frjeff Loc: Mid-Michigan

I currently have the 24mm f/2.8 and the 50mm f/1.8. All NIKKOR.
I need/want either the 85mm or 105mm to better fill the frame. I do not do portraits, but do cityscape, landscape, etc.
Help me with my decision please.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Considering your subject matter, I'd go with the 85mm. The reason is its wider field of view. If you are looking for details within city or landscape photos then the 105mm might be a better choice.
--Bob

ELNikkor

The 105 would be the natural progression up from the 50. 85 is nice, but not much more reach than the 50. (I use 85 as my favorite for portraits.) Back before zooms were very good, I also used the 24, 50, and 200 Nikkors. Now, the quality of image with zooms is so good, the 24-120 f4 is on my D750 almost all the time. Primes confine me to their exact focal length. Often the correct composition calls for a focal length in between the primes and there is no possibility of "zooming with the feet".

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The 85mm is the last prime I added into a line up that is now: 24, 35, 50, 85, 135, 300, 500. The Canon 85s have a relatively long minimum focus distance, about 3-feet. That's makes for a difficult 'do everything / ready for anything' walkaround prime in a one-lens on one-camera configuration. The solution was to add extension tubes so I can pop one on from the pocket and throw that extremely sharp 85mm onto a small and close subject, when needed.

Rockwell's chart of Nikon 85s seems to show the same long-ish close-focus, ranging from 0.85m to 1-meter.

The 105 lenses gives almost the same close-focus limits, with maybe better bokeh of the longer focal length. I'd think the two lenses are interchangeable, so issues on cost, age, size would drive the decision one way or the other over visual differences in the image results.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

Good luck with your collection. I carry a 24-240 Canon R lens (Rated 5 Star under a thousand).

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Way back in the days when zooms were soft, I had six primes in my bag.

24mm f/2.8 Nikkor
35mm f/2 Nikkor
55mm f/2.8 macro "Micro Nikkor"
85mm f/1.8 Nikkor
105mm f/2.5 Nikkor
135mm f/2.8 Nikkor

My "go to" lens at least half the time was the 35mm, as a walkabout, street, events, and landscapes lens

I used the 55mm on the copy stand, in the studio for product photography, or for copying paintings for artists. Sometimes it was a portrait lens (waist up, two people) or a landscape lens.

The 24mm saw the least use. Either it was a bad copy, or a bad design. It was never sharp. I tried four of them, none of which satisfied. I used the one I kept for parties, events, and an occasional landscape. Funny; on Micro 4/3 now, 12mm is a favorite. But my zoom is tack sharp at that focal length, which offers the same field of view as 24mm on full frame/35mm film.

All the tele lengths were great for portraits, but the 105 saw the most use for that.

85mm worked for stage events, street, basketball, and candids at events. Now, on Micro 4/3, I use 43mm for the same things (and for documentary interviews).

135mm worked for candids, outdoor sports, and landscapes.

Frankly, in 2022, zoom lenses can be rather incredible tools. Most lenses have been re-designed for mirrorless cameras, taking advantages of many advances in optical designs, glass making, coatings, electronic controls, motors, and more. Primes are still fantastic tools, but less versatile than zooms.

On Micro 4/3, an equivalent full frame focal length range of 20mm to 100mm at a constant aperture of f/1.7 can be had with just two lenses, made by Panasonic using Leica glass and lens formulas. Both look identical, are about the same weight, handle the same, and work equally well for stills and video. Both are amazingly sharp, especially from f/2.8 through f/5.6. Those two lenses replace 20mm, 24mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85 or 90mm, and 100 or 105mm primes, without giving up anything other than razor-thin depth of field (of dubious value at those focal lengths, anyway).

My own kit now includes three stabilized lenses:

12-35mm f/2.8 zoom (24 to 70mm zoom equivalent)
30mm f/2.8 1:1 macro lens (60mm macro equivalent, but with a 4:1 equivalent magnification)
35-100mm f/2.8 zoom (70 to 200mm zoom equivalent)

These lenses do nearly everything I need. I occasionally rent faster primes or the 100-400mm (200mm to 800mm equivalent).

You don't say what camera(s) you are using. If you are using a mirrorless, at least check out reviews of the latest zooms for that mount. If you're over 65 and applying thinking about zooms you learned in the 1950s or '60s, it's time to revise that knowledge base.

jbmauser Loc: Roanoke, VA

If you get the 105mm make it a Micro/Macro. I have an 85mm love it when I use it which is rarely. Macro 105 is on my camera half the time.

catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway

For me the new line of Canon tse, (24 f3.5- 50 f2.8- 90 f2.8- and 135 f4) are invaluable. Overall sharper than any prime I own or have experienced. Pano's are 12000 mp wide and 8000 tall shifting, and the angle adjustment allows for perfect depth sharpness when wide open, great for large prints. If you use a monitor with focus assist and overexposure assist, life is grand. I am good at manual focus now and can reliably pan and quickly grab perfect focus nearly as fast as auto-focus. Not for everyone, but if you do landscape, portrait, real estate, or automotive, these can turn any common camera body into a top line 100mpx Hasselblad. So many possibilities including macro.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

The 105mm Nikkor Micro lens is a great lens. Working distances for macro photography are very convenient, and it works greaat as a medium telephoto. I only have an older 85mm f/1.4 AF-D lens...not a more recent model. But when I read how you asked your question, "I need/want either the 85mm or 105mm to better fill the frame," I'm wondering whether an 85mm lens would be a better incremental choice for you at this time. I'd suggest that you take a critical look at your photographs and see just how much more focal length you need to accomplish what you want to do, then choose based on that. You can crop the image from an 85mm lens to 105mm without too much trouble. Reconstructing what a 105mm lens left out of your image is a different exercise.

frjeff Loc: Mid-Michigan

Excellent point. Thank you.

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

Jeff. Based on your earlier posts I see that you are using a D700 as well as the 24 AF. Either the 85 or 105 focal length will dovetail fine with the 50mm in creating a reasonable kit. You also have a 70-300AF.

Because the 700 has a lower pixel count there is less room for cropping. That argues for an 85. Given that you already have a long zoom the real reason to get a prime lense in this range is low light capabilities. Unless you spend big bucks the widest 105 is going to be f2.8. The current AF-S 85 1.8 is quite good and many are available used for $300-350. If you enjoy closeups a 105 micro would make a lot of sense. But another alternative would be putting an 85 on extension tubes.

If you ok with moving somewhat slower another avenue would be older manual focus lenses. The 105 2.5 can be had for about $100. The faster, 105 1.8 is quite a bit more. Manual focus 85s, in my opinion, were never as sharp as their later AF peers.

nimbushopper Loc: Tampa, FL

Do you shoot full frame or crop sensor?

frjeff Loc: Mid-Michigan

Full frame

nimbushopper Loc: Tampa, FL

Since you have a 50 I would go for a 105(macro)!

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Too often photographers select lenses based on focal length/"reach"/angle of view "to get it all in" etc, and not the other qualities of a lens that would make it desirable - bokeh, build quality, environmental sealing, sharpness, size/weight, etc. The best way to start is to decide what pictures you are missing out on given your current lenses, and buy that one. Today's pro-grade zooms are often as good as primes. When looking at a photo, it is almost impossible to tell if it was taken with a prime or a zoom.

What lens to get should be based on what you want/need and not someone else's opinion based on what they needed/wanted.