Finalizing my lens collection, but I have a hard time to decide which to buy for my portrait lens.  I have a 85 1.8 now.  I eventually will switch to a FX body, but my D200 refuses to die and I have time to wait for a D4 body.

love my 105

Edit: 105 2.8 micro that is

Just snagged a mint 135 f2 ais as well (beautiful)!

Think about the 135DC. On DX ( D200 as well ) I found the 85mm F1.8 to be my 'go to' lens with my 135 being too long. On FX I prefer the perspective & working distance of the 135DC to the 105 ( micro, not DC ).

Some things in the 85G's favour are of course that it is an up to date design complete with the nanocoating, AFS etc. The DC lenses are about 20 years old.

The 85mm f/1.8 is a great lens on an FX camera. I have the AF-D version and wouldn't spend three times the money for the f/1.4 version

I LOVE the 105 2.0 DC and use it for a good percentage of my shots.  I'm sure the 135 is just as amazing.

AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 IF-D


Camera     Nikon D700
Exposure     0.005 sec (1/200)
Aperture     f/1.4
Focal Length     85 mm
ISO Speed     200

AF-S VR Micro-Nikkor 105mm f/2.8G IF-ED


Camera     Nikon D700
Exposure     0.067 sec (1/15)
Aperture     f/3.0
Focal Length     105 mm
ISO Speed     400

I have an 85/1.4, a 105/1.8 and a 135/2.0. If I had to pick one it would be the 85/1.4.

RKD, those are beautiful shots.  I think it was the carpenter's credit rather the hammer. 

85mm on DX is slightly closer to 135mm on full frame (85 X 1.5 = 127.5) than to 105mm on full frame.  I guess you could ask yourself if you wanna take one step closer or one step farther away to get the same size subject...but if 85 is perfect for you on DX, I'd think 135 is probably the way to go.

I'm glad you created this thread because I've been debating the exact thing myself. I've seen the 85 1.4 in action and have been very impressed with its consistent characteristics. I've also been really intrigued by the DC - one part because its a unique feature, and the other part is that its rarely used.

So on one hand is the reliable pleasantness of the 85 and on the other, the unique characteristics of the 105 DC.

My goal is to create head shots in between weddings and portraits, but also have a lens thats capable during weddings and portraits. My other goal is to be different.

The 85 1.4 and 105DC fit my first goal fine. The second goal, however, is not achieved by the 85 1.4 because it seems like every wedding photographer uses one. (Perhaps with good reason)

In order to achieve a style and look that is my own, I'm going with the 105 DC. I can still make good headshots and portraits without breaking the bank, and in fact, perhaps save money in the bank.

Buy the 85mm 1.4. You can get it at B@H for less than a grand. The new one is out and costs $1699. I highly recommend this lens! Happy shooting:)

I can only speak from an fx point of view but the 85mm and 135mm combo work best - I had a 105 and it was a bit too close.

I have just bought the sigma 85 1.4 over the nikon G after going through the test results - loads of wedding pros are buying it over the G too.

No brainer: 105mm

I have a complete line in primes from 50mm to 180mm and use all of them, but I consider my most dedicated "portrait lens" the 105mm f/2.5 AI-S.  A little look-up may be necessary, but a lens engineered expressly for portraiture is different from one designed for macrophotography.  The defocusing is a loud part of that, of course, there may be other differences as well.  Certainly my 105mm and 135mm lenses look the least coated or most clearly transparent lenses in my library.