Nikon 24-70mm 2.8 AF/S or Nikon 85mm 1.4 G AF/S?

2WheelPhoto · Nov 9, 2011

OP, here is a convenient place for looking at all the lenses and comparing: Full-size sample photos from Nikon 18-200mm F/3.5-5.6

anagoesch · Nov 9, 2011

This forum is so helpful.
I really appreciate all of you taking your precious time to help others with their questions!
Kundalini, that's exactly what I was trying to describe: Pictures that seems like the subject it's going to jump out of the page. I love those and my 55-300 or 50 not always offers that, sometimes ...
2Wheelphoto Thanks again! Very useful link.

Patrice · Nov 10, 2011

Let me throw in my 2 cents. I've had the 85 1.4 D for quite a while, dating back to my first DSLR which was a D70. I then moved to D200 and I'm now using a D700. During all this time I also use a 17-55 2.8 (works really well on D700 with a Kenko TC), and a 70-200 2.8. All of thee lenses are exceptional pieces of engineering marvels. However each has its unique features and uses. I've seen above where one poster does not recommend the 85 1.4 for a crop sensor body, I on the other hand will endorse that lens for either full frame or crop. True, the angle of view is a bit tight for torso/full body shots in a small room but the rendering of the image is very very nice. As one poster says, the rendering of the out of focus elements is buttery smooth making the subject simply jump out of the image. You would not be disappointed with this lens should you acquire one. If your camera can focus D lenses don't discount the older 85 1.4D, reviewers and pixel peepers aside, this lens still absolutely shines.

The 17-55 2.8 is an older design for DX cameras but it also is no slouch when it comes to performance. I found it had a very useful zoom range on my D70 and D200. It was continually mounted to one of the D200 bodies. The color and contrast of that lens is very nice indeed. True the 24-70 outperforms this lens in a few aspects especially important to critical reviewers but for the pro/advanced amateur I feel this lens has a lot to offer. The build is top of the line, this lens is one of the best built zooms I've had. I've used in the dusty environments of production shops, in the pouring rain, in the arctic, in the deserts, it's been dropped, and still this lens performs flawlessly. Besides, with the current craze for FF 24-70, excellent 17-55 examples can be had second hand at reasonable prices.

anagoesch · Nov 10, 2011

Thank you Patrice.
Which one is your favorite for family and kids outdoor portraits?

IgsEMT · Nov 10, 2011

Both are GREAT lenses:
For me 85 is limited to portraiture only. So when I'm shooting newborn who aren't moving, or bridal portraits with VERY shallow dof - 85 is my go-to choice. 24-70 for me, is about 95% of all the work.

MReid · Nov 10, 2011

Well you don't really need to upgrade. Shoot those family and group shots with your 50mm and you are good to go. Since you are outdoors you will be able to back up if necessary.
The 50 1.8 is an excellent lens, especially at family portrait appropriate F stops.
You will not notice a difference between the sharpness of the 50 and the 24-70 from F4 to F8.

If you feel you must upgrade then of the two choices I would get the 85 1.4. The creamy bokeh you will get for your individual shots is hard to beat.
The only thing you would gain getting the 24-70 over your 50 is that you could shoot more wide angle but since you are outside that should not be an issue.
I have all three of these lenses and use them all on a regular basis.

anagoesch · Nov 10, 2011

Interesting information.
Maybe because my 50 1.8 d is not a prime or AFS, doesn't give me the 3d subject jump off the page all the time.
Anyway, I like all the information and it is still a tough decision.

kundalini · Nov 10, 2011

I own the 85mm f/1.8 which isn't too shabby with its quality of bokeh.

However, I did get a chance at my local camera shop to take a few shots when the G mount f/1.4 lens hit the stores.

I was extremely tempted, but backed out of the shop vewwy swowwy.

Derrel · Nov 10, 2011

These two lenses are in no way even comparable. Focal length ranges do not overlap. One is a pro-grasde wide to shot tele zoom lens designed for FX use, the other is a medium telephoto of very wide aperture. One is a pro-grade zoom, the other a pro-grade telephoto. One lens has multiple framing options at any given distance; the other offers ONE framing option at any given distance. Seems like the choice is pretty clear. If you want a zoom, get the zoom. If you want an 85mm lens, get the 85mm.

Nikon_Josh · Nov 11, 2011

anagoesch said:
This forum is so helpful.
I really appreciate all of you taking your precious time to help others with their questions!
Kundalini, that's exactly what I was trying to describe: Pictures that seems like the subject it's going to jump out of the page. I love those and my 55-300 or 50 not always offers that, sometimes ...
2Wheelphoto Thanks again! Very useful link.

I'm still not sure why the 24-70 2.8 is the best choice in your situation of wanting to take people pictures. You have a 50 1.8 already that is 'good' lens for this use but has poor bokeh so maybe a nicer fifty might be more suitable? I think either the 85 1.4G or 70-200 VR would be much more suitable for what you state about making your subject pop from the background. And then sell your 55-300 VR..

And just to say, you can indeed make your subject pop from the background with your 55-300 VR. It may be a slow lens, no doubt about it! But do an experiment... zoom out to 200 mm, set the lens to its widest aperture, focus on a subject which is fairly close to you and you will notice that you will get some good subject separation with this lens. My 70-300 VR provides fantastic bokeh at times and its a slow lens, I just need to zoom it out further. My overall point though is telephoto lenses will always be more suitable for 'stunning' people photos.

Kundalini's sample above using the 1.4G just goes to show what can be done with a fast telephoto prime, the Bokeh is a sea of colour and blur. Making the subject completely leap out of the image!

2WheelPhoto · Nov 11, 2011

Get all 3: 24-70, 70-200 VRII, 85mm 1.4G and you'll be ready and your head will clear of the "what to do" pressure

joealcantar · Nov 11, 2011

Agree with most, the 24-70 for your DX and pick up a 50mm 1.8 , 1.4 if you want to spend more money(on your DX frame) basically an 80mm for your handheld low light shots.
-
Shoot well, Joe

MReid · Nov 11, 2011

Making your subject pop from the background is a combination of elements...all of which are not the lens.
Lighting, your distance from your subject, subjects distance to background, focal length and f-stop are equally important.
All of the lenses you are looking at will isolate the background and provide acceptable bokeh.....given the opportunity.

Having said that, of your three choices the 24-70 is least capable of providing the subject isolation you are describing that you want.

anagoesch · Nov 11, 2011

I love all the information.
Thank you very much.
Kundalini's I love the pics!!!
Maybe I should get the 85mm 1.4 .
I'll try to indeed using the 55-300 at 200 wide aperture...
I really appreciate all the help!

MTVision · Nov 11, 2011

anagoesch said:
I love all the information.
Thank you very much.
Kundalini's I love the pics!!!
Maybe I should get the 85mm 1.4 .
I'll try to indeed using the 55-300 at 200 wide aperture...
I really appreciate all the help!

This isn't the best picture but it was taken with the 55-300mm lens when I first got the camera. You can get separation between the subject and background - just play around with it.