This focal length is bracketed by the 60mm AF/AF-S and the 105mm AF/AF-S. Price wise, slightly cheaper, but you lose 1 stop AND FX support.
...I don't really see the logic here :dunno:
Mee too I don't see the logic. But one thing for sure it will make a good portrait lens for FF.
A prime lens got to be at least F2.8, better still F1.8 or even F1.4.
A prime lens got to be at least F2.8, better still F1.8 or even F1.4.
is that what it means to be defined as a prime lens? hmm... that's new...
Nikon probably wanted to:
(a) add a prime lens for DX users with AFS
(b) want the lens to be (relatively) cheap
(c) want to keep the lens small
So some unknown reasons they went to 85mm, and applying criteria (b) and (c) ended up with f/3.5. Perhaps if Nikon stayed away from making it a Micro-Nikkor it is probably possible at that price or slightly higher to have made it AFS DX 85mm f/1.8G, which I suspect will have more following. My take would have been making it AFS 85mm f/1.8G.
Strange decisions.
I think Nikon wants to take care of the entry level DSLR users. The list price of the AF-S 60/2.8 is around $1100. It's not just a prime lens. It's an AF-S Micro! To buy back the users who are migrating to Tamron 90mm.
Perhaps Nikon should have stretched the design brief to make it AFS DX 85mm f/2.8G Micro Nikkor.
Any discussion from me is academic, as I have both the AFS 60mm f/2.8G Micro Nikkor and the AFS 105mm f/2.8G VR Micro Nikkor.
I want an AFS 85mm f/1.8G!
Fundamentally, it's not about excitement but rather economics.
good lens.. but at 1:1, what is the actual aperture of this lens?
both the 60 and 105 reduces to F4.8, so am keen to know about this