best 85mm lens under $250

Apologies for the plebeian subject matter in yet another thread like the one I started about Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 alternatives. This time the focus is on the 85mm focal length.

 

My current 85mm lens is a Nikkor-H f/1.8 with the factory Ai conversion, which I've been using for a few weeks. It's sharp enough for the uses I put the lens to. Being single-coated, it doesn't have good flare resistance. But what I find most wanting in this lens is the fairly busy bokeh. So, as in the other thread, I'm back to ask for alternative recommendations based on your experiences.

 

To seed the conversation, I'll add that I recently tried a Samyang/Rokinon 85mm f/1.4. It had smoother bokeh than the Nikkor-H, even while being a bit sharper at f/2. I had to return it because of a defect. Should I go for another one of those? Or perhaps the best alternative isn't even an 85mm? I'm strongly considering the Tokina 90mm f/2.5 macro, which is supposed to have great bokeh—but does it blur backgrounds to the same degree as an 85mm f/1.8? I used to have a 105mm f/2.5 Ai-S as well, which I sold for reasons that are a mystery to me. Is it better than any sub-$250 85mm lens? Although I do prefer the slightly more accommodating field of view of an 85mm.

 

As always, thanks for your insights!

What's the platform? Film/digital?

Early versions of the Tamron 90mm macro were supposed to have nice OOF highlights.

 

and should be within your budget....;)

 

I haven't tried mine in years...I'll go and dig it out....:cool:

I have used an 85/1.8HC to good effect in the past, still have one. Maybe I kept the background further away to help with bokeh. When comparing a long time ago, I didn't think there was much difference between the H and multi coated HC versions. I think the bar is higher for 85mm lenses now some 57 years after the original 1.8 was introduced.

 

Maybe it is above your price range, but I have been happy with the 85/1.8AFS. I think it is a significant upgrade to the 1.8AFD I had previously. I have access to an 85/1.4D, and think I prefer the 1.8AFS to the 1.4D, but it has been a while since I compared the two. I have never tried the 85/1.4AFS, they are just more $ than I am willing to spend for my hobby.

 

Much as I like classic glass, the Samyang 84/1.4 is probably better than the 85/1.8H Nikkor. It may be the best bokeh bang for buck 85mm.

 

I think all Nikon users that like short teles should have a 105/2.5. My current favorite 105 is a late rangefinder version that performs very well on the Z cameras. Maybe I am lucky with a great example, but the 105 RF Nikkor seems to be the best classic (meaning really old) short tele I have. One nice feature of the RF is the very round set of iris blades, allowing some more DOF aperture setting while maintaining round OOF highlights. The AI versions I have perform well, as does the 105DC which is probably the best (when in perfect focus). I would like to try the new 105/1.4AFS, but that lens is still fairly expensive. F mount 105's are a bargain IMO.

 

I think the 105 has a sufficiently different prospective to make it "different" from the 85 so not really comparable.

Maybe it is above your price range, but I have been happy with the 85/1.8AFS. I think it is a significant upgrade to the 1.8AFD

 

Robert, can you be more specific on how the AFS version is a significant upgrade to the D version?

Tamron 90mm

 

various models depending on your particular version of the "universal" F-mount

 

- excellent macro, decent bokeh

 

What camera?

Greg, It has been a long time since I switched from the 85/1.8D to 85/1.8G AFS. I seem to remember better color saturation at very open apertures, better bokeh, and maybe better sharpness at around f/2 when I made the switch. In addition to people photos, I was shooting a lot of BBall in a very dimly lit gym, so near wide open performance was important to me.

 

I am sure that I had both lenses for a brief period for comparison, and that the cost to upgrade was not large. I am also sure that if I did not like the 1.8G a good bit better, I would have sold it and kept the 1.8D after comparing.

What's the platform? Film/digital?

Digital, full-frame.

I have been wonderfully served by the AIS 85mm f2.0. And it is available at good prices. The 85mm 1.4 AIS is a wonder, but still very costly for that one extra f-stop. I had one, and dropped it! The helical is damaged, and Nikon no longer stocks parts for AIS.

I have been wonderfully served by the AIS 85mm f2.0. And it is available at good prices. The 85mm 1.4 AIS is a wonder, but still very costly for that one extra f-stop.

 

What is your opinion of the 85/2's bokeh?

 

Yes, the 85/1.4 costs more than i'm willing to spend at this moment in life, though it makes me salivate (as do its AF successors).

For some reason I have a manual focus 85/2 AI, an 85/1.8D and a manual focus 105/2.5 AI. Frankly all three do pretty well. The 85/2 doesn’t get used wide open often but does well at around 2.8 and 4. The 1.8 I use at 2.8 and it’s pretty decent. The 105 is good no matter what aperture I use. For good bokeh the 105 is best. I suspect the slightly longer focal length helps but it’s simply a superb lens. I have done no scientific testing, this is all simply the results I have gotten and my opinion of it.

 

Rick H.

Robert, can you be more specific on how the AFS version is a significant upgrade to the D version?

 

I used the AF-D version (actually, it might even have been a non-D) for a long time, mostly for landscapes, because at apertures larger than around f/4 sharpness started to degrade, and the bokeh looked unpleasant to my eyes. It was a great lens at smaller apertures, though. The AF-S version has largely mitigated those problems, and I feel comfortable using that at any aperture. In my opinion the AF-S 85mm f/1.8 lens represents excellent value for its price.

 

I was slightly disappointed that the AF-S 50mm f/1.8 was not such an obvious improvement over its AF-D counterpart.

Owned the 85/2 Ai way back - can't fathom now why I actually bought it since I owned the 105/2.5 at the time (and still do whereas the 85 is long gone). Aside from the smaller size, there is absolutely nothing to prefer the 85/2 Ai over the 105/2.5 Ai. Got the 85/1.8 AF-D at some point and traded it for the AF-S version.

The AF-S version is bigger (filter diameter is 67mm vs 62mm) but lighter. AF-S is the major advantage (not the least because on the D lens the focus ring turns during AF operation) but AF speed appears to be about the same. Bokeh is smoother for the G version but spherochromatism (bokeh fringing) is a bit more pronounced at f/1.8; it disappears at f/2.8 for either lens. The dreaded purple fringing that the D version displayed at high-contrast edges when used wide open is not there in the G version. In the end, the loCA was too much for me to deal with and I traded for the Tamron 90/2.8 VC (if I can't use the larger aperture of the Nikon anyway may as well get a more versatile lens).

QUOTE="raczoliver, post: 5874082, member: 695896"]I was slightly disappointed that the AF-S 50mm f/1.8 was not such an obvious improvement over its AF-D counterpart.

I think it was - but it was not a great lens by any means. Like with many fast Nikon glass, loCA wide open and even stopped down a bit kills it for many applications. And if I have to stop down to f/4 and beyond, then I might as well use a zoom lens as performance differences get pretty small at smaller apertures.

Nikkor 85mm F2 Ais,

 

Wide-Open on the Df,

 

 

At F2.8.

 

 

This lens was known for being a great portrait lens, smoother bokeh than the 85/1.8 that it replaced.

It is a very small lens, not much bigger than a 50/1.4.

Nikkor 105 F2.5 Ai

 

At F2.8

 

 

 

The 85/2, 105/2.5, 135/2.8, 180/2.8, and 200/4 5-element Planar designs. all have similar rendering.

 

I also have the Nikkor 85/1.8 K factory converted to Ai. Sharp lens, this last version has a closer focus than the earlier ones. For portraits- I find that the background tames down by F4.

Edited January 5, 2021 by Brian

I do recall comparing my neighbor's 85/2AI vs my 85/1.8HC - back with slide film! Both of us preferred the 1.8 version when the slides were up on the screen. Since I was paying for film and processing, I doubt I did many multi aperture extensive comparisons.

 

The 105/2.5 is looking good in Brian's post above. An AI version was the 2nd Nikkor I bought in the late 70's, it has served well.

Since 85/1.4 AIS and AFD lenses has been mentioned in this thread and we have deviated from the OP "budget" cap somewhat, I am wondering how an 85/1.4 AFD or AIS holds up on high MP bodies?

 

I have never tried an 85/1.4AIS. I can still borrow an 85/1.4D from a friend. I seem to remember that once I got the 85/1.8G AFS, I did not feel "compelled" to borrow that lens any more. I am aware of the nice portrait rendering of the 85/1.4D. Doubtful that a screwdriver AF adaptor for my Z cameras will ever appear, but I could use an 85/1.4FD along side my other "specialty portrait" lenses, a 105/2DC and 180/2.8AFD on my D3x The D3x still "works" at ISOs below around 800 with a nice rendering. I did not buy the D3x new, for sure!

 

Another lens I have used is the 105/1.8 AI. I tried one out very briefly, but concluded that the 105/2DC that I had was a better lens for my purposes.

 

Although the manual focus action is decent and workable (for an AF lens) with the 105/2DC and 180/2.8D lenses , the focus system with those lenses is not as good as a dedicated manual focus lens when used on a Z camera. Darn.

This lens was known for being a great portrait lens, smoother bokeh than the 85/1.8 that it replaced.

 

Your results from the 85/2 and the 105/2.5 are both very nice.

 

So you're saying that the 85/2 was generally known for having better bokeh than the 85/1.8? I hadn't heard that. If true, that could sway me to get an 85/2.

Since 85/1.4 AIS and AFD lenses has been mentioned in this thread and we have deviated from the OP "budget" cap somewhat, I am wondering how an 85/1.4 AFD or AIS holds up on high MP bodies?

 

Speaking of which, I do have an opportunity to buy an AF 85mm f/1.4D in good user condition for $325. That's more than I want to spend, but if the deal is an outstanding one, I can persuade myself. Should I jump on it?

Another lens I have used is the 105/1.8 AI

I have it on good authority that the f/1.8 behaves almost like the f/2.5 - a tad better sharpness and a tad better bokeh.

Should I jump on it?

If you intend to use the lens mostly for portraits or other applications where you utilize the bokeh at fully open aperture, go for it. It's not called the "cream machine" for nothing.

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

Your results from the 85/2 and the 105/2.5 are both very nice.

 

So you're saying that the 85/2 was generally known for having better bokeh than the 85/1.8? I hadn't heard that. If true, that could sway me to get an 85/2.

I was working my way through College in a Camera Shop when the 85/2 was new. These days, I've bought most of the affordable classic manual lenses for the Df.

The 85/1.8 is legendary- had to have one, perfect glass, factory Ai'd, RIFR (Rubber inset focus ring). Got an 85/2 Ais mint- $100. Gave away my "user" to a young man working at the Skating rink I take my daughter to.

 

with the 85/1.8, at F2.8 and wide-open respectively.

I was working my way through College in a Camera Shop when the 85/2 was new. These days, I've bought most of the affordable classic manual lenses for the Df.

 

The 85/1.8 is legendary- had to have one, perfect glass, factory Ai'd, RIFR (Rubber inset focus ring). Got an 85/2 Ais mint- $100. Gave away my "user" to a young man working at the Skating rink I take my daughter to.

 

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!

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

 

Like very many Nikon users, I had a 50/1.8 AFD, actually two of them. I used it mostly to shoot basketball in a very dim gym that required around f/2-2.2. I kept thinking that my shots should be sharper, but assumed that high ISO noise reduction and/or motion blur were softening the images. Found a deal on a 50/1.4AFD, tried it at the same settings, got the sharpness I expected. The 1.8D is fine above f/4, but is overrated overall IMO. Maybe I had less good examples. BTW, iris blades failed in one 50/1.8AFD, that is why I had two of them. I am a fan of 50/1.4 variants manual and AF, and the 50/2 manual focus lenses. I have several versions of 50/1.8 manual focus, but always thought them "too clinical" when stopped down, not sure about more open settings.

 

I think my brother in law still has the 85/2 AIS he bought new. This thread has piqued my curiosity, I will borrow it some time and redo some comparisons, probably not in time for this tread. Can do with a Z camera to get super accurate focusing with the manual focusing lenses. Will borrow that 85/1.4 AFD as well for the shootout. I won't have access to an 85/1.8D.

Edited January 6, 2021 by robert_bouknight|1