DSLRUsers.com

This is one lens I am keen to get (the 85mm focal range) this lens I find has a good length and is very nice and compact, reminds me a lot of teh 105mm. I have the samyang 85mm 1.4 which is manual focus and I have to say its been a love hate relationship, when it works, it works fing well, when you miss the focus the image is useless. I am not one to balk at manual focus, actually I quite enjoy it, however manual focus and kids means you miss alot of good shots and I find myself not wanting to put this lens on over my 17-55mm knowing i will miss 50%+ of the shots.

I am lookign at the AF versions of this lens and at this point am lookign at the 85mm 1.4D, the G is real nice but at 1600 bucks it ain't gonna happen for this little black duck (unless something convinces me it is worth it over the D version)

Now that the new 85mm 1.8G has been released for around the 500 buck mark that has made my choice even harder.

What are peoples thoughts on the 85mm lens, is teh G worth the extra dosh over the D? is the 1.4 worth the extra dosh over the 1.8 (especially now there is a G version)?

Has anyone used both the 1.4 and 1.8 versions? thoughts?

There is also the sigma version, at 700 bucks odd, thats a potential also.

I think I would be pretty happy with a secondhand 85mm 1.4D and if i could get one for the 600-700 range I reckon that might not be too bad, the option new from OS is about 975. Thoughts on costs? anyone got a source for a new one cheaper than 975.

these kinda shots are the ones that just make me fall in love with the focal length not too mention the subject isolation in just about any environment.

I have the D and no wish to change. Only complaint is that being a screwdriver focus, it is a bit noisy Oh and it has a metal screw in hood (mine is dented) so it lives on the lens & takes up slightly more space in the bag than if it had a reversible plastic one.

I like my 1.8D Gerry.
I don't use it as much as I could though.
You are welcome to have a play with it when we next meet up.

Good point Colin.
Will you be coming up to Flat Rock on the 21st. I can bring the 1.4D then too.

We have the 1.4D and love it, with the noted screwdrive focussing issue - it is not fast. But, nail the focus, and it is sharp.

Cheers Colin, i was hoping you would pipe up, i recalled you having the 1.8 . I hope to catch up soon, hopefully I will see you and greg, that would great to compare both the 1.4 and 1.8.

Thanks Patrick, i think anything with AF will be a improvement for me, from what I have seen any 85mm is pretty damn good, when you nail it! I guess my main problem now is nailing more often, hence its either get a focus screen or get a AF lens.

Thanks for starting this thread Gerry - I too have been tossing up the idea of an 85 for a while now and am thinking along the same lines as you - the 85/1.4D, the Sigma 85/1.4 or the new 85/1.8G

I love my Sigma 50/1.4 but wish it was a little longer for those tight cropped portrait shots (even on crop sensor)

I have noticed that when I first started using the lens I was trying to shoot it at 1.4 all the time but now I find I tend to shoot more at f/2 or above unless I'm in really low light or far away from the subject (e.g. whole body and more). Basically because kids move/fidget/etc and with like a mm or two of DoF up close getting a usable hitrate with candid kids faces is a nightmare at 1.4

Which leads me to think that the cheaper 1.8 (with all the new AF-S goodness, etc - assuming it turns out to be a good lens and sharp at 1. may be a good value option... decisions decisions...

I've used the 85/1.4D once and it was nice and compact - focus issues as noted and also I felt it did struggle in low light (it was night in the city when I used it)

I have the Nikkor 85 f/1.4, and there's a very good reason why you rarely see these available as pre-loved lenses. Once you get one, you just love it: the bokeh, the acuity.

IMHO, the best lens Nikon makes.

Of course, once you have one, the immediate tendency is to start shooting everything at f/1.4, and that's probably not the correct deal. Rather, the larger aperture is there for those times when you need it. Shooting at f/5.6 through f/11 is just magic, and of course you can, when needed, open it up.

The f/1.8 is nice too (and I expect the new one to be even nicer) but it's the same question that you ask with the 50mm glass: do you think you'll need that extra bit of light gathering. If the answer is anything other than "absolutely, positively never ever", then you need to kick the can for the 1.4. Your pocket will recover, and you'll be smiling a big broad smile from the first time you start using it.

Given your love for this focal length, I'd think logic would dictate that you should go for the bestest that you can afford. Otherwise you'd always wonder. Also, get rid of that Samyang shaninghans....

In saying that a fast focusing 1.8 might be good enough. The D4 has ISO 200000 so your new D900/D9000 in a few years will come close so 1.8 in theory is enough for low light unless you need the 1.4 for bokeh.

Depends whether the low light technology or Ballet recitals will arrive first.

Remorhaz wrote:Which leads me to think that the cheaper 1.8 (with all the new AF-S goodness, etc - assuming it turns out to be a good lens and sharp at 1. may be a good value option... decisions decisions...

yes, that release has not helped me at all.

gstark wrote: Your pocket will recover, and you'll be smiling a big broad smile from the first time you start using it.

surenj wrote:Also, get rid of that Samyang shaninghans....

haha.. great way to get into the focal length and 1.4 world though...

surenj wrote:or Ballet recitals will arrive first.

*sigh*... oh dear...i might just go to teh pub now while I still can...

I was lucky enough to add some play time on the new AF-S 85mm f/1.8G today....which means I have had play time on all 4 Nikkors in question.

I would be ONLY considering the AF-S variants, and that is a big call for me as I stll have my FM2N that requires an aperture ring, but the newer lenses seem to have more pop and handle very nicely, not to mention reasonably fast, almost silent focus.

Once there is stock of the 1.8G I will try to get some more time behind the two G's and compare them directly.

aim54x wrote:I was lucky enough to add some play time on the new AF-S 85mm f/1.8G today....which means I have had play time on all 4 Nikkors in question.

I would be ONLY considering the AF-S variants

you trying to burn a hole in my pocket?

biggerry wrote:you trying to burn a hole in my pocket?

I'm sure buying the Stigma....then buying an AF-D... then buying an AF-S would burn a larger hole...

In terms of Chromatic Aberration (both longitudinal and lateral) the AF-S variants perform better, not to mention wide open performance.

Cam is pretty much spot on. I found the biggest difference between the g and d 1.4 lens' was CA control, while focus aquisition is only slightly better, af tracking is much faster and more accurate, it's silent, the contrast and sharpness is significantly better right from 1.4. Is the price difference worth it is of course very subjective.

The 1.8g looks for me anyway to be a great option.

To Gary's point though, not quite sure why you'd buy an 85 1.4 unless youre shooting it regularly at large apertures. Once you get to 5.6 and especially 8, the 24-120 is just as good plus it's stablised and is a zoom. So unless you plan regular use under f4' I don't personally see the point.

Rooz wrote:To Gary's point though, not quite sure why you'd buy an 85 1.4 unless youre shooting it regularly at large apertures. Once you get to 5.6 and especially 8, the 24-120 is just as good plus it's stablised and is a zoom. So unless you plan regular use under f4' I don't personally see the point.

I have a very usable 90mm f/2.8 and an even better 105mm f/2.8 VR so I guess the 85 is on the backburner for me. But your point about usage of alternatives at closed down apertures is very valid.

As Gary noted....the 85mm F1.4 is a Nikkor classic lens on a full frame camera. I hate to say it, but it's probably worth every penny of its exorbitant cost. Thr question you gotta ask yourself is...Do you need it...or do you just want it?

Chris,

Rooz wrote:So unless you plan regular use under f4' I don't personally see the point.

No, not just regular use.

If you plan on using it at any time in poor lighting conditions, and you need every bit of aperture that you can muster, you will regret your decision to get the 1.8 if you find you needed that extra bit of light.

That shooting scenario is not on everyone's agenda, but if it's on your's then the fast lens is the answer.

gstark wrote:If you plan on using it at any time in poor lighting conditions, and you need every bit of aperture that you can muster, you will regret your decision to get the 1.8 if you find you needed that extra bit of light.

but with ISO hitting 204,800 it is becoming less and less of an issue. Unless of course you shoot caves by natural light.
Mind you, with my D200 that I won't shoot above ISO800...

Matt. K wrote:As Gary noted....the 85mm F1.4 is a Nikkor classic lens on a full frame camera. I hate to say it, but it's probably worth every penny of its exorbitant cost. Thr question you gotta ask yourself is...Do you need it...or do you just want it?

I know I WANT it more than I NEED it......oh welll.....dont most of us fit this basket?

Mr Darcy wrote:

gstark wrote:If you plan on using it at any time in poor lighting conditions, and you need every bit of aperture that you can muster, you will regret your decision to get the 1.8 if you find you needed that extra bit of light.

but with ISO hitting 204,800 it is becoming less and less of an issue. Unless of course you shoot caves by natural light.
Mind you, with my D200 that I won't shoot above ISO800...

But that is only relevant if you acquire one of the newer bodies, which is outside of the scope of this discussion. Notwithstanding that, from what I understand, ISO 204,800 on the newer bodies is like ISO 1,600 or so on the D200, on which I am loath to shoot above ISO 400.

Reschsmooth wrote:

Mr Darcy wrote:

gstark wrote:If you plan on using it at any time in poor lighting conditions, and you need every bit of aperture that you can muster, you will regret your decision to get the 1.8 if you find you needed that extra bit of light.

but with ISO hitting 204,800 it is becoming less and less of an issue. Unless of course you shoot caves by natural light.
Mind you, with my D200 that I won't shoot above ISO800...

But that is only relevant if you acquire one of the newer bodies, which is outside of the scope of this discussion. Notwithstanding that, from what I understand, ISO 204,800 on the newer bodies is like ISO 1,600 or so on the D200, on which I am loath to shoot above ISO 400.

not just that, it's all relative. At the end of the day one stop wider aperture gives you one more stop to play with. Whether that means that you can shoot at iso102k rather than 204k or whether you can shoot at 1/125 instead of 1/60. A stop is still a stop.

Reschsmooth wrote:But that is only relevant if you acquire one of the newer bodies, which is outside of the scope of this discussion.

This still needs to be considered, as Gerry will likely keep his lens forever but upgrade his D7000 in a few years.

aim54x wrote:I would be ONLY considering the AF-S variants.

aim54x wrote:In terms of Chromatic Aberration (both longitudinal and lateral) the AF-S variants perform better, not to mention wide open performance.

Rooz wrote:Cam is pretty much spot on. I found the biggest difference between the g and d 1.4 lens' was CA control, while focus aquisition is only slightly better, af tracking is much faster and more accurate, it's silent, the contrast and sharpness is significantly better right from 1.4. Is the price difference worth it is of course very subjective.

hmmm thats not really what I wanted to hear, points towards the G versions.

Matt. K wrote:As Gary noted....the 85mm F1.4 is a Nikkor classic lens on a full frame camera. I hate to say it, but it's probably worth every penny of its exorbitant cost. Thr question you gotta ask yourself is...Do you need it...or do you just want it?

do I need any photography gear? I say not, it does not feed me, its a pure luxury, hence all photography gear for me is a mere want.

surenj wrote:This still needs to be considered, as Gerry will likely keep his lens forever but upgrade his D7000 in a few years.

Thats the intention, i no problem paying good money for good quality on the proviso that its gonna last. I don't buy that much stuff, very much less brand new and at this kinda price range, hence I do want to do my research on this one.

i appreciate everyones feedback and advice.

ohh, this is my lens dream, i still save my money for this lens, 1.8G

Gerry - just found a review (perhaps first) of the new 85 1.8G:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/717-nikkorafs8518ff

Summary:

The Nikkor AF-S 85mm f/1.8 G is an excellent lens that performs on a very high level in almost any regard. Sharpness is excellent in the image center straight from the largest aperture, the borders and corners deliver very good resolution wide open and excellent sharpness stopped down.

Typical for a fast prime there is pronounced vignetting wide open, which can easily be cured by stopping down. The same applies to Bokeh fringing. CAs and distortion are very well controlled though. The biggest surprise is probably the bokeh quality, which is not right up there on the benchmark level set by 85mm f/1.4 lenses, but quite close.

The build quality is on a high level and in line with other Nikon consumer prime offerings. Thanks to an AF-S drive autofocus action is virtually silent and quite fast for a portrait lens.

So, in summary, for most subjects the lens gives around 95% of the performance of an AF-S 85/1.4 but at just one third of the price. Certainly highly recommended!

also found another: http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/ ... 8g_review/

biggerry wrote:do I need any photography gear? I say not, it does not feed me, its a pure luxury, hence all photography gear for me is a mere want.

Amen to that Gerry. The perfect answer to the "do you really need it...equipment doesn't improve your photography...why do you think you need a better body/ lens" questions.

That 1.8g looks mighty good...

Rooz wrote:That 1.8g looks mighty good...

Yes - unfortunately I think I can feel my back pocket itching

Want....WANT...WANT!!...need?

I really cant wait until the AF-S 85mm f/1.8G arrives into stores and more talk about them hits. My next fast prime will almost certainly be a Voigtlander 75mm f/1.8 but the I still lust after a Nikkor 85.....

Gerry you should just bite the bullet and grab the 1.4G......the only regret you will have is the money that you have parted with...you will never have the "what if" question. If you decide to go 1.8G then just make sure you NEVER touch the 1.4D/G as it will only make you wonder and question your choice.

Remorhaz wrote:Gerry - just found a review (perhaps first) of the new 85 1.8G:

http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/717-nikkorafs8518ff

Hey Rodney, yeah I have been on the look out for samples and reviews - at the end of teh day the 1.8 would do 97% of what the 1.4 will, however I guess its a just a matter of whether I want that 3%

Rooz wrote:

biggerry wrote:do I need any photography gear? I say not, it does not feed me, its a pure luxury, hence all photography gear for me is a mere want.

Amen to that Gerry. The perfect answer to the "do you really need it...equipment doesn't improve your photography...why do you think you need a better body/ lens" questions.

That 1.8g looks mighty good...

will it improve my photography? nope, it may however result better strike rate and getting one or two of those shots in that 3% range...