Is that faster lens really worth the extra bucks?

[Matt. K]

After reading a post by biggerry about his 85mm lens it got me thinking about optics and speed and money...and is it really gonna make much difference if you buy the Nikkor 85mm f1.8 instead of that beautiful, expensive 85mm f 1.4? And if I was writing this in the 1970s or 1980s I would yell an unequivocal “YES!”. Things were a little trickier back then with film. A photographer who could push film to 1600 ISO and then soup it up with all the love and care he could muster…well, he was a real Pro. You didn’t mess with him. And that wallet breaking Nikkor 85mm F1. 4 would be his dream come true if he could afford it! It would have cost him 3 weeks pay. But the game has changed since then…and changed big time. The technical side of photography is so much easier than it used to be. Modern digital SLR cameras can shoot at 1600 ISO and give results just as good as 400 ISO film back in those days. Even better. And if you have to shoot at ISO 3200 then go ahead. You can get software to remove the noise and produce creamy smooth tones and glorious colour if you have the right camera. So let’s get back to that lens. What does it really mean if you have an f 1.8 but your mate has the glorious f 1.4 and you are both in the same poor light location. Let’s have a theoretical….the subject, a horse and rider about to jump over a fence. The challenge….to catch the pair mid stride as they leap. The technique….shutter speed must be 250 second or higher. Light is very low. Both photographers set ISO to 800.
Man with 85mm f 1.4 gets 1/250th at f1.4
Man with 85mm f 1.8 gets 1/125 at f 1.8………His solution? Set ISO to 1600 ISO. Now his exposure is f 1.8 at 250th sec.
How different will the 2 images be? If both photographers have the same skill level then almost no difference whatsoever. Sensor and software technology has narrowed the gap to that extent.
By the way…85mm will work its best magic on a full frame sensor. It’s that perspective, not just the acuity, that brings the image to life.

[surenj]

Thanks Matt. This is an interesting discussion.

That's why I had a few questions when Gerry bought the 85 1.4 (Samyang or whatever). I thought the 85 1.8 would be a worthwhile compromise in the world of ISO.

In other words, I reckon it wouldn't make a difference. Unless, the 85 1.4 has better contrast, color etc etc. I am guessing it has better bokeh though?

[Matt. K]

Suren
Bokeh probably the same or very similar.

[Mj]

Bohek is largely (not totally) influenced by the diaphragm which for the 85/f1.4 or f1.8 are the same 9 blade config.
When I purchased I opted for the 50 and 85 @ 1.4... more because I only planned to buy once and neither were thaaat expensive at the time. The decision really (IMHO) comes down always to what you are going to use the lens for. For me I wanted to have maximum flex with those two primes. If I decide I need f1.4 I have it... but certainly there are only odd occasions when I use it. If I needed to buy those primes again and finances were tighter I would have no problem with their f1.8 equiv they would do the job quite well. As I am still using a D300 I find the iso is still a limiting factor... if I jump to a D4 I'm pretty that limit will be largely addressed !!!

[Remorhaz]

NB a minor thing probably but the new 85/1.8G has 7 blades (rounded) and not 9 so the Bokeh will be different to the 9 round bladed new 85/1.4G (but apparently from the reviews is still pretty good - although perhaps more oval wide open and more polygonal stopped down)

Whilst I fully agree with Matt re the higher ISO example I still think having the extra stop (or two thirds in this case) can make a difference in the depth of field stakes if thats what you're trying to achieve (e.g. portraits). Yes you can probably fake a lot of it in software but I'd rather spend 20 seconds doing it in camera than an hour in PS. Sort of related to this is how well the lens performs at or near wide open - it may be the much more expensive 1.4 can be shot at 1.4 and be sharp as whilst the much cheaper 1.8 cannot and has to be stopped down - time will tell.

I'm assuming we're not talking about say a long lens - say a 2.8 vs 5.6 or 6.3 - where the difference in lower light may be instead the difference between being able to get focus or not?

[Reschsmooth]

Using the horse rider hypothetical, how much better will Mr 1.4 be able to focus on the Jamaican (and i dont mean Bully Connelly) riding the black horse at night than Mr 1.8?

[gstark]

As with Mick, I too have the f/1.4 versions of the 50mm and 85mm Nikkors. I too wanted the greatest levels of flexibility, and that was the answer.

For me, they're wonderful lenses, and the 85 is such that it's truly my favourite lens of all time. Sharp, fast, sharp, and fast.

[the foto fanatic]

I wonder about whether there might be different levels of engineering. Would the faster glass have more stringent levels of tolerance than the less fast?

There has to be a reason for the increased cost other than the size/shape of the pieces of glass inside the barrel.

[aim54x]

There has to be a reason for the increased cost other than the size/shape of the pieces of glass inside the barrel.

That extra size in the glass is required to get to f/1.4! But I also suspect that there is more care taken with the design and manufacture of these flagship lenses compared to their 2nd tier cousins.

I will probably end up with some Nikkor f/1.4 one day, but for now my Voigtlander 58mm f/1.4 rocks my socks!

[Wink]

What about the image quality between the two? It's all well and good that you can bump the ISO to cover the difference in aperture to get that same shutter speed, but is there a noticeable difference in image quality or even lenses build quality?

Take the Canon 50mm f/1.8 vs the f/1.4 or even the 1.2L. They all produce nice images, but there's certainly build quality differences between the three.

Is the case the same with these 85's?

[biggerry]

I wonder about whether there might be different levels of engineering. Would the faster glass have more stringent levels of tolerance than the less fast?

There has to be a reason for the increased cost other than the size/shape of the pieces of glass inside the barrel.

bigger bits of glass bigger dimensions tighter (even the same) tolerances = more cost, you know how much a optically flat bit of glass for a aircraft camera hole costs? +30k

on a unrelated side note - i saw a really neat vid cam the other day, it had a transculent mirror to split the lighting into two sensors, very neat.

How different will the 2 images be? If both photographers have the same skill level then almost no difference whatsoever. Sensor and software technology has narrowed the gap to that extent.

For me, the crux of the 1.8 verus the 1.4 issue, or any other faster vs slower is purely whether you want to get images from that little 3% range.

Putting any aperture aspects aside there is more to lens than speed, contrast and colour rendition are just as important for me.

Take for example my 18-200 vs my 105, operate them both f8 and same focal length and you will get two very different images, the photographer has nothing to do with that.

good discussion MattK and good food for thought.

[surenj]

Take for example my 18-200 vs my 105, operate them both f8 and same focal length and you will get two very different images, the photographer has nothing to do with that.

Gerry, can you elaborate? This is fairly important to this discussion. Would the 85 1.4 and 85 1.8 compare the same way?

[ATJ]

As with most things these days, it is usually best to buy the top of the line (within reason) if there is even the remotest possibility you may need the extra features. Yes, it costs a bit more but it only costs once. If you buy a 1.8 and then find you need a 1.4 you can just add to what you have, you have to buy the lens all over again. If you buy the 1.4 you can still use all its features and you don't need the 1.8.

[Matt. K]

Suren
No, they would not. I have used both the Nikkor 300mm f4.5 ED and 300mm f2.8. At f5.6 and smaller the images are identical.In fact....if anything, the 300mm f4.5 may be a tad sharper. The argument that the tolerances are tighter with the 85mm f 1.4 or any higher speed lens bears some discussion. They have to be tighter because of the much larger glass elements and the more complex optical problems that have to be resolved. The extra tolerance simply is required to make the image quality equal to that of the 85mm f 1.8 However, my point is that where once the difference was absolutely worth the extra cost because of the extra light gathering power of the faster lens...with todays digital cameras the gap in quality can be closed to some extent by using a higher ISO, (and a good quality sensor), and some careful noise reduction. You would also have to factor in the extra size and weight of the faster lenses....for instance I often use an old manual focus 300mm f 4.5 prime. It's a lovely lens, easy to carry in a bag and a joy to use. I could never carry its f2.8 brother because it is bloody huge and very heavy....a bit like the Nikkor 200mm - 400mm VR. Some lenses demand to be fixed to a heavy tripod. All being said though, if you can afford the f1.4s and f1.2s then go for it....just don't feel to deprived if you have to settle for the budget model. Skilfull handling will get you there.

[biggerry]

.just don't feel to deprived if you have to settle for the budget model. Skilfull handling will get you there.

I debate that to an extent. yes 97% of things can be done with the 'budget model' and that can be justified by 'skillfull' handling, however that other 3% no amount of skill is gonna get oyu there, its purely the gear and its capabilities.

give someone a 300 2.8 and send them to the zoo, then give them a 300 5.6 and send them again, yes a certain percent wil be the same, but the rest, just won't be there, skill or not.

Gerry, can you elaborate? This is fairly important to this discussion. Would the 85 1.4 and 85 1.8 compare the same way?

I am talkign more about contrast and colour, sharpness is also a issue but less so for me. yes these can be corrected in PS to an extent.

With regard to the 1.8 vs the 1.4, I suspect the differences are going to be less than the example of the 18-200 3.5-4.5 and the 105 2.5, also teh difference probably relate to chroma and ligth fall off (see rodneys post) rather than contrast and colour rendition.

[Matt. K]

Gerry
We weren't talking about the difference between an 18-200 and an 85mm originally. The topic was essentially about the difference between an 85mm f1.4 and an 85mm f1.8. I'll take any one of them and not feel like I'm really missing out on something. My discussion on the 300mm was more about the physical size and weight, (a huge difference), and the image quality difference when the 2 are set to the same f stop. Almost negligible. I ain't ever known a photographer who lost a masterpiece because he had the f1.8 instead of the f1.4!

[PiroStitch]

1.4 and 1.8 will only make a difference if there is a variation in the glass used. In the unlikely situation where the 1.8 has higher quality glass over the 1.4, then I'd pick the 1.8 easily. If both are of similar quality, then go the 1.8.

If you're talking the difference between f2 and f1.0, well that's another interesting conversation to be had

[biggerry]

Gerry
We weren't talking about the difference between an 18-200 and an 85mm originally. The topic was essentially about the difference between an 85mm f1.4 and an 85mm f1.8. I'll take any one of them and not feel like I'm really missing out on something. My discussion on the 300mm was more about the physical size and weight, (a huge difference), and the image quality difference when the 2 are set to the same f stop. Almost negligible. I ain't ever known a photographer who lost a masterpiece because he had the f1.8 instead of the f1.4!

Matt, the example of the 18-200 vs 105 is just that an example to point out that there is more than just aperture when considering lens.

With regard to the 1.8 vs the 1.4, I suspect the differences are going to be less than the example of the 18-200 3.5-4.5 and the 105 2.5

[Matt. K]

Gerry
I agree with you. I think Nikons 85mm lenses and 50mm lenses in all of the variations give little away in quality regardless of price. In your example with the 105 and 18-200 I'm sure the differences will be quite visible.