>Bob,
> Thanks a lot for the reply. I mainly do portrait work although I also
>freelance for the local newspaper. The 80-200f/2.8 would be perfect if
>it had a tripod collar, since I do all portraits from a tripod. The Kirk
>bracket isn't worth it to me (and the lens is just too expensive anyway).
>I was considering one of the slower zooms, like the 80-200f/4.5 or f/4.
>But then the speed issue comes up, and I would really prefer something
>faster and easier to focus. I've also been thinking of the 85f/1.8 AF,
>but for a fixed focal length I like the 105mm better.
> The main thing is, the guy I work with uses Canon's 70-200f/2.8L so the
>shots I take have to match his quality-wise. I REALLY don't want to get
>into the Nikon/Canon debate on the groups about this, which is why
>I didn't mention this concern earlier. I know the 2.5 is supposed to be
>really good, but I wasn't quite sure about the 1.8, if the speed sacrificed
>anything. I'll be on the lookout for one I think. Take care, and once again
>thanks for the reply.
>
>Charles Thorsten
>cthorste@ucsd.edu

Hi-- Ah, this brings up other issues..... The 80-200mm f2.8 Nikkor (or Canon
similar) is not what I would use, especially if focusing ease is a concern
(zooms are just plain harder to focus - and are more distance sensitive
relative to image quality than some fixed lenses), though the 105 f2.5 and
f1.8 are relatively poor performers at wide apertures near minimum focus
also, which is probably where you would be with portraits. The difference in focusing ease of one stop is very minor (and sometimes the slower lens seems easier to focus, anyway). I would consider the 105mm f2.8 MF or AF macro,
the 85mm f1.8 AF (or old non-AI), the 105mm f2 DC AF (haven't tried it, but
the internal focus designs don't seem to have the focus distance sensitivity),
the 135mm f2 DC AF (same comment), the 75-150mm f3.5 E, the 50-135mm f3.5,
the 70-210 f4 E, the 80-200mm f4.5, the 80-200mm f4. If you are using wide apertures and close focus, the 105 macros and the 85mm f1.8 AF (and maybe some other choices) will wipe out the Canon zoom! If you want zoom, the 50-135mm and 75-150 are excellent. If you get the 105 macro, a possibility is adding a TC14A later to extend its range (not wide open). I would avoid your first choices, if maximum quality at 5' or so at wide apertures is what you want.
Hope this helps.
David Ruether



>On Thu, 14 Dec 1995, Bob Neuman wrote:
>
>> The Nikkor 105mm f2.5 and 1.8 MF lenses are excellent, though I would
>> rate the f1.8 subtly inferior to the f2.5 at wider apertures. If you
>> need f2, one lens is infinitely better than the other! By f4, they are
>> hard to tell apart, but at f2.8, the slower lens is a bit sharper
>> (though, again, at f2, the faster lens totally wipes out the f2.5 ;-).
>> Neither lens is very good near minimum focus. Both lenses are a
>> pleasure to use (and carry, relative to an 80-200mm f2.8 zoom). If you
>> want the extra stop for focusing, or for dim light shooting, pay the
>> extra bucks for the faster lens. Otherwise, save with the slower lens.
>> No big difference in quality.
>> Hope this helps.