85mm 1.4 or 1.8?

[mwcfarms]

I have the 1.8 and I seem to recall it was either Zach arias or Chase Jarvis earlier this fall that got rid of the 1.4 and kept the 1.8 because he said the image difference wasn't worth the price difference. Which is moot since one of them switched to entirely Canon now anyways. I wish I could find that reference but it was on twitter. I really like my 1.8. I honestly don't think an 1100 difference for that 0.4 is worth it. I have played with the 1.4 but can use that money elsewhere. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Derrel]

Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L-IS USM lens...cat's eye bokeh...unpleasant, in my estimation. NOT good bokeh for OOF highlight rendering. SOOC shot.

SAME,exact background as above: 200 f/2 Nikkor...round, evenly-illuminated bokeh circles with no "rings" around the edges, no bright spots in the center; one of the absolute best lenses ever made for OOF highlight rendering. SOOC shot.

This gallery these two shots are in also has an extreme foreground bokeh and background bokeh sample from the 85mm 1.4 AF-D lens...

 

[tirediron]

...I honestly don't think an 1100 difference for that 0.4 is worth it. I have played with the 1.4 but can use that money elsewhere. Just my 2 cents.

That's exactly my quandry. I don't mind paying for quality, but I don't want to spend money for little benefit (Hence my buying the 16-35 f4 instead of the 14-24 f2.8; I rarely shoot ultra-wide, so it didn't make sense to spend the extra money). I think maybe I will pick up a 1.8 and worst comes to worst and I really dislike it, I'll just flog it to some other sucker.

 

[tirediron]

...200 f/2 Nikkor...round, evenly-illuminated bokeh circles with no "rings" around the edges, no bright spots in the center; one of the absolute best lenses ever made for OOF highlight rendering..

An outstanding lens in all aspects, but one that I just cannot justify buying, even used.

 

[Patrice]

One has to weight the cost vs benefits of any purchase. To some the 80% price increase is not worth the 20% gain in some other factor. To others it is, especially if the 20% gain is with an important element to the purchaser. This dilemma is present with any purchase of any product one chooses. Only you, the purchaser, can find the balance of cost vs feature that is right for you. We each have different reasons for the purchase choices we make.

 

[mwcfarms]

Thats what I did, I bought mine with my first ever big tip. Lol. I have the 70-200 and use it more than the 85 because of the range. I still really love the bokeh from the 85 1.8 and plan on playing with it tonight and doing some Christmasey type stuff like Derrels shots about. I can't believe I have never noticed the bokeh shapes like that in the 70-200 lol. Very very wonky shape. Thanks for the share Derrel.

 

[kundalini]

I still say that if you're intention is to shoot in the studio, f/1.4 isn't that much of an advantage because f/5.6 to f/11 will likely be your aperture range. Shooting outdoors is another story, but even f/5.6, the f/1.8 can give a nice rendering of OOF background IMO (first search for an example failed.... ).

Notice all the wrinkles, creases and skin discolorations? Some of that is just the fact of shooting an old fart for a subject.

 

[mwcfarms]

Its funny how the Canon 70- 200 is all cat eyeish, Why is that? I was bored cleaning the house lol so I tested the Nikon 70-200 and the 85 at same focal length I forgot to bump the aperature on the 85 to 2.8 but left it wide open. Pretty darn close though.

85 F1.8 at same spot as I shot the 70-200 give or take an inch.



70-200 at 2.8 and 90mm

 

[2WheelPhoto]

I love the 70-200 Nikons performance too, not only the bokeh and background but the sharpness throughout.

 

[mwcfarms]

Well I am really just curious as to why the Canon would be all cat eye shapey. I could see, hexagon or octagon but cat eye is bugging me I wish I had an old one to take apart.

 

[Derrel]

Well I am really just curious as to why the Canon would be all cat eye shapey. I could see, hexagon or octagon but cat eye is bugging me I wish I had an old one to take apart.

I think the cat's eye bokeh is due to mechanical vignetting in the case of the 70-200 2.8 L IS USM Canon Mark I...in the photo I took below, you can see how FAR IN the rear element is recessed. I think that's why the lens has elliptical OOF highlights.THis can also be caused by the camera' mirror box as well, according to what I have read. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 also suffers from TERRIBLE cat's eye bokeh...Google for some sample pics from the Sigma 30mm.

 

[kundalini]

Well I am really just curious as to why the Canon would be all cat eye shapey. I could see, hexagon or octagon but cat eye is bugging me I wish I had an old one to take apart.

The Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 micro lens does similarly with specular highlights in the background. Otherwise it does produce some creamy OOF background.

 

[bentcountershaft]

Well I am really just curious as to why the Canon would be all cat eye shapey. I could see, hexagon or octagon but cat eye is bugging me I wish I had an old one to take apart.

I think the cat's eye bokeh is due to mechanical vignetting in the case of the 70-200 2.8 L IS USM Canon Mark I...in the photo I took below, you can see how FAR IN the rear element is recessed. I think that's why the lens has elliptical OOF highlights.THis can also be caused by the camera' mirror box as well, according to what I have read. The Sigma 30mm f/1.4 also suffers from TERRIBLE cat's eye bokeh...Google for some sample pics from the Sigma 30mm.

That was the first thing I noticed when I got my 70-200, the squared off bit. I figured it must serve some purpose I'm too ignorant to understand.

 

[mwcfarms]

Thank you Derrel for posting that. It makes more sense now.

 

[iNNo]

I had both sigma and nikon and can vouch that the Nikon 85 STOMPS the sigma regardless it being a 1.4D or G. Gotta love those creamy backgrounds... but learning to master sharp all around focus at 1.4 is a whole new animal itself.