85mm f/1.4 D or G

<p>Good morning Photo.net community.</p>

<p>I know this has been re-hashed a thousand times before on Photo.net and every other photography forum out there, but since it's been a few months since the introduction of the 85mm f/1.4G, I thought I'd get a fresh perspective.</p>

<p>I have the chance to purchase a brand new Nikon USA 85mm f/1.4D, (yes there are a few still kicking around), for around $1100. Is there a significant enough increase in IQ or Performance in the 85mm f/1.4G to justify an additional $600? The only thing that I think could sell me is the ability to MF on the fly, but since I use a few other lenses that don't have an AF-S motor, I think I could live without it.</p>

<p>BTW, I shoot 2 D300s' and this lens would be used primarily for portraits and weddings. I am also planning on purchasing an FX format camera when the D700 replacement is announced.</p>

<p>RS</p>

You can also get AF-S behavior (quick, quiet AF with instant manual override) and some great looking results from

Sigma's new 85/1.4 HSM. It's a serious consideration at $900.

<p>Matt - </p>

<p>Unfortunately, you lost me at Sigma. With as many QC issues that I've had with them in the past, (it took 4 tries to get a good copy of the 17-50mm f/2.8 back in 2007, at which time I decided to stick with Nikon and purchased a 17-55mm f/2.8 for more than double the price) I will no longer consider them when purchasing a new lens. I know Sigma has come a long way in the past few years, but I cannot justify taking the chance again.</p>

<p><em>Side Note: I have no issues pointing anyone towards a Sigma lens when there is a question since, as stated above, their QC seems to have improved. However, you will never find a Sigma lens in my bag...</em></p>

<p>The 85mm/f1.4 AF-D used to be a $900 lens for a new, gray-market version before the big Japanese camera price increase 2 years ago. I see B&H currently still has that for $999. If you want to save money, maybe try used as some people should be upgrading to the new AF-S version.</p>

<p>Personally, I have been waiting for the AF-S for a while. If I get one, I want the advantage of AF-S. Hopefully the price will come down a bit after the initial demand subsides.</p>

<p>I too would go for the Sigma. I've owned two of their newer, pro lenses, and each was perfect. I compared the Nikon 35mm f1.8G to the Sigma 30mm f1.4 side by side, and kept the Sigma. The Sigma 85mm has modern coatings designed for digital and should outperform the older 85mm D lens just for that reason alone.<br>

Kent in SD</p>

<p>... and there are many other 85/1.4 lenses.<br>

search web for 85/1.4, and possibly find lower/higher cost Vivitar, Zeiss, Contax, Bower, PRO Optic, etc.</p>

<p>...returning to the original question:</p>

<p>The AF/D lens has aperture ring and is easier to use on bellows, reverse mount ring, extension rings.<br>

If you have a better Nikkor lens for Macro/Micro, this does not matter to you.</p>

<p>Richard: I've chosen plenty of Nikkor lenses over third party options. Like you, I went with Nikon's 17-55/2.8, and have also chosen their 70-200/2.8, their Micro lenses, and others. Like I said, it's a consideration! On these big fast primes, lenses like Sigma's 50/1.4 show a significant departure from Nikon's design priorities and the resulting optical recipe, and your shooting style/subject matter has as much to do with whether that's the right fit than does the QC. I'm using three of Sigma's EX lenses, and they've been perfect from day one, and have held up to years, now, of my Neanderthal style in the field. In the case of the fast primes, I also simply like the visual results better than their Nikon counterparts. This is <em>not</em> true of the wide-normal and tele zooms, and hence my choices. I'm certainly not debating your preferences or doubting your experiences - merely relating mine.</p>

<p>I think it's a choice between the new 85/1.5G with the AF-S and Nano coating and latest optical formulation versus the 85/1.8D. Yes you lose a fraction of a stop, but the 1.8 has certain optical superiority. If you go fro the 1.4D, I'd shop around for a bargain, they're out there for around $800 if you have patience.</p>

<p>The AF-S lens's optics are different from the AF-D's. KR's review suggests that the corners are significantly sharper; the main objection I'd have is the hellacious degree of longitudinal chromatic aberration (aka spherochromatism) - but the same applies to its predecessor, and this defect bothers me more than it seems to bother most others (which is why I have no personal experience of either lens and am only collating internet reviews).<br />

<br />

I would guess the corner performance of the AF-D probably won't bother you as much on a DX camera as on on FX; how much do you rely on the corners of the image being sharp in shots taken wide open? This seems to be a matter of shooting style - much as some complained about the 70-200 VR1 at 200mm on a full frame body, and others didn't notice the corners were blurry.<br />

<br />

Good luck. I'm sure you'll be happy with either.</p>

<p>Lenses at such price may be considered an important investment by some... I wonder if ten years from now screw type lenses will be still usable on most cameras. If the tendency is to avoid focusing motors on bodies, I see a better future for an AFS lens.</p>

<p>I currently prefer AiS over AF/AFD lenses. I got rid of many AF units in favour of AFS ones. Personally, the value of AF/AFD lenses are highly reduced if updated with AFS. My intention is not to buy <em>new</em> screw-type lenses anymore.</p>

<p>Jose, I think the demise if the in-body AF motor is a long way off. Nikon still sells many AF-D Nikkors.</p>

<p>Dan - I've heard mixed reports (not having one) on the bokeh of the 85 f/1.8. Can you comment? I'm far more likely to get one than either f/1.4 lens. Currently my short-portrait lens is a 90mm f/2.8 Tamron macro lens, and I concede that an extra stop-and-a-bit might be a good thing if the image quality doesn't take too much of a hit.</p>

 

<p>Thank you everyone for your quick responses.</p>

<p>@Matt and Kent - Thank you both for your perspectives. It is the reasons you state that I will recommend Sigma lenses to anyone looking for a cost effective alternative to Nikon.</p>

<p>@Shun - I want to re-iterate that this is not gray market and is 100% Nikon USA. The shop that has this lens is a large New England Retailer that, AFAIK does not deal in gray market Nikon...they will occasionally get refurbished, but never gray market.</p>

<p>@ Dan Brown - No...there is no choice between the 85mm f/1.4 and f/1.8. I have no interest in the f/1.8 lens as I do not find the rendering of OOF areas appealing for portraiture. I am, as previously stated, comparing a brand new 85mm f/1.4D (screw drive, Nikon USA, $1100) to the f/1.4G (Nano Coating, AF-S, $1699).</p>

<p>@ Frank - I'm really not interested in shooting Macro/Micro photography...not my style and I don't have the patience for it. If I did, this would be a no-brainer as I would need the aperture ring for bellows use. This lens would be strictly for event and portraiture use.</p>

<p>@ Andrew - The chromatic aberration doesn't really bother me as this is easily corrected in PS/Lightroom/NX2. I'm not big on KR...I take everything he says, run it through my BS filter and then re-read it. However, I believe, when comparing to other reviews, the corners are sharper on FX/FF cameras. This doesn't bother me in the slightest as I'm looking for a softer appearance for flattering portraits.</p>

<p>@ Jose - I'm pretty sure that Nikon has no intention of eliminating screw-drive AF in their higher end cameras any time soon. There are too many pros using these lenses to abandon every one of them. However, your perspective is an interesting one and one that I will take into consideration.</p>

<p>RS</p>

 

 

<p>Probably; for sure I cannot predict the end of that technology... it`s not my intention. In fact, AiS lenses has been made (or are still made?) almost thirty years after the first AF ones, even after the discontinuation of the F3. But there is a difference, AFS and manual focus lenses have something different to offer, while AF ones are simply outdated (although still plenty usable, <em>and cheaper</em>. I know it, I still have to use some AF/AFD ones... :)</p>

<p>No worries, the 1.4s are bokeh champs, and part of the trade off for 1.8 sharpness and corner performance is more "edgy" bokeh. But, in teh greater scheme of all things bokeh, the 1.8 is no slouch either. Bokeh is a very subjective matter indeed.</p>

<p>Richard, my point is that if I were to buy the 85mm/f1.4 AF-D, as long as I can save $100, I would buy gray. There is no VR and no AF motor; there is not a whole lot that can go wrong and if so, a lot of places can fix it. But given that the AF-D is now the old model, I expect prices to drop further, especially in the used market.</p>

<p>Richard: To clarify, the longitudinal chromatic aberration exhibited by the 85mm f/1.4s is <i>not</i> easily correctable in software. <i>Lateral</i> chromatic aberration (different colours having different magnifications at the focal plane) can be fixed; <i>longitudinal</i> aberrations affect out-of-focus regions - effectively the angle of the cone-of-confusion differs with wavelength. (I was about to point you at Wikipedia for this, but their chromatic aberration article actually doesn't mention it, although the diagram of an achromatic doublet does show the reason for the effect.) There's a pretty spectacular example in a shot of a battery charger in KR's 85mm f/1.4 AF-S review. Because fixing it requires depth information, it's not a trivial software operation.<br />

<br />

It may <i>still</i> not bother you, of course - most people don't seem to mind. In fact, KR seems to claim it's beneficial, because it makes greenery in the background blend in to white highlights; I've spent long enough removing green and purple highlights from the hair of a bride whose wedding dance I shot with a wide open 135mm f/2 (by smudging bits of the A and B channels in the LAB colour space) that my opinion differs - I, too, apply a BS filter to Ken's reviews. I recommend you don't go looking for it, because it won't bother you until you start seeing it everywhere, and you'll end up buying a 200 f/2 to make the problem go away, like I did...<br />

<br />

Dan: Thanks. I'll have another think the next time I have enough money to drop on an 85mm lens (which will probably be about 2020 after all my recent purchases). If only I could spend as much time shooting as I do wittering about lenses. :-)</p>

<p>I'll toss my 2c in for SIgma as well. I received an 85m f/1.4 from Sigma a while back and after shooting countless exposures it has become my go to lens for portraiture. It is simply superb especially at the asking price!</p>

<p>Does anyone have a link to a full review of the Sigma, please?</p>

<p>@ Andrew: Thank you for the clarification on the longitudinal chromatic aberration exhibited by the 85mm f/1.4. I'm sure it won't bother me as I shoot fairly regularly with a 105mm f/2DC wide open quite regularly. This lens exhibits the characteristics you describe in that I have had to remove green and purple highlights from a blonde bride's hair on many occasions when using this lens.</p>

<p>RS</p>

<p>Richard - I'm glad it's not just me! (But you have my sympathy from having to do it.) Off-topic, if you have a good knack for this fix, I'd be interested - as I said, my technique is to convert to LAB and smudge the AB channels around the fringes, but it's not ideal. I'm glad to hear this won't bug you - in which case, I hope you enjoy whichever 85mm you decide to get!</p>

<p>I have been very happy with the 85/1.4D for the applications the OP mentioned; it's perhaps my most favourite lens of all. By the way, I also use it a lot for travel architectural shots and never noticed the reported corner softness on 12 MP FX. The 1.4G version is contrastier wide open, and resistant to flare but I have to ask if the increased contrast is a good thing or a bad thing in people photography. I tend to prefer lenses like the DC Nikkors for facial shots because they do not accentuate blemishes and render people very beautifully. This preference is partly based on input from subjects, which tends to confirm that Zeiss-like detail contrast makes for unappealing portraits; significantly lower contrast lighting has to be used and this is not always possible in practical situations. I have to wonder if Nikon went this way because nano-coating sells and has to be put into all expensive lenses, even those that may not benefit from it, or because it shows as improved test chart performance. I'm worried about this myself; the 70-200 II has presented me many problems due to this. For landscape and technical subjects, it's great. For people, you'd better be in the studio with soft lights. Just see Cliff Mauntner's 85/1.4G comments on his blog, do you like this kind of results? I think technical lens reviews should only be read as they are, measurements of something technical, not as a measure of image quality as seen by human observers.</p>

<p>I owned the 85/1.8 AF for 13.5 years and used it very little due to what I see as questionable construction of the mechanics holding the rear elements in place, and because it would frequently produce washed-out images in overcast conditions outdoors with some sky in the frame. However, with these caveats it can also render beautiful images.</p>

<p>By the way at least on FX the 85 PC-E Nikkor (and presumably its predecessor without "E") is an excellent portrait lens on its own right. Though I suppose at weddings you probably want autofocus for many candid images, but still this lens is capable of very beautiful imagery.</p>

<p>I've tried both the Sigma 85mm 1.4 and the New Nikon 85mm 1.4, for a faster AF Sigma wins, it can focus in some very harsh conditions, But the new Nikon 85mm is sharper then the Sigma!So i went with the Nikon 85mm 1.4 AF-D instead of the G lens & the Sigma, overall the cost was better! & i found it faster then the new 85mm G lens, in the AF & Sharper! So overall i'm sure what ever one you decide or whats in your budget! Either way any 3 of those lenses will be great!</p>

<p>Hi Richard,</p>

<p>I recently purchased an 85/1.4D new from the local Nikon dealer.</p>

<p>I looked at both the D and the G before deciding, since they had both in stock.</p>

<p>IM[-H]O the G is overpriced and cheaply made. I didn't check the country of origin, but I'm willing to bet it's made in china.</p>

<p>I recently purchased a Nikon 10-24 zoom lens, and returned it when I found that it was made in china.</p>

<p>Nikon used to be a great camera company. I wish that was still true. I've been shooting their products for over 45 years, to the exclusion of all other 35mm brands.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

<p>Ilkka, your post has raised the hair on my neck. Not so much from what you say, but from the recollections it brings to the forefront of my mind.</p>

<p>First, there is no doubt in my mind that the current round of lens redesigns is a thin veil for staggering price increases to us end users. Just consider this 85D 85G, or the 200VR to 200VRII, and up and down the line. Every time we get a new product announcement, I now cringe at the effect on my pocketbook. These all come with staggering cost increases and nearly intangible performance increases (and arguably performance decreases in some case).</p>

<p>On the other hand, I have no sympathy for lenses that are too sharp and contrasty, there are plenty controls on PhotoShop to take the edge off of them, but no way to make a poor lens better.</p>

<p>That's my two cents.</p>