best 85mm lens under $250

You see the "nervous" bokeh in the blurred highlights in these photos. Also in the closer OOF elements. Not so much in the treeline in the first photo.

 

If you had to pick one to keep, which would it be? Nikkor f/1.8 or f/2? Kudos on giving away your user copy!

I would keep the 85/2 over the 85/1.8. Size, weight, and Bokeh. I also gave the young man a user 35/2 Ai lens that I got in a bunch of lenses, I have a Nikkor-O 35/2 factory Ai converted for over 40 years now.

Full frame camera? How about a 50mm F1.8 Nikkor and crop. $130 new.

Huh. 50mm would make sense if I was on DX and looking to approximate the angle of view 85mm has on FX. But on FX, I don't see how 50mm is a viable substitute for 85mm. Also, I already have 50mm f/1.4 and f/2 lenses.

There's a discussion which might be of interest here: https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/the-nikkor-85mm-f1-4.369314/ .

Seems like there was a slight majority favoring the AF 85mm f/1.4 over the AF 85mm f/1.8 in that thread.

It's interesting that nobody has championed the AF 85mm f/1.8(D) in this thread, despite its being readily available under $250.

Seems like there was a slight majority favoring the AF 85mm f/1.4 over the AF 85mm f/1.8 in that thread.

Actually, even though I showed a photograph taken with the 85mm f/1.8D that some liked in that thread, it was that discussion (and giving a further look at the busy bokeh which I posted) that convinced me to give it up for the the 85mm f/1.4D. The f/1.8D was a sharp lens, particularly for its time, but there was (and is) nicer bokeh available. I'm not sure it's available for less that $250.

I'd give the Samyang 85mm f/1.4 another try.

I have two samples, one 'plain vanilla' and the other an AE version with CPU. They're optically excellent and identical, with less LoCa than the 85mm f/2 Ai-S Nikkor, but not perfect in that respect.

Probably out of your budget range these days, but I highly rate the f/1.8 Ai-S version of 105mm Nikkor.

The f/1.8D was a sharp lens, particularly for its time, but there was (and is) nicer bokeh available. I'm not sure it's available for less that $250.

It is.

I'd give the Samyang 85mm f/1.4 another try.

I'm leaning in that direction. I won't be able to repeat the $120 deal for the copy that I had to return, but ~$150 should be doable.

A couple of years ago I got infected by the typical 'medium tele' craze.. explored the 105/2.5 (which I then couldn't find) and ended up with a second (2nd..!) 105/2.8 AIS. Yes: the older micro lens, not famous for brilliant bokeh.. but not disturbing enough to dismiss it. And then: CLOSE FOCUSING! If there is one thing that I hate about older standard lens design is that 50mm lenses stop focusing closer than (say) 50cm.. 85mm lenses not closer than (say) 85cm .. etcetera!

I LOVE close focusing lenses so much that my older 60/2.8 AF is now my standard lens. And I still really like those 105 micro's.

I have the 85/2.0, which is super smooth in operation as well as background bokeh.. overall sharpness is non-remarkeable.

I have the 100/2.8 E .. which is less smooth (operation).. but admittedly I've rarely used it (not entirely sure about bokeh)o_O

AND the new twist is: last two months I've rediscovered my Mamiya 645 lenses. Both 45/2.8 and 80/1.9 perform lovely wide-open on D800 with adapter.

The 80 perhaps still hasn't the smoothest bokeh ever, but it is a dear revelation after all.

In addition: both the lenses focus somewhat closer than is typical for their length :cool:

I feel that often lenses can be verry verry good until. something newer , something more exotic becomes available, then the lenses that were earlier verry verry good start getting all kinds of critics like "cornes not sharp enough" "bokeh is not smooth enough"etc. often things that can only be seen on "test shots" when enlarged to the extreme..

example : the Nikkor AF-D 85mm F/1.4 , util its successor became available it was "best lens for portreture" and "Wonderfull bokeh ( by then also "Boqueh") and it was the "Cream machine" , after that loads of complains started in threads all over the internet. I still think it is a wonderfull lens though.

Sooo, what's the deal?

Is it about taking pictures one likes, or is it about the lenses in the bag?

the Nikkor AF-D 85mm F/1.4 , util its successor became available it was "best lens for portreture" and "Wonderfull bokeh ( by then also "Boqueh") and it was the "Cream machine" , after that loads of complains started in threads all over the internet.

I remember the 1970s, before the internet, or even AF lenses. In those days nobody even knew the meaning of the word 'bokeh' and cared even less.

The solution was simply to avoid getting distracting OOF highlight blobs in our backgrounds - allowing the viewer to focus on the foreground subject. Everyone was happy with this arrangement...... and then bokeh was invented!:eek:

Everyone was happy with this arrangement...... and then bokeh was invented!:eek:

Shocking progress! :eek: ..'though I suspect the Japanese were concerned with the issue long before it reached 'The Western World' (yet another '60s-'70s construct ?) .. and the photography discussion fora o_O

'though I suspect the Japanese were concerned with the issue long before it reached 'The Western World'

Maybe, but there was certainly a more widespread burgeoning of images showing OOF strings of lights, sunlight through foliage, etc., and a tendency to leave a lot more background around head-shots after the profile of bokeh was raised worldwide.

I wonder if non-photographers (i.e. those not au-fait with photo-related discussions) ever even noticed the effect?

I feel that often lenses can be verry verry good until. something newer , something more exotic becomes available, then the lenses that were earlier verry verry good start getting all kinds of critics like "cornes not sharp enough" "bokeh is not smooth enough"etc. often things that can only be seen on "test shots" when enlarged to the extreme..

 

example : the Nikkor AF-D 85mm F/1.4 , util its successor became available it was "best lens for portreture" and "Wonderfull bokeh ( by then also "Boqueh") and it was the "Cream machine" , after that loads of complains started in threads all over the internet. I still think it is a wonderfull lens though.

 

Sooo, what's the deal?

Is it about taking pictures one likes, or is it about the lenses in the bag?

Not always true. I was asked to test the AF-S 105/2.8 Micro-Nikkor for a friend of mine using a D850. I have the AF-D 105/2.8. The latter is sharper, has less CA, and cost about 1/2 the price. Other online reviews of the new AF-S lens state the same, so it was not just a bad copy of the lens. My AF-D 200/4 Micro-Nikkor is one of the sharpest lenses that Nikon ever made.

My AF-D 200/4 Micro-Nikkor is one of the sharpest lenses that Nikon ever made.

I always assumed there was a reason it still commands close to $1,000 on the used market. ;)

Not always true. ----- My AF-D 200/4 Micro-Nikkor is one of the sharpest lenses that Nikon ever made.

That is why i started with "Often"and not "ALways".. ;)

Nikon has not produced a newer version of the AF-D 200 F/4 to my knowledge ..

Based on how poorly the AF-S 105/2.8 Micro-Nikkor performed compared with the AF-D 105/2.8 Micro-Nikkor, I doubt the new generation of Nikon optical engineers would even try to take on a replacement for the AF-D 200/4 Micro-Nikkor. Nikon never came out with a replacement for the 70~180 Micro-Zoom-Nikkor.

With Z-Mount - I suspect the F-Mount will not be getting much attention from Nikon. What is available now will be the selection for F-Mount lenses, no need to worry about something better coming along from Nikon. What remains to be seen- will Nikon continue to make any new lenses.

David Douglas Duncan preferred the Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.5 over the newer Nikkor-SC 5cm F1.4. Shooting both lenses side-by-side, I can see why. The latter stretched the Sonnar design, the Bokeh is not as smooth. I have every Nikon lens that I've ever wanted. The 5cm F1.5- the one I wanted most.

I doubt the new generation of Nikon optical engineers would even try to take on a replacement for the AF-D 200/4 Micro-Nikkor

In the 27 years the 200mm f4 micro has been around, lots of things have changed in the lens world, not least the use of aspheric lens elements, very complex computer-aided design and special ED glass.

A long and slow 200mm macro lens would be easy to update with such new parameters, but I guess Nikon don't see enough profit in it.

The Sigma 180mm macro with OS etc is a very well received lens..... go figure!

Aspheric optics have been around since the 1950s, not as important to use in a telephoto lens, Same with Nikon using ED glass- been around since the 1970s. Aspheric optics reduce focus shift due to spherical aberration, but there are other problems induced by their use. My Pentax 85/4.5 Ultra-Achromat is from the 1960s. The AF-D 200/4 is an ED lens.

With all the new technology, hard to figure out how Nikon screwed up the AF-S 105/2.8. Probably thought the CA could be fixed with a Lightroom profile. Probably designed by the marketing department.

With all the new technology, hard to figure out how Nikon screwed up the AF-S 105/2.8

Now, that is definitely true. They could have easily made a decent focus limiter too. I sold mine for a Sigma 150mm and a Tamron 90mm.

Aspheric optics have been around since the 1950s, not as important to use in a telephoto lens, Same with Nikon using ED glass- been around since the 1970s. Aspheric optics reduce focus shift due to spherical aberration, but there are other problems induced by their use. My Pentax 85/4.5 Ultra-Achromat is from the 1960s. The AF-D 200/4 is an ED lens.

All very true. So just why are lenses now 'better' than they have ever been?

Equally, how come Nikon's last half dozen or so primes have been bettered by Sigma and Tamron? They were not using the best of what's around and relied on those who refuse to buy anything but a Nikon lens to make sales, AKA fanboys.

On the same vein, how come Nikon Z lenses are so much better than their F equivalent? And, no it's not the bigger lens mount on most of them. They just knew they had to up their game because everyone now knows what's possible and more shooters are prepared to buy off marque.

As to the best 85mm, it's very hard not to like the Sigma 85mm ART, but it's just a bit (!) too expensive @ ~£650!

It depends on the specification that you look at to judge "better". The newer 85/1.4G has slightly more distortion and slightly more vignetting than the 85/1.4D.

The newer Z-mount lenses have long/drawn-out optical paths to accommodate digital sensors. The 58/0.95 is huge, and very expensive. Given all the electronics crammed into the Z-Mount lenses and the AF-S/VR lenses: they will not enjoy the long life of most F-Mount lenses, S-Mount, or LTM Nikon lenses. The new Nikon lenses are products of the digital age, design-wise and construction-wise.

It depends on the specification that you look at to judge "better"

All aberrations destroy resolution and if you have a very sharp, hi res image you can do what the heck you like to it to give it 'character', softness etc.... just like film emulation in RAW converters.

What you can't do with any degree of quality is try to do it the other way around. Bit like if it's not in focus, give up now...:p

In acuity/sharpness terms, camera lenses have never been so good.

Nikon never made a bad 85. This one was made in 1949. Wide-Open.

Chromatic Aberration seems to be higher in digital-age lenses than those of the film era. CA can be corrected digitally in post, unless you are shooting monochrome digital or film. This is one aberration that is much higher for the newer Micro-Nikkor lenses when compared with the older ones.

The Nikkor Z-Mount 50/1.2 has 17 elements in 11 groups compared with the 50/1.2 Ais with 7 elements in 6 groups. 82mm filters vs 52mm filters. The new lens is huge. Cost is about 5x what I paid for my 50/1.2 Ais. The latter will long outlast the computerized marvel of the 21st century with -wait for it- a built in digital display. Woohoo.

I spent about the same on the new M-Mount Voigtlander Nokton 50/1.5 and 50/2 APO-Lanthar in the past month. Z-Mount has no appeal to me, the lenses have no appeal to me. Size and weight are more important considerations, balanced with optical performance. I hope Nikon survives, I've shot Nikon cameras and Nikkor lenses since 1978. I have some 20 Nikon lenses in Leica mount- they get a lot of use. I have the 8.5cm F2 in Leica Mount from the same batch that was used to photograph DDD, got his attention to visit the Nikon factory. He did not buy the 8.5cm F2, got the 5cm F1.5 and 13.5cm F4- I have those as well. Probably 100 Nikkor lenses in F-Mount, S-Mount, and Contax mount. I will not be buying any in Z-Mount.