85mm 1.4 or 1.8?

[tirediron]

I've been thinking about adding an 85mm to my bag for a while now, and had originally intended to get the 1.4, but in the last couple of weeks, I've seen two 1.8Ds on Craig's List for mid-low three-hundred dollar price range. Never having used one, I began to think that maybe for that price, I could forgo the extra 2/3 stop, IF that was the only loss. I've read some reviews that refer to 'ugly' bokeh. Since this is/will be primarily a portrait lens, that's a consideration. From those that have used it, and even more those that have used both... thoughts?

 

[Patrice]

I first bought the 85 f/1.8D and exchanged it for the f/1.4D two days later. I was not happy with the plastic feel of the lens nor with the rendering of the image. The lens was purchased as primarily a portrait lens for a D200 and I found the f/1.4 did a better job. This was before the G version came out and at that time it was considered the epitome of creamy background. The presence of a G version does not negate the qualities of the D version. It's a lovely piece of photographic equipment which I am still happy to use with my D700.

 

[chaosrealm93]

if you have the money, go for the 1.4

 

[tirediron]

I first bought the 85 f/1.8D and exchanged it for the f/1.4D two days later. I was not happy with the plastic feel of the lens nor with the rendering of the image. The lens was purchased as primarily a portrait lens for a D200 and I found the f/1.4 did a better job. This was before the G version came out and at that time it was considered the epitome of creamy background. The presence of a G version does not negate the qualities of the D version. It's a lovely piece of photographic equipment which I am still happy to use with my D700.

Awesome, thanks! Patrice.

 

[tirediron]

if you have the money, go for the 1.4

Not so much a question of having the money, but rather a question of whether or not the money would be well spent were I to purchase the 1.4 vice the 1.8. From Patrice's account (which supports other reviews I've heard), it seems that it would.

 

[Derrel]

I had a 1.8, a pre-D, for a short while back in the early 2000's. It was a rather plastic-y feeling lens, but the images were sharp,and it shot pretty well when aimed right at the sun--better against the sun than the 1.4 AF-D which I got in 2002. I do not think that the 1.8 model's bokeh is "bad"--it is just that the 1.4 model's bokeh is exceptional...and it has a very sharp central area, surrounded by corners that are less-sharp.

There are some on-line comparisons that show the 1.8 model's greater tendency toward showing the shape of the lens diaphragm when shooting bright, point-source lights (like Christmas lights,etc). In many situations, the images from the 1.8 model looks pretty good.

 

[o hey tyler]

Have you looked at the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 and compared that to the Nikon? From my Canon experiences, it's better than the 85mm f/1.2L (Focuses faster, sharper at f/1.4). I am really happy with the lens, and it produces some really nice bokeh. Not trying to gum up your decision making, just suggesting other options! Here, I'll post a few photos showcasing how the bokeh is rendered. Most of them are f/1.4 or f/2, all shot on a FX camera.

 

[kundalini]

I'm not displeased with my f/1.8. How often will you be shooting portraits wide open? I'd hazard a guess at "seldom".

The short testing I did of the f/1.4 D & G mounts showed it is a tank compared to the f/1.8, exceptional rendering of the background. I'd still like to get one, but would rather spend MY money elsewhere ATM.

For the prices you've seen, it might be worth a test drive. You should be able to get your ROI if not satisfied.

 

[tirediron]

Thanks Derrel!

'Tyler, no, I hadn't thought of the Sigma, but I'll add it to the list and do a little more research in that direction. Thanks!

 

[o hey tyler]

Good luck in your search! My 85mm has become my new walkaround lens, I'm sure you'll enjoy whichever one you get.

 

[Robin Usagani]

I dont know if I would go that far by saing sigma 85 is nicer than the canon 85L like Tyler said, but it is nice and it is more than half the price. 85 sigma is actually my next lens to buy. I just cant afford 85 1.2/L at the moment (over 2K). I would definitely put it as a top contender if you want an 85. It is a 3D lens!

 

[o hey tyler]

I dont know if I would go that far by saing sigma 85 is nicer than the canon 85L like Tyler said, but it is nice and it is more than half the price. 85 sigma is actually my next lens to buy. I just cant afford 85 1.2/L at the moment (over 2K). I would definitely put it as a top contender if you want an 85. It is a 3D lens!

Look at focus speed comparisons between the 85L and the Sigma, Robin. I think that will dispel any longing for the 85L until they make a newer version that focuses faster.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I have to agree, I think the 85 F1.4 is the best bet. The Sigma 85 is a great choice aswell!

I found the bokeh on my 85 1.8 pretty poor to be honest, this was partly why I sold it, it is not 'ugly' but could be better. I find the bokeh on my Tamron 90 2.8 (Obviously a slower lens) to be much more pleasing to the eye!

The 85 1.4 AF-D is now behind the ranks, namely the new AFS-G version and Sigma 85 1.4 are better lenses. But this won't stop the AF-D going down in history as a 'Classic' and 'Legendary' lens. They are beginning to remind of a classic Aston Martin sports car...

 

[MrSleepin]

i have a rokinon 85mm 1.4f manual focus and love it! great shots! it really is a challenge to focus in 1.4f! but that's the price you pay for speed and beautiful bokeh!

 

[Derrel]

Have you looked at the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 and compared that to the Nikon? From my Canon experiences, it's better than the 85mm f/1.2L (Focuses faster, sharper at f/1.4). I am really happy with the lens, and it produces some really nice bokeh. Not trying to gum up your decision making, just suggesting other options! Here, I'll post a few photos showcasing how the bokeh is rendered. Most of them are f/1.4 or f/2, all shot on a FX camera.

I do not agree that the Sigma has better bokeh that the older 85mm 1.4 AF-D, for the simple reason that the Sigma seems to produce strong cat's eye rendering on bright OOF specular highlights that are off-center, as well as tending toward "swirling" bokeh on the background planes. I think the Sigma suffers from some mechanical vignetting that causes the OOF specular highlights to appear football-shaped off-center, AKA the "cat's eye" bokeh shape. Take this shot of the young woman on the bench with a camera: see the background underneath the bench and off to the sides of the bench, and how the OOF highlights almost seem to be forming a "circle" across the entire background??? Same thing at the top, in the woods behind her--there is a faint "circular, swirling" rendering of the background...along with the ellipsoidal OOF highlights visible on the top left corner...neither to me are pleasing characteristics. The Canon 85/1.2-L suffers from the same effects...

This is where the Nikkor 85 1.4 AF-D is a better lens in terms of bokeh...it does not have the "swirling", circular rendering of the background planes, which is a characteristic that many old, crappy East German lenses used to suffer from. The Sigma 85mm does create a very strong visual impression on the images, and it does have a strong, pronounced what is called a "bokeh signature", but I'm not sold on the signature as being pleasant, compared to say the Nikon 85mm and 105mm AF-D lenses, which have a very,very,very different way of rendering the background planes and the OOF highlights. It looks to me like Sigma was CLEARLY emulating the Canon 85 1.2-L's bokeh signature, and not the Nikon look, which is quite,quite different. After all, specialty lenses from Sigma/Tamron are often aimed right at individual, very expensive camera maker lens models.