jochenresch

@bgelfand: thanks for the videos. That's exacty how I set up my D800, using AF-On since a year and it has improved. But still, with the 85/1.8 G I did not get better results as I expected.I also found out that there is an AF inacuracy with the D800 and the 1.8G lenses. I tried to adjust by applying the finetuning setings, but still it was not 100% acurate. Even after sending my camera + all my autofucus lenses to the Nicon Sercive Point, I could'nt trust the AF entirely. Maybe it is my lack of experience of photographing with AF, but I am rather trusting my aging eyes than I trus the AF. I know, it is against popular opinion. This does NOT apply for the wide angle lenses. I definitely get better results with the AF. @dieter: thanks a lot for the clearification! "Trash" is the word I was looking for:)

Oh yes Tempelhof:) I live almost next to that beautiful spot. By the time I lived in Heidelberg and my girlfirend was a Lufthansa flight attendant. So we flew to Berlin almost every month. I had 3 different versions of that 85/1.4, this was my best one. Unfortunately it was stolen in 2014. The one I baught after that wasn't that good for some reason, or maybe I was just biased. It s not easy to photograph with that lens. vilk_inc....I think you made a good decision. I regreted it from the first day I sold it cause I was too curious about those 1.8G lenses. Now I made my decision. I baught it yesterday from a guy in Munich for 600 bucks in mint condition.:) Very intersting what you wrote about color profiling. I might give that a try. I also work with Lightroom (first step) and then Photoshop. Another reason why I went back to the analog version is that I am not so good with the Autofocus. Of curse it is faster, but especially for portrait work, I am used to focus quickly on the eyes (or somewhere inbetween if the person is not facing me dirsctly), even if the motive is not right in the center of the viewfinder. With Autofucus, I have to move the camera to catch the eyes in the center, "freeze" the focus and then go back to where I want the motive to be in the viewfinder.I am just used to it because all of my life I was photographing analog and speed was never important to me (as you can see from my photos).

All of the 6x7 portraits in the Micronesia folder are color slides (400 ASA) and scanned with the Nikon 9000.

Hi bgelfand, thanks for your feedback, I really appriciate.The shot was made with f4 and 400/sec. If you are close to the person you photograph, f4 is too open to get the entire face sharp. Mostly I am on 5.6 or 8 and I make sure to have enough backround space. The reason why I sold this lens back then was that I had a lot of committee (not sure if that is that right expression, I mean shot that were not 100% in focus or that had a motion bur). Especially with the D800 you really see every inaccuracy. But IF it you hit the nail, the pics are outstanding. I hoped to get more accurate shots with the 85/1.8G after I read all the good reviews. But after I purchased that lense, I have learned that contrast, color rendering and sharpnes is not the only important thing. There is something abot the 1.4 AIS that I was not able to achieve with the newer G lense. I just wanted to know if others had same experiences.

The third pic in the "humans" gallery is also the 85/1.4 AIS. I do not get those skin tones with the newer 1.8 G. Humans - Topics | Jochen Resch Photography

Hi bgelfand, the first pic in the gallery is made with newer 35/1.8 G lens. Sorry for the irritation, I thought the link leads you dirctly to the photo I was talking about. It is No 56 i was referring too. That was the 85/1.4 AIS with the D800. I have other examples with the 1.4 AIS and even though the 85/1.8 G might look more modern, I do not get that sharpness and character with the newer lens. I will post another photo where you can see what I mean. Most of the portraits in the south pacific are Pentax 67 Medium Format slides scanned with a Nikon 9000 scanner. So they are not a reference.

Hi, From my very start of doing photography, I used the Nikon 85/1.4 AIS as my portrait lens. Since I switched to digital (D800), I replaced most of my AIS to the newer 1.8 G lenses. I like the rendering of those new lenses, some are are really stunning (e.g. 35/1.8G versus 35/2 AIS). Only with the 85/1.8G I was not so happy. Yes, its sharp, it renders beautifully, its compact...but it looks "digital" and doesn't have much character compared to may 85/1.4 AIS, at least to my taste. With the 85/1.4 AIS I had a lot of commitee, but if the focus was spot one...wow! The skin rendering and sharpness, the character was out of this world! Here are two examples of what I was talking about (all 85/1.4 AIS + D800): Home | Jochen Resch Photography Home | Jochen Resch Photography (Just click on the first photo in the gallery and the photo pops up that I am talking about) Did anyone made similar experiences with the 85mm Nikon's? Would you recommend that I go back to the manual 85/1.4? Thanks a lot in advance!

Maybe there would'nt be any reason to change from the AF-D to the AF-S, but since I own the AIS this is not relevant for me. In general my recent eperiences with the 55 versus the 60 AF-S confirms my impression I had with almost all AIS lenses on a digital body with high resloution like the D800: Some might be equally sharp if not even sharper (especially the 85/1.4 and the 55/2.8 micro), but all of them look a bit flat in comparison regarding colors, density, contrast. I have used these AIS lenses for more than 20 years, as mentioned in my initial post. I was quite happy when I used them on my D700, but after purchasing the D800 those lenses reached their limits. As I said, I do a lot of filming unsing the 35/1.8 AF-S, the 85/1.8 AF-S, 20/1.8 AF-S and also the 55/2.8 Micro AIS. I allways have to do a lot of retouching in Premier (or Photoshop when I do photography) to get the AIS close to his brothers and sisters. Yes, the AIS lenses do have some charm and I guess its a matter of taste in some regards. For instance, my 85/1.4 AIS was probalbly the finest portrait lens I ever owned, the rendition of the skin tone, sharpness and bokeh was just amazing. BUT: on my D800 it was almost impossible to get the focus 100% spot on. Maybe 1-2 out of 10 photos where spot on, especially on the D800. And compared to the 85/1.8 AF-S it has less conrast and density. To conclude, the AIS lenses are very fine lenses and some do a great job on digital bodies. But I find the newer lenses in general are a better match with digital cameras like the D800. The rendering and sharpness just make me more happy compared to the rather flat results I get with the older manual lenses and somehow they give my a 3D-look and look more modern. This is a purely subjective impression and not scientifically proved! Another myth is the believe, that the older lenses are better buildt due to metal parts and hand manufacturing. I had several AIS/AI lenses that had to go to the Nikon Service beacause the mechanic was broken or apparture blades where oily. My 35/2 AI litterally fell apart one day I was photographing a wedding! I never had any issues with the AF-S G lenses so far.

Ok, I did a quick test, not really spent much time on it and I guess it is everthing but accurate. All done with a tripod. The First one (basil) is not a makro, it is a crop of a close distance shot (1m distance to the object). I am amazed how good the 55 AIS is and surprised about the vignetting of the 60mm!!!! Bokeh seems to be slightly smoother with the 60 AF-S G, also a bit more contrasty compared to the 55.

All right....thanks a lot for all your recommendations and sharing thoughts. Today I just jumped on a good offer and baught the 60mm AF-S BEFORE I sold my 55 AIS/2.8. I will do some tests side by side and then decide which on to keep. As orsetto wrote: "As always, depends on your needs, priorities, and shooting style.". I mostly need that lens as a shorter portrait lens (next to my 85) with an makro-option as an add-on. Very curious how the AIS holds up to the newer lens:)

Hello, I have been working with the 55 micro 2.8 AIS for years both as a photographer and videographer and am basically satisfied with the lens. I used to have a few AIS (24, 28, 35, 85, 105, 200) and got rid of all of them after switching to the D800 and comparing them to the G lenses. I now use the AF-S G 1.8 in 20, 35 and 85, and the only manual lens that has remained is the 55' micro 2.8, mainly because I shoot film with it most of the time. Besides the 35, it is also my walkaround lens, with which I also like to take portraits. However, my experience over the years is that the new lenses are simply optically superior to the old manual ones, and I belong to the photo romantics and NOT to the pixel peepers! But I do like the contrast, the sharpness, the light behaviour and the rendering of the new G lenses, especially as they are absolutely within a fair price range. The 55 AIS is really sharp, but the contrast and colours are often rather dull. That's why I'm thinking of switching to the 60 AF-S G 2.8. Especially as I've already had problems with the glued blades and I had to bring it to Nikon for service once in 10 years. Who has experience with the two lenses? Is it worth upgrading? How does contrast, sharpness, rendering, bokeh behave? Thanks a lot in advance, jo