Would I benefit from buying a 85mm/f1.8

<p>This one seems to be a legendary lens and am so tempted to buy it.The 85 1.8 I mean.<br>

Before that.....I do have a 105 2.8 AF-D micro and also an 80-200 2.8 AF-D ED. Both Nikon and excellent lenses. Especially the 105mm. It is classy. May be marginally heavier than 85mm. Of course 50 1.8, 24-85 2.8-4 to top it off.<br>

I do a lot of people, street and portrait photography. Landscapes, Flora and Fauna apart.<br>

85mm seems to be nice, light, sharp, cheap, wow lens. Is it worth spending another 400 on it or do you see a pretty good overlap with what I have already and just forget it? <br>

Appreciate your views on what you would do.</p>

<p>Thanks a lot Guys.</p>

<p>As a general comment, whenever someone needs to ask whether he/she needs to buy a certain piece of equipment, it is a very good indication that it is not necessary. If you really need that lens, it should have been very obvious to yourself.<br>

My advice is to wait until you have a compelling reason to buy it.</p>

<p>Incidentally, which camera bodies are you using?</p>

<p>I like this lens, because it fit both DX and FX format (125mm on DX) beeing a very nice portrait lens. Your 105 is to long on DX (157mm) . But you already have the 80-200..., wich will give you about same results at 85mm. I think I'll skip this one, and use the money for something else...</p><div></div>

<p>The 85mm/1.8 AFD is quite a piece of glass. It's resolution performance beats the 85mm/1.4 throughout the same aperture range and it is close to half the price. I'm considering it myself.</p>

<p>Its a very good lens if you need it. You already have this focal length twice plus the 105mm. If you need shallower DoF then you currently have then you have justified the purchase. If its just some nice equipment to put on your shelf then I could not justify the purchase. Only you know if you need it.</p>

<p>I am using D200, D300 and D80<br>

Thank You Shun..</p>

<p>Save up and get the 1.4 version..it's sharper and much better all around..</p>

<p>The lenses you have are all great lenses, I own them all myself. I will say that if you do a lot of tight face shots, that the 85 1.8 is a nice lens for the shallow DOF it can give you . I used mine on my film cameras and now with my D3. A 105mm as said above, is a great lens but can be a little long on a DX camera. That said, I also like a 180mm 2.8 on a FF camera for the same thing so go figure. </p>

<p>I absolutely can't live without mine. I tend to use it for people shots, just because I don't have much need for it elsewhere. I upgraded from an AIS version because I was getting purple fringe on my D200 with the older version. I found the AF-D to be sharper with more contrast, but a little bit cooler looking than the AIS version (I prefer the older, warmer lens for color). Here's a couple of people shots. Martha is from last weekend, using a couple of monolights indoors, and Nicole is an outside shot showing the bokeh wide open.</p><div></div>

<p>Nicole</p>

The 85/1.8 is not a very good lens. Yes, it is sharp, no, it does not distort, but it is low contrast when used wide open, and most of all it shows excessive purple fringing. CA is not a problem, you can easily fix it in post-processing, but purple fringing is impossible to get rid of without major surgery. The other problem is the minimum focusing distance. 85cm looks pretty old in that department.

<p>

Of course all these things don't matter at all if you use the lens for what it is intendeed, i.e. as a fast portrait lens that is much cheaper than the 85/1.4. Softness wide open is not a problem in portraits, it's rather welcome, and you wouldn't want to get nearer than 85cm anyway. Purple fringing is also no problem, because why would you shoot a portrait against bright light?

<p>

As a general purpose lens in that focal range I would get the Sigma 70/2.8 Macro. It's a fantastically sharp lens and it's a macro as well. I own both and I use the Sigma much more than the Nikon. See some of my images with the <a href="http://blog.andreas-manessinger.info/search/label/Sigma%2070%2F2.8%20Macro">Sigma 70/2.8</a> and with the <a href="http://blog.andreas-manessinger.info/search/label/Nikon%2085%2F1.8">Nikon 85/1.8</a> on my blog.

<p>Sorry I can't find Nicole on my computer.</p>

<p>Andreas, "low contrast?" That is not my experience in the least. If anything, my sample is above average contrast. I would say the AIS version wasn't high contrast, but it was very respectable. The AF-D version has absolutely NO detectable CA or purple fringing. Under high mag, I've never seen either. Against bright light? Well, I do that all the time with the fashion stuff I shoot, and it simply isn't there in my sample.</p>

<p>The f/1.8 version is unduely criticized against the f/1.4 version, and I think it is without merit. I think the legend exceeds reality, at least in my comparison of my samples of the f/1.8 AF-D and f/1.4 AIS version (I don't have the AF-D because I am very pleased with the f/1.8).</p>

Interesting. I have an AF-D, and it has not terribly low contrast, but it's much worse than e.g. the Sigma 70/2.8 wide open. But again, this softness is not a problem, it's purple fringing.

 

In order to trigger it, I have to overexpose along hard contrast edges, and that wide open. Tree branches against sky is the classic, and another situation where I got it, was a portrait session on a bright day in open shade. The person wore a bright white shirt. Of course, that's very strong contrast, but not much different from the situation that you have at a wedding.

 

It may be due to sample variation, but I doubt it.

<p>I agree with Michael on this one.<br>

If you are using a crop sensor I think the lens you have cover things very well.<br>

If you are using a FX sesnor the lens you have still cover every thing pretty well, unless you are leanin toward primes, and the I would get an 85 and I don't want to start the f1.8- f1.4 debate, but my 85 f1.4 is my most used lens on my D3, not just for portriats, stoped down to 5.6-8 it is a super landscape lens. About seven years ago I sold my 80-200 and went with the 85 f1.4 and the 180 f2.8 and I am still very hapy with that choice, my photo quality went up considerable. I have since added a 35 f2, and a 300 f4, and a 500 f4 and couldn't be happier, every one is different in there gear needs, but once I went to all primes it seems like the quaility of my work went up.</p>

<p>I use my 85 f/1.8 on my d300 and I love it, even if I don't need it.</p>

<p>-Owen</p>

<p>I use my 85 f/1.8 on my d300 and I love it, even if I don't need it.</p>

<p>-Owen</p>

<p>Agree, everywhere I read, the 85mm/1.8AFD has a lot more controlled CA management than the 85mm/1.4AFD.<br>

http://slrlensreview.com/content/view/103/40/<br>

http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/221-nikkor-af-85mm-f18-d-review--test-report</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I had the opportunity to try the 85 f1.4, 85f1.8 and 105VR and I also have the 24-70 f2,8.<br /> In my opinon based on using the D700 FX, i much prefer the 105VR in the end.<br /> If i had a DX camera, the 85's would probably be good.<br /> The 105 is tack sharp and the contrast is very very good.<br /> The 85 f1.4 also very nice cream machine but seriously, at f1.4 or f1.8- its a tricky shot to get that eyes focused. If I had extra cash- why not. But before I made the decision in the 105 my choice was between the 105 and 85. But after using both- I went with the 105VR and couldnt be happier.<br /> http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b327/Ferdinand77/105VRatf32.jpg<br /> http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b327/Ferdinand77/85f14atf18.jpg<br>

another 105VR shot<br>

http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b327/Ferdinand77/potrait2before.jpg</p>

<p>I do not believe that the f1.8 will give anything that you don't already have with your current lenses.<br>

I do believe that the f1.4 will. It is harder use however but it will make you a better photographer. My suggestion, save your money or spend twice as much for the f1.4.<br>

Best of luck, D</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I have both the f1.8 & f1.4. The f1.4 is a better portrait lens. That does not meant the the f1.8 is a bad portrait lens. It is indeed very good - but the f1.4 has better bokeh. Period. There is more to a great portrait lens than being the 'sharpest'.</p>

<p>If you want a fast 85mm prime, go for the f1.8, and see how much you use it. If you find yourself using it quite a bit, you might want to upgrade to the f1.4, or you may be happy with what you have. </p>

<p>Years ago when I was shooting commercially I used the 105 2.8 af Micro for head shots. It did the job just fine but it is actually too sharp for this kind of photo. The focus throw of the Micro is not good for portraits meaning it focuses faster from 5ft to infinity and slower in the micro range. I bought the 85 1.8 afd ( KEH bgn grade but it was mint to me ) and am very happy with it. To me it is perfect for head shots. I use it on both my F100 and D80.</p><div></div>

<p>I love the 1.8 for film and digital. I've never seen the tiniest hint of purple fringing from mine. I think it's almost a "must-have"--fantastically useful, sharp, fast, and the 1.8 is a bargain at the price, IMO. </p>

<p>Hi Arun,<br>

I have the 85afd 1.8 lens. It is by far my favorite lens. I have never seen any purple fringing in my 10 years<br>

of shooting with it. Back when I was looking at this focal length, I choose the 1.8 version over the 1.4 for a<br>

number of reasons, It was lighter, less expensive and on every camera I used it on from my N90's, F100's,<br>

F5's, F6's and my D300's it snapped into focus much quicker than the 1.4 version. Yes you do have the overlap<br>

with the 80-200 zoom, but you also have a considerable weight difference when using it for street shooting.<br>

John Mirra</p>

<p>Just picked the 85mm 1.8 today from Adorama. Haven't had the chance to use it yet, but I look forward to doing so. I have an 80-200 as well, and I think you'd have to be almost insane to use it regularly for street photography, at least compared to something as relatively lightweight as the 85mm. I'd dial up an 80-200 for specific moments in street photography, but there's no way I'd use it from the beginning of a trek around an area.</p>

<p>Ive used this lens and its great, i saw no problems with it and it was fun to use. Since the reason I take photos is for fun, and this is a fun lens, its probably the next on my list to buy since its very fast and very sharp, the two things I care about most.<br>

The thing is, if you dont find yourself needing it, you probably dont, but if you have ever thought, 'oh, it would be nice to have an 85 1.8 right now' then i would seriously consider buying one.</p>