Is the Nikon 85mm f/1.8G really the best value for portraits on a budget or should I just save up for the 105mm macro? Im shooting on a D850 and mostly doing outdoor portraits for my friends family, nothing too professional yet but I want that creamy bokeh look. I spent all weekend reading reviews on forums, and while everyone keeps saying the 85mm is the king of price-to-performance, a few people on some random blog mentioned that the 105mm micro is actually sharper and handles skin tones better. Im honestly super confused because I dont want to buy the 85 and then immediately regret not getting that extra reach for compression. My budget is around 500 bucks max, maybe a bit more if I go used. Im in Chicago and I have a shoot coming up in three weeks, so I need to make a decision fast. Does the autofocus on the 105 feel too slow for candid shots? Im just worried I might be overthinking this but I dont wanna waste my money on the wrong glass...
^ This. Also, I unfortunately had issues with the Nikon AF-S VR Micro-NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED focus hunting constantly when I tried using it for events. It's just not as good as expected for moving subjects.
- The 85mm focuses way faster
- Micro lenses show every single pore
- You really dont need that extra reach Honestly, save the cash and just grab the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G.
> Is the Nikon 85mm f/1.8G really the best value for portraits Honestly, the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G is perfect. Are you shooting full-frame or cropped with your D850?
Honestly, skip the macro for portraits. I have used the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G on my D850 for years and it is honestly tough to beat for the money. The 105mm micro is sharp, yeah, but it can be almost too clinical for skin textures and the focus hunting is a total pain during candid stuff. You want that creamy look, and the 85mm hits that sweet spot perfectly.
- The 85mm is way lighter for walking around Chicago parks.
- Autofocus is snappy enough for kids moving around.
- You will save enough cash to grab a decent portrait reflector. Save your money and grab the 85. You really dont need the extra compression of the 105 unless you are doing headshots in a studio. The 85mm is basically the holy grail for budget portrait shooters.
Just catching up on this thread. Everyone is spot on about keeping things simple. When I was building out my kit years ago, I wasted way too much time stressing over microscopic sharpness differences that nobody even notices in final prints. I ended up just grabbing a reliable name-brand prime in that classic portrait focal length and never looked back. Build quality and reliability matter way more than chasing charts, especially when you are out shooting in changing weather. Go with Nikon, you really cant go wrong with their standard glass. It just works, plain and simple. Save your money, grab something dependable, and spend the rest on coffee during your Chicago shoot.
Unfortunately, I had issues with edge distortion and chromatic aberration when I tested that specific focal length for my own outdoor paid gigs last autumn. The technical data sheets honestly dont lie about corner sharpness drop-off at wider apertures, which really bummed me out.
- Optical charts showed massive lateral CA
- Field curvature made group shots a nightmare
- Contrast took a noticeable hit against backlit scenes I ended up switching to a completely different focal length altogether just to get better micro-contrast and color rendition across the frame. Stick with whatever fits your budget and trust your gut for this Chicago shoot coming up!