ok, I am a sucker for sharp pics. I do mostly outdoor portraits with a D700. I don't go for full body shots much, I like a tighter head and shoulders pose. I also don't like to be real close to my subject.
For these reasons, I think I have sadly ruled out the 85 1.4.
Trying to decide between 105 Macro VR, 105 DC, 135 DC, or the 180.
What do you think is the sharpest and best for portraits between these lenses on a full frame? I'm afraid the 105's will still be a little short for my liking.
I've had them all - and all are excellent or at least very good in terms of sharpness.
IMHO, at f2.8 in order of sharpness: 105VR, 180, 105DC, then 135DC. I found the 105VR slightly sharper, while the 180 and 105DC are pretty close to one another. The 135DC isn't that far behind. That being said however, I think both DCs and 180 have a more pleasing bokeh than the 105VR. Also note, both DCs provide an extra stop for even better subject isolation, as well as defocus control (if you want to take the time to learn how to use it.)
I still have the 105DC and 180 in my bag (although I think the 180 maybe leaving since acquiring a 200/F2). Oh, and I also share your thoughts about the 85 1.4 - just too close on FF.
If you don't mind manual focus lenses, add the Zeiss 100 F2 to your list. It's super sharp and has really nice bokeh. Unfortunately, I found manual focus to be a pain. Also, if you're really on a budget, try a Nikon 105 f2.5 AI/AIS - super lens for the $$$.
I am leaning towards the 180 2.8 I also own the 80-200 2.8 zoom. Will the 180 prime be noticeably better than the zoom? sharper? better bokeh? Anyone care to share a head shot taken with the 180?
My business is kids and seniors. I use all three of these lenses a lot with my D700 and interchange often, but here is my general usage: I use the 105vr for my baby shots. I use the 70-200vr for my kids shots because they have a tendency to be active. I use the zeiss 100/2 for my model shots.
Among the suggested choices, I'd go for the 135 f/2 if the 85/1.4 is too short for your tastes. If AF isn't critical, also consider a 105mm f/2.5 AI... buttery bokeh and beautiful color rendition, not to mention bargain price (I just got one at a local thrift shop for $50 It's my fourth copy of the lens).
Smiert Spionam wrote:
Good suggestions above. I'd also add the Sigma 150/2.8. It's crazy sharp, with nice bokeh, too. Every bit as good as the 180/2.8, and a bit shorter.
I was about to bring up this lens too. If you want *sharp*, this lens is it. Sigma 150mm = super ridiculously sharp.
photomatt88 wrote:
I'm now thinking about giving the 85 1.4 a try and just learning to shoot closer to my subject. Why can't Nikon make a 150/1.4 VR??
Honestly, I'm not sure how practical the 150 would be. F1.4 lenses are great, however in practical terms shooting at that focal length, wide open would be challenging due to the shallow DOF - not too mention the cost for such a lens. The closest thing to a 150 1.4 that actually exists would probably be the 135 f2 or, like someone else mentioned, the Sigma 150 f2.8.
As much as I wanted to keep the 85 1.4 in my bag, if it doesn't fit your style of shooting, I wouldn't fight it. There are viable alternatives at longer focal lengths.
I recently obtained both the 135 DC and the 85 f/1.4. I've had the 105 DC for 2 or 3 years. I originally bought it, in lieu of the 85 f/1.4, for use on DX. The 135 is my favorite on the d700, without doubt. The 85 is a sweet lens, but not for head shots on FX. I don't like being right on top of my subjects.
The 70-200vr makes for a sweet portrait lens too for the longer focal lengths, but it's not as sharp wide open as the primes. Others have mentioned the sigma 150. If I wanted longer than the 135 DC, that's the lens that I'd probably buy.
