Would you replace a Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G with a f/1.8G?

<p>Nikon should forbid Shun to post these comparison shots - it's going to cripple the sales of the f/1.4 lens ;-)<br>

Astonishing that it is so hard to tell the difference - I'm calling the right one (4531) for the f/1.4.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>there is no way nikon would intentionally cripple the sales of a $1500 lens for a $500 one</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't buy this "cripple sales" argument - in the old MF days, Nikon had at least two options for many of the prime lenses. To me, a $1500 85/1.4 isn't a purchasing alternative to a $500 85/1.8 - in other words, if Nikon only offered the f/1.4, I'd make do without a 85mm prime or would look to third party lenses. Unless I was really into that focal length and could use the f/1.4 aperture to my advantage. Or I could value its "differences in detail" and be willing to part with a lot of cash to get it. A $500 lens will attract a lot more buyers than a $1500 one - I bet that Nikon makes a lot more money selling f/1.8 lenses than from selling f/1.4 ones.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>and there isn't really enough distance between subject and background to expose the differences in the 1.8's OoF rendering compared to the 1.4</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Interesting argument - in Shun's latest posting, the background is at least at twice the distance as the focal plane (and a lot more for the upper third of the image) and it's hard to tell the difference - how far away does it have to be for the f/1.4 to play out it's advantage? In the shots of the girl though, the background is indeed a lot closer - and hence rendered almost identical with both lenses. Even using the "inferior" 85/1.8D in that situation might not have resulted in a much different OOF appearance (though it would sure be nice if the D's rendering of OOF foreground was actually the way it does render the OOF background. The 85/1.8D OOF rendering appears to be a lot like the one from the 50/1.8D; I exchanged my 50/1.8D without hesitation for the 50/1.8G - maybe I should do the same with the 85/1.8D as the differences to the G version seem to be of similar magnitude.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Eric, that was exactly what Nikon did, and the reason is very simple. If Nikon only provides a $1500 f1.4 option for a modern 85mm AF-S, people would find other alternatives such as the Sigma, etc. Nikon is simply not going to sell very many lenses at $1500 each one way or another.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shun is correct. Nikon is not crippling sales of the f/1.4, and it if is, we are talking very small volumes. When the f/1.8G was not available, I don't think people with $500 budgets were saving up money to buy the f/1.4G. They simply stuck with the f/1.8D or went with another brand. Now that it's available, there may be some with a $1500 budget who may buy the $500 f/1.8G instead, but I'm not one of them. The f/1.4G is hands down my favorite lens (followed by the 70-200/2.8 and the 14-24/2.8), and based on my experience with the f/1.8D and the nasty color fringing, I went all out with my follow-on purchase.</p>

<p>And the photo on the right (4531) was shot with the f/1.4G. The bokeh is quite obvious. The f/1.8G is holding its own though!</p>

<p>I'll quote Steve Jobs again:</p>

<blockquote><em>If you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will.</em></blockquote>

<p>Apparently, Nikon's management understands that very well. Back in 2007/2008, the D3 was great at $5000, but Canon and Sony had ~$3000 FX options and Nikon must have one as well. That was why they added the D700, which certainly took a lot of sales away from the D3, but Nikon also managed to sell a lot of D700 and it benefits the company overall.</p>

<p>After introducing the $2400 70-200mm/f2.8 AF-S VR II in 2009, now they have a cheaper f4 version.</p>

<p>After introducing the $3000 D800 in February this year, they added the $2100 D600 in September.</p>

<p>In every case, Nikon always introduces the high-end, expensive model first, let it run its course for a few months to a couple of years, and then Nikon adds the "economy model" for the popular market. If Nikon has no economy model, Canon, Sony, Sigma, Tamron, etc. are just going to kill them. In other words, Nikon simply cannot "protect" the sales of their high-end models anyway, due to competition.</p>

<p>In my case, I got the 85mm f1.8 first and then the f1.4 a few months later. Potentially I might have wasted a lot of money on the unnecessary f1.4, but I'll check them out side by side for a few months and then decide what to do. Most likely I'll just keep both. The 85mm/f1.8 AF-S is $500 new; I can't possibly get that much by selling it.</p>

<p>P.S. I chose the new comparison with the boy with images containing a lot of background. Since the 85mm is mainly a portrait lens, my examples so far all have a child. I can take pictures of some static subjects for a closer A/B comparison.</p>

<p>the 85/1.8 and 85/1.4 sandwich the sigma 85/1.4 in terms of price points. so i understand that marketing strategy. my point was that the 85/1.4G has got to have some special sauce to it to justify that high price point, which is much higher than the AF-D version. from a resolution standpoint, the 1.4 receives very high marks, however the 1.8 in Shun's latest example seems sharper wide open. how is this possible? well, the motion of the subject's hand results in foreground blurriness which distracts from the sharpness of the pic. also, the left pic, which i assume is with the 1.8, caught the light better--from the side, which captures more contrast. i would definitely like to see more scientific shots with static subjects, as well as some posed formals, but for casual users, there's probably no reason to splurge on the 1.4.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the background is at least at twice the distance as the focal plane (and a lot more for the upper third of the image) and it's hard to tell the difference - how far away does it have to be for the f/1.4 to play out it's advantage?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>good question. assuming there is some advantage to the 1.4, i'd say farther than a few feet. in this case, neither of those backgrounds quite "melt" so therefore it looks like the 1.8 is practically equivalent in bokeh. this can't possibly be the case, or can it?</p>

<p>in my case, i bought the sigma mainly based on focus speed, which a few reviews touted as better than the nikon D and G 1.4s. once i had it, i found the sharpness at open apertures was quite good. i dont regret not getting the 85/1.4G, but had the 85/1.8G been available then, i might have just swooped that. however, if i had the 85/1.4 G, i would just hold on to it.</p>

<p>Eric, it is actually common that each additional stop costs a lot more money. I also have both the 300mm/f2.8 AF-S (first version) and 300mm/f4 AF-S. The f2.8 was around $4000 back in 1998 and the f4 around $900 in 2002 or so, both gray market, both without VR. Due to its much larger front element, the f2.8 version costs 4 times as much.</p>

<p>The 85mm/f1.4 AF-S is about 2/3 of a stop faster than the 85mm/f1.8, and the front element is much larger (77mm filter vs. 67mm). Therefore, paying 3 times as much for 2/3 stop is not out of line. The f1.8 is a mass produced consumer/prosumer lens made in China while he f1.4 is a high-end lens produced in Japan in smaller numbers. That also accounts for some of the price difference.</p>

<p>Along that line, I still find the 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR, made in Thailand, expensive at $1400 without a tripod collar compared to the $2400 f2.8 version. I think the f4 version will drift towards $1000 in the next year or two.</p><div></div>

<p>Now, if they'd have put VR into the 1.4 version, it would have made the near-identical IQ (with the 1.8) and very disparate prices more bearable for those that ponied-up the cash......:-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Shun, the picture on the right is with the 1.4. Now what did I win? The 1.8?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You could have aimed higher. :-)</p><div></div>

<p>Dang... with these samples, it is really hard to justify the 1.4, other than I always wanted one. Let me ask this of Shun; does the weight of the 1.4 help any? You mention the 1.8 is from China, and the 1.4 from Japan, is there a real difference in build?<br>

I think you convinced me more than all the other stuff I have been reading. I wonder about the build. I got the 16-35/F4 and love it, and I am not one to have it sit at home, it bounces around in my bag and gets used in sand storms (well, maybe snow and rain is more like it), I'm in CO and I go jeeping a lot for pics. I have a new grand daughter and was thinking the only thing missing in my bag is an 85 (and a long prime). Point is, the 16-35 is new this July and it has a few marks on it already. So, build has consideration. I can't tell the difference and bokeh was the other, and you took care of that.</p>

<p>Shun, good demonstration. A side by side comparison is more telling than some speculation about bokeh differences between f1.4 and f1.8.<br>

There are differences between the 85/1.4 and 85/1.8, but there's no major single thing that tells them apart, which makes the comparison difficult. While I would say that the 85/1.4 looks better in some circumstances, the 85/1.8 is clearly better value and I ended up buying the latter and another lens to complement my shooting with short teles.<br>

My answer would then be that if you have to ask, then the 85/1.8 is more likely to be the lens for you.</p>

<p>When I reviewed the 85mm/f1.8 AF-S back in March, April this year, I was very happy with it, happy enough to buy one myself: <a href="../equipment/nikon/lenses/85mm-f1.8-g-af-s/review/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/nikon/lenses/85mm-f1.8-g-af-s/review/</a><br>

At $500, I think the f1.8 is a bargain.</p>

<p>Concerning the comparison between the f1.4 and f1.8, I need to make a lot more side-by-side comparisons under other conditions, not merely indoors wide open. However, since the f1.8 is very good, clearly it is going to be difficult for any lens to be much much better.</p>

<p>The 85mm/f1.8 AF-S G has similar construction as other recent f1.8 AF-S lenses such as the 35mm DX, 50mm, and 28mm. They all have a plastic shell and in fact so does the 85mm/f1.4 AF-S. IMO the construction is fine. The f1.4 is a lot heavier due to the large front element, and usually the extra weight gives people the impression that the quality is better, but I always feel that using weight to judge quality is deceptive.</p>

<p>Well... I was hoping for information about the actual build. I know weight has nothing to do with build. Since you have both (in your hands) for several months, I was hoping for; Yeah, I would not care if it was in my backpack, hiking in thee woods and the pack fell three feet and rolled down a hill type of opinion. The nearest place for me to go look at them would be 80 miles from where I live. Which I am planning to do in the coming weeks.<br>

I have a consumer 28-70, and its build feels light, like when you handle it for the first time in a store. However, it has a great build and has servied hikes and falls worst than the above (a biker not paying attention drove over the D200 with this lens on top of a tripod). It just does not handle water too much, but great in snow. After it dries out, it works again. so, I was wondering confidence levels and such since you have spent time with it. I also have a D4, but if I can avoid weight, hey, you know how that goes.</p>

<p>I love this lens :)</p>

<div></div>

<p>And at f 1.4...<br>

It's decided, I am keeping it :)</p>

<div></div>

<p>Good decision. If you never use it, sell it and don't buy the f/1.8G version. If you do use it and like it, just keep it. If you care about size and weight a lot, sell it and get the f/1.8G version. </p>

<p>reading through the comments, I stumble again and again and over again across a comparison of two pictures of a young lady, provided by some Mr Chung.... excuse me, is that a photographer's blog? you are comparing a close up face only shot to a half body shot, obviously shot from farther away, since the focal length remained the same, and you are comparing bokeh and DoF quality based on <em>these two </em>images??? hasn't anyone told you that this is impossible due to the totally different compression factor between these two photos? doh!</p>