Nikon 85mm 1.8

<p>As times are tough and money is a bit tight, I am very ready to purchase this lens.<br>

I'd still like to know about 3rd party alternatives which may be comparable quality. Any shared experence with 85mm primes would be appreciated</p>

<p>thx</p>

<p>Absolultely the worst lens I've ever owned when it comes to flare. For me, that made it unusable. I don't do portraits though.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>I really like mine. AFd 85 f/1.8. I always use the proper lens hood and have not had a problem with flare at all. It is a little soft (for a Nikkor) at f/1.8 but very sharp from 2.8 on down. I think you would be hard pressed to find a 3 party lens that comes even close.</p>

<p>Never had a problem with that lens, other than the build quality.</p>

<p>I sold it when I got my D700, b/c I was using my 70-200 much more. I missed it recently, so I bought an 85 f/1.4.</p>

<p>I generally like mine, and I never have flare of CA problems. But I do have a friend that has one that has a lot of purple fringing for some reason. I wonder if it might be alignment or something. The thing I'm not thrilled with is that it is a rather "cold" lens. The results don't have a warmth to them. For that reason, I use it only for fashion and modeling work, and my 105mm f/2.5 for just about everything else. It is very very sharp though, and is really quite nice with B&W, but I use other systems for B&W usually.</p>

<p>I'm purchasing one for portraits. For a while I was considering buying a 70-200, but realized i dont need a lens that long. Assuming that there is no comparison, I'll give it a shot.</p>

<p>My AI version is fantastic, even wide open.</p>

<p>It's a terrific lens. My copy of it is, at least. I've taken many, many good shots with it. I have the 85/1.8 AF, not the D version, and it's great all the same.</p>

<p>Is this sharp enough for you? </p>

<p><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2593/3930937164_f0a58e43b6.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="333" /></p>

<p>Josh, I do not like the Bokeh in this image. Are you sure it is at 1.8?</p>

<p>I really like mine (AF-D version), very nice to handle (on D300) and sharp (though not at f/1.8, but from f/2.5 on it's plenty sharp, and around f/4 terribly sharp). Mine does show quite a fair amount of CA on backlight situations, but it's quite easily corrected.<br>

I see no issues with flare or the build quality, but I haven't treated the lens rough yet.</p>

<p>The only affordable alternative for a 85 I know is the Samyang 85 f/1.4, manual focus lens. For FX, the 105 f/2.5 is also a great alternative, for DX is a bit too long on many occassions, though. But it can be found cheap and is a stellar lens.</p>

<p>Zeiss has an 85mm f1.4 listed. I don't have any experience with it, but it does seem to get excellent reviews.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>Since you are governed by price, the 85mm 1.8 is the only fast prime with autofocus in it's price/focal length range. I would suggest the third party macros, but lens and focus speed may be more important to you than close up ability. The 85mm 1.8 isn't a fast auto focuser but is quicker than the macros(90 Tamron, 100 Tokina, and 105 Sigma). The non VR 105 micro could suffice but does cost more. I will mention that I do prefer the Tamron 90's bokeh better than the 85mm 1.8.</p>

<p>I've owned a couple of F1.8s and I like the lens. Flare can be an issue, but the hood is good and practice will minimize problems. CA is apparent wide open but also minimized a third or two thirds of a stop down.</p>

<p>Its a good lens and I would choose it over the macros but I've never been a close up shooter. I wish I was better with manual focus lenses as that would increase options.</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p><em>Josh, I do not like the Bokeh in this image. Are you sure it is at 1.8?</em><br>

<em></em><br>

There is <em>no such thing</em> as 'bokeh'. The background has a lot of bright areas, which appear as images of the entrance pupil of the lens. This is <em>obviously</em> not at f1.8, nor does Josh claim it is. I have never had a buyer look at one of my prints and refuse to buy it because of the 'bokeh'.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is <em>no such thing</em> as 'bokeh'. The background has a lot of bright areas, which appear as images of the entrance pupil of the lens. This is <em>obviously</em> not at f1.8, nor does Josh claim it is. I have never had a buyer look at one of my prints and refuse to buy it because of the 'bokeh'.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As compared to the outstanding Sigma 50/1.4, the bokeh of many of my Nikon lenses, the 85/1.8 included, is a bit busy by comparison. I don't have the 85/1.4, which I heard has outstanding bokeh. The "quality" of the bokeh can be improved by stopping down a little bit because that will smooth out the "images of the entrance pupil," and the highlights will have a softer outline. Josh's picture is very characteristic of the 85/1.8, I believe, as one can still see the outline of the iris. Shooting it wide wide open will only make it worse, not better. </p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is <i>no such thing</i> as 'bokeh'.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

I suppose there's some long, convoluted explanation to this opinion?  You might as well say, "There's no such thing as depth of field," or, "There's no such thing as motion blur."</p>

<p>I like the 85/1.8. I would call the focus fast, even though it is not AF-S. The lens was specifically designed to only move a small group at the rear for fast focusing. I don't find that it has major flare problems, but it does have issues with purple fringing. This happens for me when shooting basketball if the players are in front of a window or a lighted scorer's table; the general formula seems to be purple edges on in-focus objects when the out-of-focus background is blown by at least a few stops. The solution is simple: don't do that. I know, that's not really a solution and it would be nice if the lens didn't do that but still all lenses seem to have a weakness somewhere. It's a little soft wide open but quite usable and sharpens up pretty fast as it is stopped down. I really like the size and weight. I don't think there is any direct competition from other parties unless you want to shoot another brand of camera. I'm assuming you need the speed such that f/2.8 macro lenses aren't direct competition.</p>

<p><strong>CC:</strong> Wrong. Opening up the aperture does two things. It eliminates the diaphragm blade shapes (at f1.8) and makes the OOF circles round. It also throws the bg further out of focus, so it appears softer and less detailed. Not even the Bokians claim that stopping down improves things. Certainly it will <em>not</em> smooth the OOF shapes.</p>

<p><strong>Hal:</strong> No convolutions necessary. 'Bokeh' is a <em>faux</em> term-of-art adapted from the Japanese, and Englished by Mike Johnston because no one could pronounce the original correctly. It is used primarily by advanced gearheads who wish to demonstrate putative differences between lenses. In the <em>only</em> comparison I have seen (I don't pursue this tripe avidly) that actually showed different lenses compared on the same subject at the same aperture and lighting conditions, cheap lenses were frequently described as having better 'bokeh' than ones costing ten times as much. I actually saw, at the site that rhymes with 'EZ Renew', an image from a lens with an obviously damaged diaphragm (blades closed in a sort of lopsided crescent) described as inferior because it had 'angular bokeh'. NO. It was friggin' <em>broken</em>, guys!</p>

<p>Now I admit that a smooth background can contribute to an image. If you really want one, find yourself a Petzval lens from the mid-nineteenth century. Uncoated, loads of undercorrected spherical aberration, and no diaphragm. (Except for Waterhouse stops in some cases.) Shoot in a north light, to keep background contrast low, and you'll send the Bokians into ecstatic frenzy. (And if you are a talented portraitist, you may also produce sublimely beautiful images.)</p>

<p>I have to confess, I did overhear a conversation at the Erewhon Gallery once... A photographer had a print of a gorgeous blonde, naked, with a whip and chains in her hands. A viewer caught sight of it, and I clearly heard him shout, "Oh my God! Look at that <em>creamy</em> bokeh! You must have used ZEISS GLASS! Can I get a crop of just the background?"</p>

<p>I really love my AFD 85 F1.8 - used on D300 it's a perfect compagnion for portraits. From f2.8 its very sharp and fron f4 it's extremely sharp. The lens have a nice out of focus blur. When you also look at the price, I think it's no-brainer.</p><div></div>

<p>Les: LOL - I couldn't agree more. Maybe I also can get a crop of that background...</p>

<p>I have an 85mm f/1.8 that I recently bought secondhand. With the right metal hood the flare is pretty well controlled, unless you are shooting almost directly into very bright light, in which case the flare is beautifully uncontrolled and can be quite atmospheric. However it's also a gloriously sharp lens and has become my favourite gig photography lens as a result of those characteristics.</p>

<p>I had mine for over 2 years now; for the price, its an excellent lens. I seldom use the hood, and use the lens outdoors, two images show great performance and speed. The little bird picture is taken wide open at f/1.8. The flamingo pic is taken on f/4.5 in pritty sunny conditions, and I am standing out in the sun with no hood attached; this one I took very quickly and did not have the time to attach the 70-200 VR!</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>CC:</strong> Wrong. Opening up the aperture does two things. It eliminates the diaphragm blade shapes (at f1.8) and makes the OOF circles round.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Opening up the lens makes the OOF circles round, but only in the central part of the frame. Toward the edges, the circles start to get their outside edges squished, so that they're no longer round.</p>

<p> I've owned two versions of the Nikkor 85/1.8, and they were all good and sharp. The 85/2, noticeably less so, though still perfectly usable. With the early and current /1.8s, wide open, a bit of CA, and flare. Much less so with the shade on. Excellent lenses.</p>

<p>Would that new Nikkor AF-S DX Micro NIKKOR 85mm f/3.5G ED VR be a real alternative for DX chip?</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>CC:</strong> Wrong. Opening up the aperture does two things. It eliminates the diaphragm blade shapes (at f1.8) and makes the OOF circles round. It also throws the bg further out of focus, so it appears softer and less detailed. Not even the Bokians claim that stopping down improves things. Certainly it will <em>not</em> smooth the OOF shapes.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Just read lens reviews from dpreview and photozone, and you will see. This is not new or something that I made up. Below is a quote from the review from dpreview on the Nikon 35/1.8 lens:</p>

<p>"With its relatively fast maximum aperture, the 35mm F1.8G can produce substantially blurred backgrounds, and while these can be slightly hard-edged in character (especially at F1.8), bokeh is generally rather appealing. <strong>Stopping down progressively smooths out the harsher edges</strong>, with perhaps the best compromise in the region of F2.8. "</p>

<p>Take home message: Don't shoot it wide open as that will degrade the <em>quality</em> of the bokeh, even though the DOF is getting shallower.</p>