AF-S 85mm/3.5G VR micro

[Mariozi]

Will this lens be the end to the 60 x 105 discussion (at least in the DX range)?

1) AF-S
2) Nice "in between" focal length.
3) VR
4) An amazing MTF chart
5) Not "fat" as the 105VR meaning it fits compact ports like Sea&Sea compact macro ports
6) f3.5 means it's not "expensive".
7) almost the same working distance as the 105mm (-3mm)

I was already a believer that DX was more suitable for uwphoto, mainly due to lens choice, now the feeling just got stronger... I'm looking forward to get it! What do you think?

I guess better than that only a AF-S 60-105mm/3.5-4.5G VR micro, hehehe.

 

[marcaumarc]

This does look pretty ideal. And for topside macro stuff, I like the internal focusing rather than bumping stuff as the lens extends with the 60mm.

On a related note, I haven't taken it diving yet, but I like the versatility of the Tokina 35mm macro (Tokina AT-X M35 Pro DX: Digital Photography Review).

Maybe in a year the standard recommendations for macro lenses will be 35mm and 85mm, at least for crop sensors, instead of 60mm and 105mm.

 

[Larry C]

I was just going to post when I saw yours.
AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 85mm f/3.5G ED VR from Nikon
Close focus at 10.8", f3.5, ED, VR 1:1 at 10.8", I assume. Also, it's internal focus so you can put it in a short port and have plenty of working distance, and it's an S lens, so focus should be smooth and fast. In clear water, it should be adequate for portraits and it is long enough for those supermacros in the green stuff without being so close that you can't light it or so far that the water column gets in the way. Anyone see a price yet?

 

[Mariozi]

U$ 529,95 at an Amazon.Com pre-order.
Looks good for a release price!

 

[AussieByron]

Wouldn't the 85mm DX lens be the same as 56.6mm FX lens when you take into account the 1.5x cropping factor??? So its about the same as the 60mm FX lens like the AF-D and AF-S.

If they made a 85mm FX lens that might be more interesting.

Regards Mark

 

[Chuck Tribolet]

Such timing. I just gave Adm. Linda the 60mm AF-S for her birthday.

The 85mm on a DX sensor is about the same as a 127.5mm on a full-frame
sensor. AussieByron, you divided when you should have multiplied.

That $529 price seems quite high. The 60mm AF-S was $539 at Amazon
(B&H was closed for a week for a religious holiday, was also $539 at
B&H). It seems like the 85mm ought to be about $100 cheaper than the
60mm since the 85mm is slower and a DX lens.

The 60mm AF-S and 105mm AF-S are both internal focusing.

As far as the focus speed goes, IMHO, the 105mm is too fast for most
cameras. I've tried it on Linda's D40, and my D70 and D300, and unless
there's really good contrast, it zips by best focus and keeps going. The
jury is still out on the 60mm as it hasn't got in the water yet, but the
early indications are that it will work better than the 105mm.

 

[Mariozi]

Wouldn't the 85mm DX lens be the same as 56.6mm FX lens when you take into account the 1.5x cropping factor??? So its about the same as the 60mm FX lens like the AF-D and AF-S.

Quite the opposite.
The 85mm will work on the DX like a 130mm works on FX.
You don't factor the crop thing backwards onto an FX body.
When they announce "AF-S 85mm/3.5G VR" the focal length is already an "FX one"
Because the distance from the lens to the sensor does not change in FX or DX bodies.
And the DX does not work on FX because it doesn't cover the whole sensor, but if it did it would still be an 85mm prime lens.

On the DX cameras we were limited to:
60mm working like a 90mm
or
105mm working like a 160mm
both can be used on FX in their "native" focal length...

Now we have:
35mm working as a 53mm
60mm working as a 90mm
85mm working as a 130mm
105mm working as a 160mm

As marc pointed out the 60x105 discussion on DX might shift to 35x85!

If they made a 85mm FX lens that might be more interesting.
Regards Mark

For the DX users would make no change, it would still be an 85 working as 130...
For the FX users would have been a nice thing, but the DX users would then have to pay the price for the extra glass they would not be using.

 

[sabbath999]

Honestly, I don't buy DX lenses with a couple of exceptions. My wife has and loves the 18-200 VR (which I absolutely despise) and I do have the excellent and dirt cheap 55-200 VR.

Other than that, FX all the way.

When I do my DSLR underwater rig I am going FX (D700 or D700s or whatever camera is out by the time I get the money together for it).

I currently own 3 DX cameras, the D300, D80 and D40. My wife use the D80, and I generally shoot the D300. I shoot a lot of telephoto, so DX works great for that... but when I go underwater with a DSLR, I want FX all the way.

I have a 105 VR that, while excellent image wise, hunts like a big dog on autofocus. Not at all impressed with it.

 

[elan]

The
jury is still out on the 60mm as it hasn't got in the water yet, but the
early indications are that it will work better than the 105mm.

Would not it to be too close range wise to get to the subject ? even with 105 you have to be pretty close... Even with DX,
I never had a chance to do shots with 60mm but did with 105 and 200

 

[elan]

Honestly, I don't buy DX lenses with a couple of exceptions. My wife has and loves the 18-200 VR (which I absolutely despise) and I do have the excellent and dirt cheap 55-200 VR.

Other than that, FX all the way.

Yeah I do the same, you can get away with pretty much any FX lens on a DX camera but alas, wide angle ones has to be DX