85mm f1.8 AF-S Vs 85mm f1.8D

<p>I just received my 85mm f1.8 AF-S lens today and did some quick comparison shots between it and my older 85mm f1.8D.</p>

<p>Some quick observations:</p>

<p>The AF-S version is noticeably larger (overall diameter) than the D and is also a bit lighter in weight. Length wise (with sun shade) they are about the same.</p>

<p>AF speed is good but not lighting fast. It is typical of consumer AF-S lenses.</p>

<p>IQ is a bit better overall. It is perhaps a bit sharper and has a bit less CA than the D version but it is still not perfect.</p>

<p>The AF-S version gives a slightly narrower FOV.</p>

<p><strong>Background blur is very much improved.</strong></p>

<p>Below are some crops from a test shot I did.</p><div></div>

<p>Crop from AF-S lens:</p>

<div></div>

<p>Side-by-side comparison:</p><div></div>

<p>The improved background blur is similar to the difference I saw between the 50/1.8 D and G versions. Try them in bright light and see if the new one does better at flare control as well - that's something I never realized was a problem with the D lens until I compared it to the G and saw the "glow" and a bit of veiling.</p><div></div>

<p>jeepers...not that much difference in terms of bokeh. was hoping for something better. possibly you would get better results shooting as one might normally, i.e. with a more prominent foreground object and greater separation between that and background. on the plus side, there is slightly less CA.</p>

<p>Thanks for posting that. I can see significant improvements in the comparison. </p>

<p>Good man Elliot, this is the first comparison I have seen. Are you pleased you got it? What camera are you using for this?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>not that much difference in terms of bokeh</p>

</blockquote>

<p>you are kidding, right? I was afraid of seeing results like the ones shown above - enough difference to make me want to trade up from my D-lens.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>What camera are you using for this?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>EXIF says: D3</p>

<p>yeah, concentrate on your subject instead of what's OOF, it might actually helps. That said, the G does look better:)</p>

 

<p>New lens also appears to have better contrast and color saturation. That's expected as newer lens coatings can have major impact on that sort of thing.</p>

<p>Kent in SD </p>

<p>Thanks for the comparison. I have currently looking at buying an 85mm and I am glad to share this with us.<br>

The bokeh of the new lens is greatly improved.<br>

Are both lenses using the same number of diaphragm blades? It would be interested to show shots with the lenses stopped down a couple of spots to compare how the bokeh would be. Would the new lens have rounder highlight circles or would it display octagonal shapes?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>you are kidding, right? I was afraid of seeing results like the ones shown above - enough difference to make me want to trade up from my D-lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>eh. if you're going to trade up for bokeh, trade up to an 85/1.4. </p>

<p>Compared to the 1.4AFD, at half the price, this version is very attractive. It`s two thirds of a stop slower, but $500+ cheaper. At a first sight, performance looks to be similar.</p>

<p>How does it feel, construction wise? Similar to the 50AFS lenses, maybe?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>eh. if you're going to trade up for bokeh, trade up to an 85/1.4.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Willing to lay out $200 for some bokeh improvement - but not an additional $1500; a man's got to know his limitations.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Are both lenses using the same number of diaphragm blades?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nope, 9 for the D and 7 for the G - according to the specs on Nikon USA website.</p>

<p>I agree with Dieter. I love a good lens and the small upgrade cost is worth it for improved IQ and AF-S focusing but had the lens been priced higher, I probably would not have bought it.</p>

<p>Yes, I did shoot with the D3, sorry for not listing that. I did use a tripod and kept the same position, only changing the lens. I was going to shoot with the D7000 but wanted to test corner sharpness at this point.</p>

<p>Build quality appears very good. Jose, you are correct, it is very similar in design as the 50mm AF-S but is a lot heavier and bigger. I don't think anyone will be disappointed. I like the large sun shade - it will offer extra protection to the lens and keep unwanted light out.</p>

<p>Below is a comparison (for size) of the 50mm G, 85mm D and 85mm AF-S. The lens is about 1/2" longer (without the sun shade) than the D version.</p><div></div>

<p>I found the harshest background I could late yesterday and took this quick snap. For the money, the new lens does a really nice job!</p><div></div>

<p>Elliot that photo works better because you have more distance between subject and background. just saying.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Willing to lay out $200 for some bokeh improvement - but not an additional $1500; a man's got to know his limitations.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>@Dieter: me too. that's why i got the sigma 85/1.4. wouldnt trade that and $500 for the 85/1.8 AF-S.</p><div></div>

<p>Eric, I was just testing to see if some of the background harshness that many complain about with the D version was improved. It appears to be, significantly. You will have to get your hands on one and do a comparison to your Sigma!!!!</p>

<p>Here is another background crop.</p><div></div>

<p>Looks like a vast improvement - thanks for the examples. Do I regret buying an f/1.4 Samyang now (which I did mostly because the bokeh on the AF-D f/1.8 was terrible, the sharpness on the AF-D f/1.4 wasn't very good, and the AF-S f/1.4 was too expensive)? A little. The new lens might creep onto my "to buy if I ever think I have money" list, although the impending D800 is currently rather dominating that.</p>

<p>Thanks! Pretty nice. Almost makes me regret having laid out all that money for the AF-S 1.4.... anyone compare the two new AF-S versions?</p>

<p>I have the D version and love it but my only problem is the "purple fringing" Can anyone who has the G version tell me if this has been improved?</p>

<p>Regarding purple fringing, It appears to be a bit improved but it is not gone. I will be using the lens extensively this weekend and will follow at the end of the weekend.</p>

 

<p>Great Elliott! Please post more reviews. I'm sure I'm not the only D version owner here that is contemplating of switching to the G version. Also, you or somebody else did mention the AF is faster and IQ is better? I shoot tons of indoor sports and if those two areas are improved then I'm switching. Thanks!</p>

<p>It's a pretty nice size, Elliot can you take some pictures with a less busy backgrounds also, I am about to get this lens so it would be very helpful, I made the mistake of holding the 105 the other day in the camera shop, what a beautiful lens that is and I am torn between the two.</p>

<p>Richard, AF speed is about the same at typical consumer AF-S lens. I would rate it about the same as Nikon's 50mm f1.4. IQ is perhaps improved a bit, although I found my 'D' lens quite sharp. Background blur is improved a lot. As I mentioned, I will be using the lens a lot over the weekend (indoor hockey primarily) and will add to this thread then.</p>

<p>Simon, what kind of shots are you looking for?</p>