60mm macro or 105mm macro or 85/1.4?

Hi, sorry for another "which lense to get" question. Currently, I have 17-55/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.4, 18-200VR, and Sigma 10-20mm.

I am thinking of getting a macro lense for close-up pictures, which is actually more like "once in a while" thing. I am thinking of also using it as a good portrait lense with good bokeh. Therefore, I am more inclined to get the 105mmVR, since the range of the 60macro is quite close to the long end of my 17-55/2.8. Is my logic correct?

Then, I am kinda debating myself if the 85/1.4 may even be a better portrait lense. But it doesn't have the macro function.

For those of you that have both the 85/1.4 and 105VR, what would you rate these two lenses in terms of bokeh and the suitability for portrait?

Thanks a lot.

Have you considered that the nikkor 28-70 2.8 can do macro? I would almost reccomend selling your 17-55, and using the money to get the 28-70, that is if you don't mind losing the 17-28 range (but couldn't that be filled in by the 18-200?)

then again, i'm not a macro photographer so I can't attest to the macro capabilities of this lens.

--
justin

If you want a macro lens, then the 105 is for you. The 85 is a fabulous portrait lens, but it would not be a good choice for macro. The 105 can be harsh for portraits, so you are stuck if these are your choices. Both are specialty lens, so you will win on one end, not do so well on the other.

Dan

anothermike knows more about the subtle differences in these lenses than anyone I have seen post here. Please read this response of his to a similar question. It will help. You can skip the first paragraph

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=22376911
--
Edward

Lenses listed in profile

jusphotos said:

Have you considered that the nikkor 28-70 2.8 can do macro?

Click to expand...

No, it can't, Justin. The 28-70 can only do 1/5.6 lifesize. The 17-55 can do slightly better at 1/5th lifesize.

The best bet would be to complement the 17-55. The Tamron 90 might be a good choice. It's good for portraits and macros.

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

I sold my 85 1.4 to buy the 105 VR and I'm happy with the swap, but that's largely due to the fact that I also own the 28~70. I prefer the 28~70 to the 85 because it's more practical; you can zoom from head&shoulders to full body and it has AF-S.

The 105 gives me more reach for candids or close-ups, it has AF-S and VR. (It's also a good macro lens). I agree with anothermike's assesment in the other thread, but it's not such a biggie to me.

I had front-focussing issues with the 85 f1.4 on my D200. I also found I missed critical focus too often when shooting wide open because the DOF is sooo shallow. The CA wide open was worse than my 105VR is. And I really want AF-S.

I considered the 105DC, but still no AF-S, no VR and I read of similar front-focussing issues.

Nikon seem incabable of adjusting non-AF-S lenses, and I'd rather they didn't mess with the camera as it is fine with all my other lenses.

the manual says it can, and nikon manuals are always right

obviously, this shows how much i don't know about macro photography and that i should just keep away from this discussion.

so i would guess that an attempt at 1:1 would be the ultimate reporoduction ration?

What is nikon describing in the manual for the 28-70 when it says "macro focusing" it talkes about 1:13 ratio on the wide end and a 1:5.6 ratio on the tele end (pg13).

--
justin

Nikon uses different terms, perhaps more accurately than others. 'Macro' means close-focussing, but a true macro with reproduction of 1:1 magnification they prefer to call 'micro'. Thus, the 105 VR is called "105mm f/2.8G AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor", whereas if you see a Nikkor zoom described as 'macro' it simply means you can focus closer than you could with a standard zoom (it will not achieve 1:1).

--
justin