85mm f/1.8D - A good choice?

I am concidering the Nikon 85mm f/1.8D lens, as a companion to my

50mm f/1.8D lens.

If you had a good/bad eperience with this lens I would be very happy

to hear about that or even see that (image files attached ofcourse).

 

Thank you all.

An excellent lens, I owned it and liked it back when I was still punishing myself with Nikon AF.

it is the "classical" companion. a great lens, slightly soft wide open but always excellent sharpness and contrast F4-8. cant go wrong with this; i never met anyone who used it and did not like this lens.

 

alternatives -more for for specialists- are more expensive: 85mm1.4 if you need that extra speed and even (slightly) better in resolution; but there is not much room of improvent over the AFD85mm1.8 . the AFD105mm F2 DC has a very "special look" that many love for portraits even if the "soft control" is not used (that will require some practise for use).

 

cheers

walter

Jay you beat me by 3 minutes :-)

 

i forgot to mention the "old" classical 105mm2.5 - great portrait and general purpose lens. at this range of focal lenght you really got many choices :-)

Depend on what u want as a focal length but it is a good lense. I have this on a digital SLR. Does not suit my style so from my own perspective not what I want. I would prefer a wide like a 12-24 or 18-35 then a 50 prime then a telephoto zoom, 70-200, 80-200 2.8's or 70-300 ED.

 

If I was using film, I would love the 85. Not so much of the 50 thou.

According to what I've read, the MF version is the more desirable - I have the last version before AF and it really is a great lens - one of the big differences is the fact that the AF version closes up to only f16 while the older version goes down to 22 - this probably won't make much of a difference outside of the studio...<div></div>

Great lens, terrific value, worthy companion to your 50/1.8 so go for it. I love mine.

 

Your alternatives in autofocus Nikkors are much more expensive (the 105 macro and 105 DC lenses cost about twice as much; the 85/1.4 is even pricier.) If cost is no object, give them serious consideration because they have different strengths than the 85/1.8 and might be ideal for you. But for folks on a "mere mortal" budget, the 85/1.8 is marvelous.

 

If you have a camera that will work to your satisfaction with manual focus lenses, the venerable 105/2.5 is an even better value.

 

Be well,

Agree it is a great and very useful lens -- when going on a short hike or day shoot,

find this plus the 35mm a great prime pair. It seems odd that Nikon doesn't make a

basic 105mm AF-D lens -- they have only the macro and the DC. Yet the 105mm 2.5

(and 1.8) MF lenses have been among their most popular. Although I have the macro

105 AF, it is pretty heavy (and expensive), and I often wish they had a light 105mm

2.5 AF. Do others agree on this? Any ideas as to why Nikon skipped this particular

lens?

 

Bob Y.

After I got my first taste of Nikon primes with a 50/1.8, I went right out and got the 24/2.8 and... 85/1.8 (latest new AF versions).

 

The 85/1.8 is really sharp, fast enough (as you know from your 50/1.8), a darn good value and super versatile: head/shoulders type shots, long "normal" (like your 50 but a little more reach), and so on.

 

There are lots of other good Nikon lens options around this FL as folks have pointed out, but there are tradeoffs: manual focus AI and AIS lenses like the 105/2.5 and 1.8 won't meter if you have an N80 or N75 or whatever; same for the 85 AIS offerings; the 85/1.4 AF lens is about as good as it gets in a Nikon prime, but it's quite pricey; same for the 105 DC AF offering.

 

So the 85/1.8 AFD is the value leader in a new AF lens around this focal length. It's a goodie.

 

Here are my criticisms. It would be even better if Nikon managed to make it to take 52mm filters (like your 50/1.8). The manual focus ring functions fine, but it feels kinda loose and gritty (feels a little better, actually, than the ring on your 50/1.8). The out-of-focus areas (bokeh stuff) in a pict are usually pretty darn good, but can exhibit a little doubling of the blurred images or exageration of bright objects. Just so I don't sound like an advertisement :-)

 

Snag one. Right now, one sits permanently in my carry-along kit bag. You'll be glad you did.

 

Scott<div></div>

I have the 85mm 1.8 AFD and find it slightly soft and low in contrast as compared to some of my other Nikkors.

I picked up a 85mm 1.8 D a few years ago. I was a little annoyed at the lack of a reasonably priced portrait lens in the 105 range - and I didn't think that that 1.4 version was worth it for me.

 

The 85 has become my default lens. Its great for portraits with a little more context than the traditional crop. It is tack sharp from about 4-11 but can be very prone to lens flare wide open - but it comes with a hood that helps. I find this length also very useful on vacations coupled with a wider lens (i use a 24 mmm 2.8D) for landscapes. The 85mm f/1.8 D is probably the second greatest lens value in the Nikon outfit (the 50mm has the be the best value).

A great lens on a film camera, not all agree with that on a DSLR for portraiture,

depending on what your intended use is. Personally, I would not hesitate to buy one

to be used on either a film or DSLR model.

There are two lenses that I like for available light candids. The Nikkor AF 35mm f/2 and the Nikkor AF 85mm f/1.8. Bright viewing and rapid AF.

I love my 85. I also have the 105mm macro. The 85 is sharp

as a tack and is a great alternative to the higher priced 105.

Don't get me wrong, I love the extra room I get with the 105 on

the street, but the 85 is just so wide open and easy to carry.

The 105 is a little bulky. Like I said, i love my 85..

If one is looking for sharpness wide open in an 85mm, then the 85mm AF D f/1.4 is

the clear choice. The best of both worlds would be to own each model. If money is a

concern, the 85mm AF D 1.8 has nothing to apologize for, but wide open isn't where

it does it's best work. For other than portraits, where one may want dazzling sharp

eyeballs, the 1.8 version is OK at wider apertures, just not as good as the 1.4. It all

depends on what one is doing with the lens.

"I am concidering the Nikon 85mm f/1.8D lens, as a companion to my 50mm f/1.8D lens".....

 

So you�ll have the perfect "couple" in your camera bag. They�ll be in LOVE FOR EVER and always welcomed by your camera.

"So you�ll have the perfect "couple" in your camera bag. They�ll be in LOVE FOR EVER

and always welcomed by your camera."

 

Well said, and not something that I disagree with. But lens choices are so individual

that what pleases some folks doesn't work for others. I can find a lot of uses for an

85mm , while there are those that don't see it as a valuable lens in their bag at all. For

one thing, that 1.8 aperture is far more versatile than the slower lenses touted by

others. There is just no substitute for fast lenses.

Until you switch to a small-sensor DSLR. All the primes that work well for film will be very different all of a sudden.

 

Only diamonds are forever; lenses are not. :-)

Good point, Shun. I've found that with the D70, the 85mm and 75-300 are too long. So is my 24mm. I'm really loving the 50mm and 180mm, though.

Interesting point Shun. From that point of view, lenses that do certain things well in

film aren't even available in the 1.5 crop digital, so one is not on a level playing field.

Since I don't have a DSLR, I'm not any sort of expert as to what is best able to replace

our old favorites. One thing for sure is that we must adapt to this situation, because it

would take far too long to wait for DX equivalent lenses, that may be forthcoming.

Remember, it's easys to get caught up in a paradigm by comparing old with new. On

the brite side, this could open up new interpretations of old ideas, if not entirely new

ideas altogether.

I know this is heresy esp in a Nikon forum. But have a look at the Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro in the Nikon mount.

 

It is a very good portrait lens(creamy bokeh) that does double duty as a Macro lens, plus it is priced about the same as the 85 f1.8.

 

Don't dismiss this sleeper of a lens just because it is a Tamron. I know of a least one pro photog that uses it to shoot assignements for the Swimsuit Edition of Sport Illustrated.

I have the 85 AFD 1.8. Not really impressed with it's wide open performance, or it's gritty bokeh quality.

 

Because portraiture is so important to me, if I could do it all over again, I'd save up another 2 months, and go straight to the 85 1.4 AFD for these two reasons.

I've shot a lot of high school basketball with mine, between f/1.8 and f/2.8. My lens gets a LOT better by f/2.8 and peaks around f/4-f/5.6. I would submit that it's every bit as good a value as the 50mm f/1.8, which seems to peak around f/8-f/11. I really like mine a lot!

i find this lens to be one of the best nikon makes....especially wide open...

<br>

<br>

<img src="http://s93887327.onlinehome.us/bowtie.jpg">

uno mas...

<br>

<br>

<img src="http://s93887327.onlinehome.us/photos/chix.jpg">