Prime Time 2

[Mr Darcy]

I have come into a little cash, so my immediate thought is spend spend spend.
I have a Nikon D70s and 18-200VR. It is a great combination, but I would like to extend in two directions. Sadly I cannot afford both.
1. I would like to be able to handle candid indoor portraits better. This would point to say an 85 1.8 or 1.4 prime.
2. I would like to be improve my close up capability. This would point to the 105 or 60 Micro Nikkors

Questions:
will the Micro-Nikkors handle portraits well? I used to use and love my 120 2.5 on my Pentax for portraits, but the crop factor may push me out the door.
If I use an 85 with tubes, will the macro performance approach the dedicated micros? Close ups will be mostly detail of wood work, but as an amateur, there will be bugs & flowers & stuff as well.
The 1.4 is a lot of extra money for not a lot of extra speed. Does it have other attributes that would make it a serious contender?
Other contenders??? Bear in mind I partly bought Nikon for the (perceived) quality of the lenses so it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to put OEM glass on a Nikon body.

I am very much an amateur. Missing the Million $ shot is not a major issue. Missing the moment at my daughter's graduation ceremony may be.

[Yi-P]

The 85 is not really a good candidate for indoor, low light shots.

Reason is because of its focal length, forces you to use fast shutter speed. Believe it or not, the reciprocal rules does not work with the 85 wide open, you need something like 1/200-1/250 to hold it 'steady' when shooting wide open, because DOF is within millimeters.

The 85/1.4 is a WONDERFUL portrait lens, everyone here who has one will tell you that they wont part with it unless you give them a new AFS and VR version of the lens. Tho using it for events is a bit too tight work and you have to be running around to find spots that will not crop too much of your subject, specially indoor cases.

You are better off for a 35mm or 50mm to work with indoors, you can shoot at 1/30 or 1/15 with the flash and get wonderful results. And you dont have to fight too much for spaces to run around with your feet zooming mechanism.

Lastly, I'm not a dedicated macro lens owner, but they do work pretty well for portrait, or too well (sharp) that the ladies wont like it.

[losfp]

The 85/1.4 is a wonderful lens, one of my two favourite Nikkors that I want to own (I have just bought the 70-200, so the 85/1.4 is still on my list ). The extra 1/2 stop is nice, but where this lens shines is its sharpness and the bokeh - IMO the english language lacks a superlative quite expressive enough to describe the bokeh.

However, Yi-P is right, I am not sure I would be using it in fast-paced indoor situations. The length isn't quite flexible enough and as mentioned, the tiny DOF will kill you if you don't quite have it right.

The suggestions of a 35 and 50 are good, though the 35 starts to become... not quite long enough to do candid shots.

Consider the 70-200VR for your indoor candid shots as well. Plenty of length, VR to help with hand shake, sharp as hell, and fast too (though 2 stops slower than the 1.4!!!)

Short answer, each option here is a compromise. Perhaps if you used a flash, that opens up your options a bit. Use the 85/1.4, but stop down to about 3.5, something like that.

As for macro, the Tamron 90mm and 180mm macros are very highly regarded. Optical quality is IMO on par with the Nikkors, but the build quality isn't QUITE as good.

[Oz_Beachside]

Have you considered the 2.8 zooms? THey can be fast enough for indoors, and the zoom gives you much more flexibility than say a 50mm or 85mm for "parties".

I first got the 28-70 (after my kit lens), known as the "beast". It is my favourite, most used lens for people. Toddlers running around, short minimum focus distance, enough length to zoom in for head shots, and the quality is unparalleled in zoom glass.

If you have the versatile 18-200 you have the wide, and tele ends covered nicely, getting the beast would fill the middle range with a top shelf piece of glass (second fiddle would be the 17-55 if you want the extra width, although I'd consider the 17-35 if you like that focal range).

Consider your needs carefully. The way I look at it, the glass is good for life, the body is disposable, invest in the glass for the long term.

Just to share, the order I bought my glass (where most of my work is portraiture) was

1. kit lens 18-70 (great starting place, nice build, good glass)
2. 50mm 1.8 (got this for the low light, no flash candids)
3. 28-70mm 2.8 (fell in love with glass. wonderful wonderful lens, have not used my 50mm since. Gets 70% of my studio and portrait work)
4. 80-200 2.8 (Great glass, wonderful. In fact if you dont need the VR, then the glass is almost the same as the 70-200 VR, at 40% of the cost. SOld later to fund 70-200VR)
5. 18-200mm VR (for the versatility, and a friend was in a store in Kuala Lumpur, and it was Grand Final afternoon, enjoying the beers, I agreed to buy it; used it once.)
6. 12-24 (Ken Rockwell sold me on the idea that the 18-200 and the 12-24 would be all I would ever need, so got this in this order. 12-24 GREAT for real estate, and architecture. Also nice for walk around in big cities)
7. 70-200 VR (replaced the 80-200. Wanted the VR for hand held low light, and bokeh. Wonderful, together with the 28-70 beast, makes up 99% of the time on my cameras).
9. 85 1.4 (Cream machine, extra blades make the backgrounds so smooth. For me, its too long, and would consider a 50mm carl zeiss in its place, however, still a dream to use outdoors)
10. 10.5 Fish Eye (great toy for up close, really close, and wide, really wide). I mainly use it in the studio to capture the equipment setup during a shoot).
11. 80-400 VR (used for waterski race last weekend, and motor sport)

Ouch, thats for first time I've written a list like that

As you can see, I have no interest in macro (but if I did, I'd look at the tamron 90mm, reviews read as great value, top shelf.)

[Mr Darcy]

Thanks for your ideas. My budget only runs to about $1300, so the Zoom is out of the question. (Well 2000 really, but I have already comitted 700 for lighting)

My immediate need is for a macro lens, but I would like to improve my portraits as well. I guess I was hoping someone would say that a prime with tubes is every bit the equal of the dedicated MicroNikkor (or at least close!)

I will look into the alternate Macros though. It may leave me enough for a fast 50. I never really liked 50s on Film, but I keep forgetting the crop factor on the DSLR.