Deciding between 85mm lenses.. help!

[benhasajeep]

Well just like anything there is a price to be paid for quality. For the price I paid for the 85 f/1.8 it's a workable lens. Would I like a better one? Yes. Is it high on my list of upgrades? No. Does it produce very good pictures in the situations that I use it in? Yes.

People have even reported to have good examples of the Samyang, Rokinon, Cosina, Vivatar 85 f/1.4 MF at even lower price. Are they Zeiss quality lenses. Nope. But some have shown good quality (and some not so good due to manufacturing problems).

And I agree that DXO and other lens testing charts doesn't tell you the whole story. But it is information to gather along with other research and reviews to determine what you are going to eventually spend your hard earned money on.

 

[Derrel]

Yeah...and another place is PixelPeeper.com...looking at PHOTOS can tell you a LOT about how a lens renders/draws its scenes.

As to the old 85/1.8 AF-D...it's old, and it has its own character, but honestly, its tendency toward purple fringing on digital images is the reason I disliked it...it's not the best, but it's still "usable", and it has a lensy look to its pics...but the new f1.8 G is very,very different. Still: the older 85/1.4 AF-D is a STELLAR lens for people pictures. For landscapes, the f/1.8 or f/1.4 AF-S G lenses are bitingly crisp, but lack character. Character can mean flaws, and also, the way the lens "draws"--and THAT does NOT come through in DxO Mark scores!

There is a price to be payed for many of the uber-sharp lenses from third-party lensmakers...crappy bokeh, ugly lens drawing style...

Canon and Nikon have lenses that are designed with care, for various uses...the actual PICTURES their lenses make are often btter than the DxO mark "sharpness" scores would seem to indicate. I have notied this, Thom Hogan has written about this, and many other serious photographers have noticed that SOME lenses make gorgeous pictures of real-life scenes, while others are obviously optimized for test-chart scores.

Not to long ago a user here posted an identical scene, shot with a camera-maker's 50mm f/1.4 lens, and the Sigma ART 50/1.4...the Sigma shot looked like rubbish... harsh bokeh...double-lining on close-in OOF backdrop subjects...an UGLY imager, and yet one of the better 50mm lenses on DxO mark.

Lens "sharpness' is vastly,vastly overrated in the modern era, in which many people buy lenses based on on-line test scores, for the most part.

 

[chuasam]

so for me, the older Nikon 85mm f1.8D worked out great as a portrait lens. you could also split the difference and get the Nikon 85mm f/1.4D, which is still one of the highest rated portrait lenses Nikon ever produced. The Cream Machine. (its true, look it up!)

I had the 85mm 1.8D...didn't like it and sold it to a friend and replaced it with the 1.8G
much better...much less ghosting and chromatic aberration.
Considered the 85mm 1.4G for a long time...when the 105mm 1.4G came out...I said screw it and got the 105mm instead. No regrets at all.

It is the lens I use 90% of the time professionally. After that...the Sigma 135mm f1.8 but the cost to me was about the same so I'm pleased with my Nikon.

 

[Derrel]

The new 105mm f1.4 AF-S G Nikkor
is one of The world's most beautiful imagers. Period. Astounding image look. Beautiful lens drawing style. Gorgeous bokeh.

 

[Braineack]

yeah, Nikon got the new 105mm 1.4 right. the 85mm 1.4, not so much.

 

[Derrel]

In the AFS – G series, the f/1.8 85 MM lens is actually as good as or better than the much more costly F1 .4 model.