Jump to content

AF-D 105mm DC f2 *versus* AF-D 85mm f1.4 D (IF)


sven keil

Recommended Posts

Dear folks,

 

I would like to ask you for contributions in order to compile a definite

side-by-side comparison of the classical portrait lenses AF-D 105mm DC f2

("105") and AF-D 85mm f1.4 D ("85"). The background is that I want to buy one

of them in the near future for my D70s, and frankly don't know what is the right

choice. I know that defocus (DC) of the "105" is a nifty thing to have, that

f1.4 endows you to cope better with available light, that effective focal length

is multiplied by a factor of 1.5, and know about Bjoern's evaluations. Instead

of discussing shooting habits and features (there a already a lot of good forums

about these issues), I would like you to comment on the following topics:

 

1) Which is sharper in terms of spatial resolution? Could you post center crops

and corner crops of sample shots for near (e.g. newspaper text, test chart etc)

and far distances?

2) Related to the first point: I don't want to shoot only portraits, so how do

those lenses perform at infinity (e.g. skylines at night)?

3) Which one reacts better in terms of autofocus? Which one is less noisy in

terms of autofocus?

4) Related to the last point: which one is better suited for shooting objects in

motion - (a) predictable movement (b) more random movement?

5) Some forums, and also some sample images I saw suggest that there may exist

sample variation between the different lenses. For example, several users

claimed that the focus point engaged with autofocus of the "105" is not exactly

the physical focus. Similary, I saw 85mm samples which appeared breathtaking on

a D70, but average on a D2H (I don't remember the site, and perhaps this effect

is due to over-blurring the images in the downsampling process). What are your

experiences?

 

I would be great if you commented heavily - post meaningful examples (or links

to them) - and thanks for anybody who takes the time to contribute!!

 

Matthias

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the 85mm not the 105mm. I don't think that the 6mp or 4mp cameras are capable of showing the sharpness of these lenses to their full potential. These are best of breed lenses and not cheap glass.

 

I have seen the large photos from the 105 from fine grain film and its wonderful. The only problem with the 105mm is its now 158mm including the crop. Is this still a portrait lens? Even my 85mm is now 127mm but a lot of people like this for portraits. The only saving grace is that the crop factor doesn't flatten the image like a real tele would.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Harvey - of course you are right. But technology is moving fast, and I'm quite sure that sooner or later everybody carries 12 Megapixel sensors around (to most of the folks it seems to be the one decisive argument when it comes to buy a digital camera...). And because both lenses aren't cheap, I want to make the right choice, given that in the future I'll have a new Nikon with a higher resolution. But please don't make this subject for the current discussion (i.e., to what sizes sensors and Megapixels may grow etc.).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can't go wrong with the 85 or 105. However, in terms of focal length, the 85 and the 105 are awkward sizes with the digital crop factor. I've gone to using a 135 f/2 for telephoto work and a 17-55 2.8 for everything else.

 

The 85 is faster focusing than the 105 or 135, but not by much on the D70s. They come no where close to the focus speeds of the newer VR lenses, if that matters to you.

 

When considering the 85, 105 or 135, the only thing that matters is your personal preference of the focal length. These really are three of Nikon's best lenses. There is no need to photograph resolution charts. Just go to the store and try them out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rich - take a look at http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=16112489

where there are some comparisons of the 135mm vs. the 70-200VR. The guy who made the test shots was disappointed (and he was right to be) and finally got his "135" replaced by another one from Nikon. However, his new sample behaved the same way. Moreover, Bjoern rates the "135" at 4, and the "105" at 5. Therefore, I think resolution charts are more informative than praising words. I actually remember that another guy mentioned that his "85" was quite a bit sharper than his "105". The problem is I can't go to any shop here because nobody has the "105" - even the "85" will be hard to find, and costs about 50% more than ordering them by internet...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An alternative would be to get a used 85mmF1.8 which is an excellent lens and spend the rest of the money on a trip and do some shooting :-)

On the trip you can keep track of the number of people on random or predictable movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Walter. You'd be missing something if you neglected the 85mm f/1.8.

 

Because the D200 can capture so much detail, some of my great AIS lenses, like the 85 f/2 were a little iffy. I upgraded to the 85 f/1.8 AF-D and it is a superb lens. I couldn't be happier with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the 105 & really like it - a lot - originally had one & sold it during a sell off to buy other items - ended up buying another one. I'm using a D200 & F5 & very pleased with both samples.

 

If I have time this weekend I will try to shoot some sample shots with it & also with an 85 1.4 AI that my son has - I know it's not the same as the new AF version but optically should be close to the same.

 

If you buy from B&H (& others) you can return very easily if the sample you get is not to your liking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<em>I would like to ask you for contributions in order

to compile a definite side-by-side comparison of the classical

portrait lenses AF-D 105mm DC f2 ("105") and AF-D 85mm

f1.4 D ("85"). The background is that I want to buy one

of them in the near future for my D70s, and frankly don't know

what is the right choice. --MS Keil<br>

</em><br>

105mm is not a classic focal length for D70s with its

16x24mm format. At a portrait distance a 105mm on DX gives an

angle of view of something between 135mm and 180mm on 24x36mm.

This makes 105/2.0D DC more of a fashion lens than a portrait

lens on the DX formats.<br>

<br>

Focal length determines the image magnification. Together, the

focal length and format dimensions determine what is included in

the photograph, (angle of view). Playing with crop factors

a 105mm lens has an angle of view on 4x5 like that of a 32mm

lens on 24x36mm and an angle of view of like that of 160mm on DX.<br>

<br>

Its the distance from the subject to the lens that

determines perspective. The reason that 85mm and 105mm lenses are

classic portrait lenses on 35mm is the typical subject to lens

distance that these lenses suggest. <br>

<br>

Where 50mm, 85mm, 105mm and 135mm are typically used for

portraits on 35mm the equivalents on DX are 34mm, 56mm, 69mm and

89mm. To get similar background blurring to what you can achieve

on 35mm you also need a stop or so faster lens. The lens I

recommend is the 85/1.4D IF AF though I feel its a bit too

long for general portrait use.<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've only owned the 105mm, and while I know that this doesn't directly contribute to answer any of your points, I still think the big reason to choose the 105mm over the 85 is if you are *really* into portraiture. The soft bokeh of the DC lenses can be changed to make either foreground or background elements soft - and no other lens has this ability to "switch".

 

And if you are in the situation where you may want to add some soft focus to your subject - it's right there. No need for an additional filter. You can also adjust the amount you want to throw onto the image.

 

It isn't to say that I'm the kind of portait shooter who typically has a lot of foreground elements - 90 percent of the time I'm wanting to favor the background. But there are also times when I am using the lens for just general shooting, and I do like the fact that no matter what kind of situation I am in I never have to worry about having harsh OOF elements when using that lens.

 

Sample variation? Hmm... I'm sure it exists, but probablt not to a great degree given the pricetags of the two lenses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<em>1) Which is sharper in terms of spatial etc.

--MS Keil<br>

</em><br>

Im I alone on this page as one who understands the

importance of perspective in a portrait, formal or candid, or am

I just too lazy to read all the responses?<br>

<br>

<em>But please don't make this subject for the current

discussion (i.e., to what sizes sensors and Megapixels may grow

etc.). --MS Keil<br>

</em><br>

To what size sensors may grow is very relevant. If you understood

perspective in a photograph and how focal length relates to

format you would not say this. Ill try once more, then Ill

give up...<br>

<br>

With a 105mm lens on the DX formats you are going to need to

backup a fair distance to get a tight head shot let alone a head

and shoulders image. This distance will flatten the perspective

which in turn makes the subject look aloof (distant emotionally,

reserved, remote). Is this what you want?<br>

<br>

MS Keil, your list of technical questions do not matter much

unless you want the lens for something other than photographing a

person with a feeling of emotional connection between subject and

viewer. The magic of the 105/2.5 Nikkor on 24x36mm is in the

typical shooting distance not the number 105 and in

the balance of optical qualities. Only part of these translate

intact to the DX format.<br>

<br>

Regards,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all answers so far! I'm well aware about the crop factor etc involved with half-sized sensor, and that perhaps a D70 can't really take advantage of such an expensive lens. However, I think quality cannot hurt in the context of forward planning. Put another way, having a high-quality lens is more likely to work fine with a future camera, which has a bigger resolution. I have considered the 85 f1.8, but think that the "85" (f1.4) or the "105" fits more what I like to have. Unfortunately I wasn't be able to find an objective comparison of these lenses on the web. It is not the subjective impression what I'm looking for. What's wrong with trying to make a more technical comparison? Why do people think doing it is superfluous? It's not "measurebation" I think - it's objectivity. Zeiss lenses and Leica lenses are often compared to others by means of resolution charts. I would only like to see some side-by-side shots of both lenses for near and far objects. I don't want to shoot only portraits, and i would like to know whether these lenses are "top nodge nikkors" in every respect.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<i>"i would like to know whether these lenses are "top nodge nikkors" in every respect."</i><Br><Br>

They are. The 85/1.4 has 2/3rds more light gathering that the f/1.8 version, and is better built. The 105/2 is slightly longer, has better build, and has DC. The 105/2.5 is the best there is out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nikon publishes MTF graphs for these lenses on its Japanese site:<p>

 

<a href="http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/lens/af/singlefocal/telephoto/ai_af_85mmf14d_if.htm">85/1.4</a><p>

<a href="http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/lens/af/singlefocal/telephoto/ai_af_dc_105mmf2d.htm">105/2</a><p>

I don't see where these graphs indicate the apertures being represented.<p>

Neither focal length seems ideal as a portrait lens on the D70. If Nikon is truly committed to the DX sensor size, it would be nice to see it produce fast prime lenses recognizable as the digital equivalents of its classic portrait lenses for film. It's unclear what Nikon is waiting for if it plans never to produce a full-frame DSLR. Given the existing options, I would choose the 85mm for portraits, but it would not surprise me if the 105mm has better resolution if the 85mm is designed to maximize wide-open performance. All other things being equal, it should be signifcantly easier to achieve very high performance in an f/2 telephoto than in an f/1.4. I stress that I don't have anything concrete to support these speculations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you again for your comments! I just took a look at the modulation transfer function graphs on the japanese webside, but I am not able to figure out what the difference between the red and the blue curves is. Speculating a little bit and assuming that the abscissa represents spatial frequency and the ordinate the normalized response amplitude, then at least the solid curves suggests indeed that the "105" is ahead at higher spatial frequencies. The "85" appears to loose response at higher frequencies. Perhaps somebody who understands japanese could help...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Matthias:

 

I just saw your last two responses & for a few moments I thought I was in the Leica forum :) (where I spend a bit of time as well)

 

As others have said - you can't go wrong with either the 85 or the 105. Looking at graphs & data do not always add up to what you may like or need. If you are trying to buy the best possible lens for the money - still a toss up. I'm still waiting for Nikon to make a 70 f/1.4 that would finally make me happy. Or a 70 f/2 DC - maybe someday.

 

Tell you what - get the 85 f/1.4 & run your own tests & then I will send you my 105 f/2.0 & then you send the 85 to me & you can draw your own conclusions. I will of course do my own testing. Then we return the lenses after say a one week period. Can always have someone here on the forum act as an "escrow" person to be on the safe side with no expenses incurred by them - I'm willing to bear the cost of two shipments. In fact - if you don't want your new lens used it can stay packaged with the escrow person.

 

I would actually like some method of doing this for other lenses as I have no means of renting & trying before using before buying.

 

Either lens is an easy sell so simply get one or the other & have fun or feel free to take me up on the offer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Lee - first thanks for your kind offer. I was thinking it over and over again and after this weekend, where I shot a few candids in a local shopping mall with a 50mm/f1.8 - I could really have needed f1.4 then. I think I'll get the 85mm - it seems more versatile in terms of light. For the defocus effect I could use my old 50mm/f1.4 (unfortunately it is currently under repair), from f1.4 to f2.0 (see attached image, fullsize crop, D70s with 50mm/f1.4 at 1.4, no manipulation except erasing the license plate number) it is reminiscent of the defocus effect I have seen in some samples with the "105" (http://www.stacken.kth.se/~maxz/defocuscontrol/), perhaps with less contrast though (but feel free to comment). BUYING/selling: In contrast to (online) shops in other countries I looked at, here in europe the "85" is also a little bit more economic than the "105", and I think the "85" re-sells more easy than the "105". BOKEH: On a half-frame sensor, as David pointed out above, the 85 transforms into somewhat equivalent to a 134mm focal length on the 35mm format. He suggests to go for the "85mm" to obtain a comparable bokeh as with 35mm (if I understood him right), since an extra stop is needed. Anyway, perhaps somebody could tell me what are the typical shooting distances to the persons at 135mm focal length (only approximately of course - something like "for head shots the distance would be 5 meters, and for the whole body it would be 12 meters"). Again thanks to everybody who responded. SPECULATION: In my opinion Nikon will end up endowing their cameras with full-sized sensors. It's simply because others already did. But who would buy the DX-lenses if Nikon told us that they would come up with a full-sized sensor in the future? The secret has to be kept :-)<div>00HEy3-31090984.jpg.1b5e92ae98655f92abf7c4424b28a4ef.jpg</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not the same as the soft-focus effect of the DC lenses. And neither would intentionally throwing the 50mm f/1.4 out of focus slightly, because even with the soft-focus effect being used, the subject is still in focus. Just that they have a degree of spherical abberation "smearing" over the image. You also have to remember that the DC ring is not just used for soft-focus - it's also used to control the background/foreground and how far you want the background/foreground to be rendered to "mush". But once again, you can't achieve that effect with a non DC Nikkor lens.

 

For those who are interested, the patent for the DC Nikkor lenses explains in detail how they actually effect the image.

 

http://tinyurl.com/hlssr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...