AF-D 85/1.4 vs Ais 105/1.8 vs AF-D 105/2 DC on FX

<p>Hi there, and sorry for the title.<br>

I have the opportunity to trade my well-used AF-D 85/1.4 for a 105/1.8 Ais or maybe a AF-D 105/2 DC.<br>

I'm pretty sure the lenses in question are well-known among the Nikkor-afficionados here at photo.net.<br>

I'm interested in your opinions about their pictorial value for shots wide-open at medium distances (full length portraits as an example, in general the performance from 3 up to about 10 meters). <br>

How useful is the DC-mechanism for this kind of shooting?<br>

Will there be a big difference in terms of flare or longitudinal CAs?<br>

Many thanks in advance, Georg!</p>

<p>I have not personally shot the 85/1.4, but from that list, I would go with the 105/2 for sure. It's a fine lens and runs well wide open. My 105/1.8 (film days) was not all that contrasty wide open, IIRC, it needed f2.8 to sharpen up well. IMO, the 85/1.4D has been eclipsed now by both the 85/1.8G and the 85/1.4G, so it would be out of the question from me.</p>

<p>Just my opinion, and the difference between 85 & 105 is negligible for my style of shooting. But, for the sake of full disclosure, my current short tele's are the 85/1.8D and 135/2D.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

<p>I haven't used the 105/1.8 but I do have the 105/2 DC and it's a good lens from f/2.8 onwards but at f/2 the image contains tons of spherical aberrations. By contrast the 85/1.4 AF-S is much better even at f/1.4 let alone f/2. I like the DC Nikkors for their rendition of people (at f/2.8 to f/5.6) but at this point in lens development I would <strong>highly</strong> recommend the 85/1.4 AF-S instead, especially since you single out shooting wide open. It's in a class of its own IMHO.</p>

<p>I have the 135 f/2 DC; mine, at least (and I've been told it was normal on at least one occasion) has horrendous longitudinal CA - I believe this is partly by design in the DC mechanism, although it's possible that mine is a bad sample (I've still not had it checked). I believe the 105 DC may be slightly better-behaved, but obviously won't throw the background out of focus so far. They produce beautifully smooth backgrounds stopped down a bit, but I've heard a lot of advice that they're not the best performers wide open. If you're interested in the way my 135 behaves when I provoke it, have a look on <a href="http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00ZIso">this thread</a>.<br />

<br />

In the reviews I've seen, I'm far from blown away by the 85mm f/1.4 AF-D, especially regarding its edge performance at wide apertures. The AF-S is better, but still has very visible LoCA and is much more expensive. I resorted to an 85mm f/1.4 Samyang, which is manual focus, but probably sharper than the AF-D (off-centre) while being much cheaper - if you're happy with manual focus, it's a definite option.<br />

<br />

For more money and some background separation, the 150mm Sigma macro lenses seem to be pretty much LoCA free. I got a 200mm f/2 for the same reason, but it's a preposterously over-blown solution to the problem that I'd only wish on you if you have a strong left arm and chequebook. Good luck.</p>

<p>I own all of these lenses, the f1,8 lens probably close to 20 years by now. Mainly use is seen by my 85 mm lens, due to its great performance wide open and closed down slightly, and accurate autofocus with D700 and formerly D200.<br>

The 105mm f1,8 lens needs to be closed down at least to f2,8 to become better than usable as noted before, I find manual focus too slow for moving subjects.<br>

The DC lens is excellent, my sample is good wide open though decidedly better closed down one step. AF is a problem with this lens though, I use my sample set to F (=forward) 2,0 and maximum AF fine tune +20 (if I remember correctly). Even then the DC lens focuses slower and less consistently than the 85mm lens.<br>

So the 85mm remains my favorite choice. The f1,8 lens will probably go for sale if I find the time.</p>

<p>Many thanks for sharing your experiences!<br>

I have the chance to try several lenses (including the AF-D 85/1.4 and the Ais 105/1.8) at the end of this week<br>

- maybe I'm able to come to a decision then. Too bad - neither the AF-S 85/1.4 nor the 105 DC are part of this short evaluation.<br>

I already have an awful lot of short to medium tele-optics, but none of it satisfied to 100% wide-open at medium distances.<br>

I'm willing to part from the AF-D 85/1.4 because the new AF-S 85/1.8G is a better performer AF-wise for indoor-sports and a friend is highly interested in my „old” AF-D.<br>

Thanks a lot, Georg!</p>

<p>I love the 85 1.4D. Very pleasing as a portrait lens on FF. I have had 2 copies of the 105 f2 DC and both have had problems with autofocus. By comparison, I have the 135 f2 DC and find that to be one of my sharpest lenses. At wide aperture I find the chromatic aberation but the overall sharpness with it stopped down a bit is music to my ears. I will admit that I have not spent the time to learn how to utilize the DC control. I got these lenses for low light performance. The 85 D and 135 D are great, less so my copy of the 105.</p>

<p>In photo.net one can always find opinion that fuels the NAS.</p>

<p>You have 2 reasons to get the "G" lens. Faster for auto focus in sport application - but your application seems to be confined to 10 meters or so, and to make your friend happy. Otherwise ? - perhas you do not have other significant reason.<br>

Seems that you have your mind set on a longer 105 mm lens, or get the 135/2.</p>

 

<p>Since it wasn't one of my criticisms above, I'd should report that I, also, had autofocus problems with the 135 f/2 DC. The case that made me buy the 200 f/2 was shooting (unofficially) a friend's wedding dance with the 135, getting a beautifully-framed shot with smooth background, but with half her jewelry pink and all her hair green. A lot of post processing sort-of rescued it, but not perfectly - if you don't pixel-peep, it's fine, but I didn't want to deliver an image that was only good up to 6x4. I thought I remembered something in the manual about not trusting autofocus, but now I check it was probably just about not trusting the focus scale when DC is in use. I've not tried AF adjustment in the camera yet, which might help - but (unless my lens is broken) I'd still have colour haloes either side of the focal plane. If the LoCA <i>isn't</i> supposed to be there, I'd be very happy to recommend the lens - for the right subject and background, it's very good (although I bought it so I <i>didn't</i> have to worry about the background) - but my <a href="http://imaging.nikon.com/history/nikkor/32/index.htm">understanding</a> is that the LoCA is deliberate and part of the defocus effect.<br />

<br />

As Robert says, the DC is a lovely lens stopped down a bit - but so is the 135 f/2.8 AI that I bought for a tenth of the price. I spent a lot on a 135 f/2 DC to get an f/2 lens, and most advice seems to be that it's more disappointing wide open than most modern designs (although very few lenses are at their <i>best</i> wide open). If they're not good wide open, they're not so good for low light...<br />

<br />

Borgis - you [presumably usually] have your DC set to prioritise front bokeh? That unusual - most people would, I expect, want to make the background blur smoothly rather than the foreground, on the basis that it's rarer to have foreground objects out of focus. That may be exactly the case you care about, but I just noted it as curious. If shooting wide open (and I don't want to add focus shift to its problems), mine lives on R2 most of the time.<br />

<br />

Of course, if you want smooth bokeh without such LoCA problems, Sony make an interesting STF lens. It's not a low-light performer, though.<br />

<br />

I'm sure that the 85 f/1.4 AF-S is the sharpest option being considered - I'm convinced that the Samyang is better than the AF-D, probably comparable with the Sigma (although it's useless if the subject won't hold still). I've not had any rangefinder problems with the Samyang. The Zeiss 100mm f/2 is probably one of the sharper alternatives, but you pay for the privilege. Arguably there are more important properties than absolute sharpness for (candid) portraiture, though, which is why I worry so much about LoCA and bokeh in general, and why I had no interest in paying Nikon's going rate for the 85mm f/1.4 AF-S.<br />

<br />

(Not that any of this is as significant as, say, lighting, or the photographer knowing what he's doing, which I don't. But it's harder to obsess about these things on an equipment forum.)<br />

<br />

Btw, if it makes you feel any better, the 200 f/2 VR mk 1 that I own has a known flare problem (not that I tend to shoot it into the light). The updated version, for half as much again, is probably better, but no lens is perfect, even for silly money and ergonomics. Although the 125mm Voigtlander APO-Lanthar seems to be close, if you can find one...</p>

<p>I was in love with my 85 f1.4 AFD for many years, then I bought the 105 f2 DC AFD and after a couple months I sold the 85, I just like the colors out of the 105 so much better especially skin tones, it is just an outstanding lens. And still great on my D800</p>

<p>Thanks for your recommendations!</p>

<p>In the first place I wanted to replace my old AF-D 85/1.4 with a used PC Micro 85/2.8, but after handling the Ais 105/1.8 I wasn't sure anymore and other options, including the 105 DC popped up.<br>

For everyday-pictures including indoor-sports the new AF-S 85/1.8G suits me just fine, except for longitudinal CA's at wider apertures in harsh light.<br>

So I'm looking for a special-purpose lens - for shots wide open at medium distances, in good light.</p>

<p>Based on my experiences so far using live-view is at medium distances probably the way to focus - regular AF isn't just reliable enough for critical focus.<br>

It might sound silly, but fast lenses really seem to benefit from tripod- and live-view-use, even if the shutterspeed is very short.<br>

I already have the 200/2 VR, an old Ais 135/2 (it's a bit long for the kind of stuff I have in mind) and as a rare bird a converted Summicron-R 90/2.<br>

Maybe the planned unscientific, rather informal test will help me to make a decision.<br>

Andrew, APO-Lanthar and Makro-Planar are unfortunately out of question.<br>

Regarding the AF-S 85/1.4 - has anyone here tried it against it's cheap sibling (AF-S 85/1.8G)?<br>

The DC-lenses seem to split the Nikon-community - some users absolutely love the DCs, others are not impressed to say the least.<br>

Thanks a bunch for your words of advice, Georg!</p>

<p>Georg - given your specific question about LoCA, I'm now wondering whether I'm not the only one who got a 200 f/2 so as to avoid it! Impressive collection, nonetheless.<br />

<br />

I can report that the Samyang 85mm's LoCA isn't bad enough to bother me (although it exists), where my 135 DC's is, especially at R2 (but then I bought it - and switched to Nikon - partly because of the DC feature) - but I'm not sure whether the 85mm f/1.4 AF-S is actually worse, or whether I've just pixel-peeped at pathological examples; I just decided I wasn't paying that much money for the performance it gave. This thread has reminded me to drop my 135mm off at Nikon UK and ask them to check it. If it's "fixable", I'll be a very happy bunny.<br />

<br />

I'm sure the behaviour of the DC lenses partly depends on the use. I often tend to shoot wide open at candid subjects with a messy, often black and white, background and with monochrome boundaries crossing the focal plane - this shows up LoCA very badly. Shooting outdoors with foliage in the background and from far enough away that the subject is entirely within the focal plane, especially with live view, I'm sure I'd not have a word to say against my lens. The shorter one obviously won't lose the background as effectively as an 85mm f/1.4, though - but if 135 is too long, that doesn't help (and nor would my 150mm f/2.8 Sigma suggestion).<br />

<br />

In theory, it should always be easier to limit aberrations in a slower lens, and I have a feeling that the only way I'll ever find a normal lens I'm happy with wide open is to stick a 150mm f/2.8 on a 5x4. Sadly, I've never met a short lens that's very fast and LoCA free (from anyone - the Canon f/1.2 lenses aren't, for example) - if I had, I probably wouldn't have got the 200mm, since it's probably longer than I usually need (much though I love it). There's a market there if someone feels like playing with some ED glass or fluorite and making an f/1.4 apochromat. If anyone sets up the "design your own lens" service that I've suggested in the past,<br />

<br />

That said, I've never used a Leica 90mm APO-SUMMICRON. Georg - other than it being a bit less good at losing background than the other options being discussed, are you happy with yours? (Is yours the APO?) Maybe I should start lusting for glass again, as well as a D800, although it's obviously easier to deal with LoCA at f/2 than at f/1.4...</p>

<p>Just to say a bit more so that my post doesn't appear as negative, the 105 DC was my very favorite medium tele for many years, and I still like its rendition a lot, has produces excellent resistance to flare and ghosting, even though not nano-coated. The colors are more subdued than those of the 105 VR or the 85/1.4, so the skin tones and fabrics seem to be more easily rendered more accurately. The images do not show accentuated skin blemishes (the 105 VR and 70-200II are notorious for that) and the contrast of the shadows is low, so it's very well suited for working with contrasty light if you should encounter it. For landscape photography the lowish contrast can be less desired but it's not a problem either, it just doesn't bring out the details as well as a Micro-Nikkor would. That doesn't mean it's soft - it is extremely sharp at f/4-5.6 just that it has a different look to the details. It's as if the aberrations were designed to produce images with the outline of the face extremely sharply rendered yet the skin looks smooth. People whose portraits I've shot with the 105 DC love me for it, if I were not a scientist I would talk about magic.</p>

<p>But with the D3X, I now think the 105 DC image wide open is simply blurry at the pixel level. It can still be used for practical applications at f/2, just that the 85/1.4 AF-S is more suited to that application as it renders better sharpness and more reliable autofocus at f/1.4-f/2. For stopped down use (f/4) I often bring out the 105 DC or 135 DC. The 105 DC is stronger of the two, with a bit sharper image, and without the flare that the 135 DC sometimes has. I find both DC Nikkors to be a bit imprecise in AF, which affects their use at f/2, but as I said before at f/2.8 the 105 DC and by f/4 the 135 DC both yield exquisite image quality. I love the 70-200II's reliability in autofocusing but I hate the deep shadows that it creates, so in a way I'm always struggling as to which lens to bring. Usually it is 85/1.4 AF-S and 135/2 DC these days - I just throw away the slightly out of focus discards from the 135, and love the rest.</p>

<p>The 135 is the one lens which I hope most to be on Nikon's list of lenses to be updated with AF-S. And then the 180 and also I hope they put VR into the 300/4. I don't need all of these lenses but at least one modern design at 135mm or 180mm with AF-S would make me swipe my card instantly. While optically the 200/2 has solved many issues it's just such a pain to use and lug around. It's intimidating to subjects, too. For concert photography and indoor speeches etc. it's wonderful though, if it weren't for the back pain that comes with its hand-held use.</p>

<p>Regarding CA, the CA in the DC Nikkors has never been an issue for me. In the 180/2.8 there is a huge amount of longitudinal CA though, and that together with imprecise focusing makes it an f/3.5 lens to me. By that aperture it's "ok", and of the right size. I do shoot it at f/2.8 occasionally when needed but results vary.</p>

<p>About focus fine tune. I had a 105 DC earlier that didn't focus correctly on my D200, and required a fine tune of about + or - 7, don't remember which it was, on my FX cameras. I sold it but then I ended up wanting it back, and the one I got doesn't require any focus fine tune on my current D700 and D3X cameras. The 135 DC that I have doesn't require fine tune, and neither does my 180/2.8, but the 200/2 requires a different fine tune setting for each camera and teleconverter combination that I have! And the errors are quite big, especially evident on long distances to subject. But after I figured that out, that each combination of body + TC needs its own fine tune setting, I used a calibration target with a slanted ruler and got the values down into the cameras and results have been good since! Though there is still some random variations in the focus results I guess that's just the state of the technology at this time.</p>

<p>Ironically the lenses with great sharpness but a rendering which is not so pleasant on faces, seem to have the best AF performance. High detail contrast seems to help AF. But then it's not necessarily how I want my pictures to look like. If I reduce the contrast of the 70-200II images in post-processing then the sharpness seems to go with it, so I have to go with a low contrast setting and then increase sharpness of the details. But still ... I haven't been able to get my processing adjusted so that I like the results as much as I do, out of the box, with the 85/1.4, 105 DC, or 200/2. These lenses seem to be more gentle on people subjects. ;-)</p>

<p>I can post a full body portrait sort of picture (it's really a candid but the subject was stationary) taken at f/2 with the 105DC a couple of weeks ago, tonight as I get to my home computer. It perhaps illustrates the imaging of this lens. </p>

<p>Ilkka - I'll be interested in your image. I suspect I'd be happy if I ever stopped my 135 down, but I bought it to use as an f/2 lens so it's a lot of weight to cart around if it's smaller - by f/4, my 135 f/2.8 AI has quite nice rendering too! I should probably give mine more of a break. (I also need to play with the fine tuning on my 150-500 Sigma, since I also whinge about the quality of that lens, but I think I satisfied myself that <i>nothing</i> was sharp at 500mm. It's been a while since I used them, though.)<br />

<br />

Thanks for the heads-up about the LoCA of the 180mm - I always vaguely lusted after one (although Bjørn's review, despite giving it a 5, claims it isn't perfect). My D800 plans make me worry about both the concept of a 180 f/2.8 and my 80-200, so I'm looking forward to some updated reviews. If I can't get it "fixed", I really need to ditch my 135 f/2 before Nikon get around to replacing it - my belief is that the DC feature confuses so many people that a lot would rather just have a competitor to the EF 135mm f/2 L. On the other hand, if they do a Sony and produce an STF lens by fiddling with the aperture on, say, a 135 f/1.4, I may be after it myself. Could be a tad unwieldy, though.</p>

<p>Andrew, the converted Summicron-R 90/2 is not the APO. The R 90/2 is my favorite lens on my old Leicaflex SL - a sweet handling (and performing) combo. I've found a well-used copy for little money and did the Leitax-conversion. Most of my lenses, including the AF-D 85/1.4, are from the second-hand-market. The 200/2VR (I have version 1) is my favorite Nikkor, it never fails to impress me. A future classic - just like the 14-24. LoCA was never a problem with the „Big Bertha”, maybe that's why LoCA from other lenses is catching my eyes (I shoot the 200VR and some of the 85s under the same lighting conditions side-by-side during indoor-sports-events). Maybe the 200/2 is really close to true apochromatic correction - these lenses shouldn't show any kinds of LoCA, if I'm not wrong.</p>

<p>Ilkka, many thanks for your words. I'm too interested in your 105/2DC-image.<br>

An updated version of the 135/2 would make many Nikon-users happy - not just for portrait-work, but also for sports. </p>

<p>I did a really unscientific „test” today with some fast short tele-lenses and was surprised by the rather small differences between the „combatants”.<br>

I've shot the AF-S 85/1.8G, the AF-D 85/1.4, the converted Summicron-R 90/2 and my friends Ais 105/1.8 wide-open and stopped down to f2.8. Lacking a patient model my glossy Fuji X100 on a glossy tripod had to play „target”. The scene was back-lit thru foliage - just like a place I would choose for portraits. Camera was a D3s, sitting on a sturdy tripod. Focusing was done with live-view at max. magnification.<br>

None of the lenses performed really well wide-open - I had to crank up the sharpening (using Adobe Camera Raw 7.1) quite a bit to get useable results. LoCas could be easily removed with ACR. Sharpest lens was the AF-S 85/1.8G by a tiny margin; the Summicron-R 90/2 was the weakest performer here - but the differences are really small.<br>

At f2.8 the differences were even smaller - the AF-S 85/1.8G and the Ais 105/1.8 were showing a tiny bit more detail than the AF-D and the Leica. <br>

The AF-S 85/1.8G was more contrasty than the other lenses - maybe a result of it's best performance in the flare-handling-discipline.<br>

I'm not an expert in „bokeh”-evaluation, sometimes I prefer the look of lenses with an „ugly” bokeh. I've found the background-blur of all four lenses to be nice, quite pleasing for a portrait-setting.<br>

I've shot also with my old Ais 135/2, but couldn't step back enough to get a comparable magnification-ratio :-)<br>

I wouldn't be surprised if the AF-S 85/1.4 or the exotics Makro-Planar 100/2 and Apo-Lanthar would perform better than the four lenses, but I'm not in a hurry and will give the Ais 105/1.8 a try (my friend and I exchanged the AF-D and the Ais for further evaluation).<br>

If I should stumble across a good deal for a used 105/2 DC I'm willing to give it a try. The prices for new and used AF-S 85/1.4 are one a higher level and for now it won't find a place in my camera-bag.</p>

<p>Sorry for my poor English, Georg!</p>

<p>Georg - thank you for your reports, especially on the behaviour of the 90mm. I can understand that starting with a 200 f/2 would make you worry about the performance of the alternatives - I bought my VR 1 precisely to solve all the problems with my other lenses, having read Bjørn's and photozone's reviews. (The latter review does suggest it's an apochromat, by the way, although I don't know that Nikon have ever made this claim, and you're right that LoCA should at least be better in an apochromatic design.) Arguably the lens added its own range of problems to my shooting, of course!<br />

<br />

A foliage background ought to be friendly to LoCA - my problem is that I don't get out much (as it were), and I can't rely on green fringes being lost against the overall background colour. I'm nervous about any assertions that LoCA can be fixed in software. The "green hair" problem in the wedding I shot was a real pain to fix in software (smudging channels in Lab) and the result was still far from sharp. I've tried DxO, and it's true that some colour fringes from LoCA can be cleaned up, but to fix a severe case (rather than just trying to fix anything that looks like a colour fringe) the problem is that you need depth information from the scene, and that's thrown away as part of the capture (except by Lytro). Lateral aberration is much simpler, since it depends only on position within the image. On the other hand, LoCA goes away when you stop down, so it's only a problem for nutters like me who shoot at very wide apertures. I'm glad to meet another one. :-)<br />

<br />

Good luck with whatever you choose, Georg. (And your English is fine!)</p>

<p>Ok, I realized the shot I had in mind wasn't quite at the full body distance range so I went out to shoot some material at f/2 with that approximate size in mind. I will post three pics with full image & 100% crop (D3X). The third image is not full body size but it illustrates the characteristics of the lens in another way when shot into the light.</p><div></div>

<p>Crop.</p><div></div>

<p>Image 2, full frame.</p><div></div>

<p>Image 2, 100% crop.</p><div></div>

<p>Image 3, full frame.</p><div></div>

<p>Image 3, 100% crop. </p><div></div>

<p>I should repeat that this is not how I would use the lens normally myself; if I need to shoot in this FL range at f/2 I will use the 85/1.4 AF-S (and before that, the 85/1.4 AF-D). I use the 105 DC typically at f/2.8-f/4 for natural light (+flash) and in pure studio conditions f/5.6-f/11 when I want a lower contrast image with pretty skin and "fresh" looking rendition of clothes. With the 12MP FX cameras and 35mm film I would also use the f/2 aperture but with the D3X I think there is enough motivation to stop down a bit.</p>

<p>I should add that these candid images may suffer from slight misfocus due to the nature of the moving subject, which might not be present in some formal portrait situations. But I still think either of the 85/1.4 will be easier to focus at f/2 than either of the DC Nikkors, and give overall better image quality at that aperture.</p>

<p>A couple of lenses worth considering for portraits in this range include the 85/1.4 Zeiss which has excellent sharpness at longer distances than head shot (where the Nikkor is sharper), and the 100/2 ZF which has better sharpness at f/2 than the 105 DC but it certainly won't smooth any skin blemishes out, and it also has some LoCA at wide apertures.</p>

<p>I didn't use any DC adjustment in these images. Background blur obviously can be altered using it but I've always been happy with the default rendering.</p>

<p>One more, with some texture in scarf. This illustrates some CA in the out of focus areas.</p><div></div>

<p>And image 4, 100% crop.</p><div></div>