Pretty straight forward.

I'm trying to figure out my portrait lens and I want to pick between these four lenses. Having a hard time though. I like the 105mm focal length because I already have a 50mm. 50 and 85 are too close for me to pick one up over the over. I also want the 1.4 aperture of the 85mm. Thoughts? My budget is around $800, and I'm shooting on a D7000.

Very subjective but for me it's:

1. Sigma 85
2. 105 DC
3. 85 1.4D
4. 105 VR

What about Nikon 85mm 1.8G + 105 2.5 AI/AIS manual focus?

Not a bad suggestion!

I'm trying to simplify my set up but that is certainly an option.

According to photozone, the Sigma is very poor in the corners and rates the 1.4D way better than the Sigma. Not sure how to interpret these results...thoughts?

The corners wouldn't matter a whole lot to me as I rarely position my subject in the extreme edges of the frame. The sigma has a certain look to me and the 135 f/2 is wonderful from my limited experience with it

+1 for portrait, I don't see corner sharpness as important. I too love the 135mm dc but for me too long for dx (200mm equivalent)

It's hard to make a decision. I've heard many people praise the Sigma and some hate it. Some people love the 1.4D but hate the focus.

I'm concerned because I do care a bit about corner sharpness for the Sigma as well as Chromatic Aberration.

Corner sharpness? For portrait?? Why?

j_ross23 wrote:
Not a bad suggestion!

I'm trying to simplify my set up but that is certainly an option.

According to photozone, the Sigma is very poor in the corners and rates the 1.4D way better than the Sigma. Not sure how to interpret these results...thoughts?

If you're shooting on DX this is likely less of an issue. If you're on FX it may be an issue if you're looking for a general purpose lens. If you're just shooting portraits at fairly large apertures, the corners won't be an issue. So on an 85, it's probably not too big of a deal... but on the Sigma 50, I really didn't like how soft the corners were on my D600.

The best advice here, IMO, is to rent these lenses before buying. I've dealt with borrowlenses.com (never again) and lensrentals.com before and liked the latter. If you rent some Sigma lenses from LR, and decide you want to buy, you're eligible for a discount. So there's that.

Now, if what you want is a 105mm lens, you've got plenty of options.

Manual focus:

100/2.8
105/1.8
105/2.5
105/2.8

Autofocus:

105/2 DC
105/2.8
105/2.8 VR

Sigma is the best from the group but is bulky and quite heavy. It renders human skin in a very nice way when the light is appropriate. I ended by purchasing a second 85, the new G f/1.8 version just for street and travel. This is also a very good lens... not so magic like Sigma but it is lightweight and does the job when you need it.

I also have 135/2 DC and I owned 85/1.4 D. Both are great lenses and I suppose that 105/2 D is on par with them. But AF-D lenses in ths group are quite noisy and the AF is not so consistent like in most modern lenses. Especially during events I hate the noise done by D lenses... many times drawing people's attention.

Having said that I own two different versions of 105/2.5... one AI'd Sonnar design and one AI-S, Gauss design. I am really stunned by the IQ delivered by this lens, both in portraiture and as well in landscape. IMHO in the F mount the best bang for the book one can have from this inexpensive piece of glass. With D7000 it makes a very nice combo.

Thanks for more input!

Regarding the Sigma, I guess I'm extremely iffy about it because I use photozone.de as a primary source to judge how good a lens is. Photozone rated the $300 dollar 85mm 1.8D far higher than the Sigma due to Sigma's corner sharpness. I think it comes down to forgetting about the charts and data, and really looking at the images and seeing which one looks the best. I will probably go with the suggestion of renting the Sigma and perhaps the 105 DC and seeing which I like best.

With the 105mm length, I've heard amazing reviews about the 105mm 2.5. I might pick one of these up to use as my telephoto prime

I have both the 85 1.4D and th 105DC and for out in the field portraits I go to the 85mm and studio work I go for the 105. Now I only have fx bodies (D700/D800) so take it for what it's worth. Also a lot of my studio work is newborn stuff.... So smaller people.

I find the 85 a little more forgiving in the field in the studio I have more control and a tripod!

I have the 85 1.4D and 105dc s well. I also have the zeiss 100, which is the best of the three, but I have to say the color rendition of the 85 is beautiful. I end up using it often.

I have the 85 1.4d and the 105DC for me shooting portraits on a DX body, the 85 is the choice for me. The 85 is the Bokeh machine hands down. I find that I typically have to shoot the 85 around F2.8 to have the dof from nose to ears to be sharp.

Used 85 1.4D's are under $800.

I've owned the 105 for a long time but was never very happy with it. it mostly sits on the shelf.

If you are shooting indoors with a 105 on DX, you might run out of room. In a regular house with furniture and such, I find it can be challenging even with a 85 on DX. Things get in your way to prevent you from moving and composing. I suppose if you have a spacious studio, you might be ok. (Talking here about non-baby head and shoulders portrait. Obviously worse if you need to do 3/4 length, or multi-person portraits or environmental portraits.)

I loved the D200 + 85mm 1.4D combo:



Fantastic for outdoors, very tight indoors.

+1 on the 85 D, but you might also consider a used or new 80-200 2.8 D. Especially if you don't have a telephoto.

I've used all 4 lenses but I still prefer and adore the Nikon 85mm 1.4G - simply amazing!

Depending on the amount of compression you need, I'd go for a Sigma 150 macro and 85 1.4G. These and your 50 should have you covered.

Keep in mind his budget is $800 or the 85G would be a no brainer.

85/1.4D look for an used one.