like me. I can hear the 1.4 calling my name...gotta resist...gotta resist....gotta....

Thanks again,

Bill

--
Bill Wallace
dpreview & pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/papa51

I can see many uses for the 85, one of the reasons i came to Nikon was to able to use some of these fine primes. I am still weighing things but that's the direction I am leaning right now, by tomorrow who knows...I just know around the house and @ family functions wielding the 70-200 will be a bit imposing to some family members, I was told as much using my Oly kit...but as you stated at a wedding reception or a larger event/venue yes the 70-200 will really come in handy. .

Thanks for your advice David, as always much appreciated...

Bill

--
Bill Wallace
dpreview & pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/papa51

David Grabowski said:

The 70-200 is a good portrait lens, I can't really say the 85:1.8
would be much better except to be lighter weight. The 70-200 can
get to be a hand full but you can't knock it for image quality and
candids for sure !!

Click to expand...

you're correct. functionally, the 70-200mm VR could be used as a portrait lens. it promises good overall utility. however it's not as wide (aperture) or lightweight as an 85mm--two important considerations for portraiture. the sheer size of a 70-200mm could be trouble navigating around in a crowded room.

i think Bill is on the right track wanting to match a specialized application to a specialized lens.

the born 2 design
design guy

David, Uncle Frank,

My Musings on "Fun with Flash" were not in any way a suggestion that they only work with the 85mm 1.8. I just started thinking out loud since it looks like that's the direction he's gonna go. And since he looks like he's gonna have at least the 85mm, then here are some things I played with, flash wise.

The 70-200VR or the 85 f1.4 (I can dream can't I) would work exactly the same way with all the flash things I suggested.

I can't imagine ever getting either one of those lenses, though, unless I could buy an obviously stolen copy on the used market. That's how tough money is for me. Think of the tortured feelings, to have one of those lenses at the expense of somebody losing their baby. (I could never do that.)

The 85mm f1.8 gives me a taste of what real photography is like, and the priviledge to even consider I might leave the realm of "hack snapsot photographer".

I recognize that it's a good stepping stone lens to give someone a taste of what these cams really can do. I truly feel sorry for the people who are only gonna buy an 18-200VR and never get to experience what playing with f stops can give you. I wish someone here with better people skills could somehow steer the masses buying Nikon toward these cheap lenses so they can experience a little of what I feel I'm experiencing.
It's great to see someone like Bill try to make these decisions.

Guy Moscoso

Hi Bill,

thanks for the compliments, as for my 500mm its the 300 mm f/4 with the 1.7X tc added. Great choice if you're going for the 105mm, only had mine for a short time, and really like it, super sharp.

Stu

http://www.pbase.com/stusteelhead

Another thoughtful and touching response, even though it wasn't directed totally to me, well said.

As I mentioned earlier, this will be every available penny I have now and for the foreseeable future going into this kit so it will have to last me, good or bad, for quite a while. Basically I was very happy on the Oly side except I felt I needed to get to the 10mp mark for what I want to accomplish, photography-wise. I am very serious and haven't had many things in my life that I enjoy as much as making an image that I feel captures a specific moment in time, be it landscape, wildlife, etc...

When I came to Nikon I wanted to get the experience of shooting with primes, only had a 50mm f2, a very nice lens on the Oly side, so I thought out 3 decent basic primes that wouldn't break the bank, the 35 f2, 50 f1.8 & the 85 f1.8. The Tamron crept into the scene as I will need something else for my close up flower work but for now I'm gonna go with the 85 and see if I can achieve what I want with my other lenses, as well as my Oly kit for the time being. I don't need 10mp to shoot flowers, and I was able to achieve a nice look with my Oly kit.

No offense to anyone but with this kit I for now am trying to avoid buying the xx zooms (I prefer to keep zooms at a smaller multiplier), perhaps in the future, but not now for me. I am traditionally a zoom guy, having only been really into this for about 4 or 5 years and there is nothing wrong with that, I just felt the need to try a little different route and see how my shooting and/or the results change. Maybe primes will slow me down a bit, make me think, which is a good thing, or perhaps I won't like that style of shooting and I'll be a xx zoom guy and be happy with that...heaven knows I still have plenty of zooms in my kit. I just feel, for me with the larger multiplier zooms there is too much of a trade-off in IQ.

Thanks to all who have helped, I never imagined the # of responses this simple thread would evoke.

Warm Regards,

Bill
--
Bill Wallace
dpreview & pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/papa51

As many mentioned, Tamron is a great portrait lense with incredible bokeh. That said, I think 85 f1.4 is even better for portraits. AI version of that lense should be priced somewhat similar to Tamron 90mm. For your purposes, I think 85mm f1.8 would be a better fit any way with its extra 1 1/3 stop.

I was in the process of paring down my equipments sometime ago and I ended up selling my Tamron 90mm. The main reason was that I was using the Tamron solely for Macro and found a suitable replacement for my macro needs. I stumbled onto Vivitar Macro teleconverter and found that the little thing gave more than acceptable results when paired with 50 f1.8. It's plenty sharp and allows magnification all the way to 1:1. Not quite as sharp as Tamron 90mm but pretty close IMHO. It's certainly more versatile. I'd say give it a try to see if it's good enough for you before deciding on a dedicated Macro lense. You should be able to pick it up for less than $20 on ebay.

--
Bill Wallace
dpreview & pbase supporter
http://www.pbase.com/papa51