Charles is right... why not go for the long end? It would give you new possibilites. If you´re sure you don´t want a longer lens, I can heartily recomend the AF1.8/85. It´s great for portraits, available light scenes and of extraordinary quality.
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. Henri Cartier-Bresson
When you mention the 60mm... are you also aware that you are referring to a very very good macro lens?
The 60mm f/2.8D AF Micro-Nikkor is one of only four Nikon macro lenses (the other three being the 105mm f/2.8D, 200mm f/4D IF-ED and the 70-180 f/4.5~5.6D ED Micro-Nikkors) with the capability of going right down to true 1:1 reproduction on the film; a flat-field lens with the working distance between the lens and subject at 70mm (2.8 inches) for this magnification.
It is a very precise and VERY sharp lens. This capability added to the fact that it can double up as a fast standard lens might make it a very useful tool to add to your system and possibly open a new exploratory ground for you... Macro-photography!
Hi Partha, what type of subject matter are you shooting most of the time? I recently made some lens purchases after great deliberation. Your collection so far seems pretty well covered in the shorter focal lengths so why the 60 or 85? Speed? Macro? Both? I was really after the 80-200 f2.8 but it was way out of budget for me. I decided to add the 70-300. Yes it is a bottom of the line lens but really it delivers pretty good images - check out Tigers and Tired Cougar in the Pictures, Criticize forum. I will eventually obtain the lenses that I really want such as the 80-200 f2.8 and the 300 f4 but for now the 70-300 fits the budget and I get a useful tool to add to the current collection that allows me to progress and learn. If you are after something fast in a normal type focal length try the 50 1.8. It is an inexpensive lens that really delivers - I just picked one up and I am very impressed by it. Razor Sharp images! I decided to get the least expensive choices at the moment and then save for the good stuff - sort of the best of both worlds. That way when I get the good stuff I can really make them work
Get the 85mm because it's the faster lens and will allow you more low light shooting opportunities. Then pickup the 50mm 1.8 which is ridiculously cheap, and you have two very fast lenses. The only thing the 60mm really offers you over the 50mm is true macro. Unless you are doing a lot of that, the 28-105 will cover you for most of your macro shots.
Nikonian in the High Desert of Southern California.
I personally own a 60mm micro nikon lens, but not 85mm. It depends on the subjects you want to take. For me, I love nature so 60mm is a good choice for close ups of flowers etc. 85mm is more of a portrait lens.
60mm lets you get really close to your subject, not exactly suitable if you wanna to take insects, butterflies etc. That's why I'm looking into getting another micro lens 105mm.
If you have some cash to spare, get a 105mm and it can work as a protrait lens too (that's what my friend is doing)
Hi Partha, I am using the 70-300 G. From what I have read there is not much difference optically between the ED and G versions. I believe the ED version contains one element of ED Glass near the rear of the lens.
I will give my oppinion to the question you made to JRP about portraiting. You may know that "portraiture" lenses start at 80 mm, being the 135 mm. the best recommended. This is because when using lenses with shorter focal lengts than 100 mm. you have to be too close to the subject to fill the scene with head and shoulders, and the consecuence of it is deformation of the image. You can see in the photos attached; the first was taken with a 28 mm. at 0.5 mt. from the subject, and the second with a 135 mm. at 2.5 mt. Do you see the difference? Besides, think that longer focal lenghts give smaller depht of field, which is good for portraits too.
Well, I´ll give you my advice: if you´re planning to make portraits, think seriously about the 85 mm, as this is a very good focal lenght for portraiture (as you may see in the beautiful JRP´s photo) and after getting it, go for the 50 mm. What you see in the wiewfinder with a 60 mm. is practically identical to the 50 mm., 60 is only useful if you use it for macrophotography, for what this lens is specially (and very well) designed. But as a final comment, think seriously that you are going to buy a prime that is alredy included in the focal range covered by your 28-105, so I suggest thinking about EXPANDING your range, maybe to wideangle or tele, but it can give you more chances to explore the wide world of photography.
if you don't know what you need, don't buy anything: you would be wasting your money. When you will say: "I need that lens for this reason", then you should buy it. "Within the budget" is not a reason enough for buying something. Anyhow, if I was in your shoes, I'd just purchase a 50/1.8 in order to get a really fast and sharp lens for very little money.
Partha: Glad to see you re-registered. Below a sample portrait with a 50mm; as it has been explained to you above, if you get even closer, the subject will be most distorted, furthermore, if you show them the results they may even end a relationship
I find the 28-105 to be an excellent all-round lens, and I really enjoy mine. I have the 85mm, and had the 60mm for some years: If I were to choose only one second lens, I would go for a 20mm wide-angle instead. It really makes pictures 3-dimensional and personal, it is fun and demanding to use, has the same thread as your zoom, and is excellent in low-light situations. For the low-light portraits, I'd instead spend the extra dollar on 400 ASA film.