Best 85mm lens

I own a Nikon D7100 & looking to purchase an 85mm lens for portraits. the Nikor 85mm 1.4G is my first choice however after reading some reviews I'm finding some had focusing issues with this lens. Anyone else have any experience with this lens or any other recommendations?

If you spend some time looking around, you will find there are people who have problems with every lens model available. I have had the 85mm/f1.4 AF-S for about 5 years and it is excellent. However, the f1.8 version is also excellent at about 1/3 of the cost. I would get the f1.8 version unless you must have f1.4.

 

I do own both versions.

There's a noticeable shift in focus as the Nikon 85mm f/1.4G is stopped down. The focus shifts backwards as the aperture is closed. This means that LiveView is the only way to get critical focus with this lens at anything other than wide-open aperture.

 

I hate to recommend Sigma, based on bad experiences with Sigma lenses in the past, but the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art lens looks to be optically better than the Nikon in every respect. Pricewise it's only slightly cheaper.

 

I'd echo Shun's advice to consider the Nikon f/1.8 version. How often are you going to be working at f/1.4 with its razor thin depth-of-field, and compromised IQ? If the answer is "hardly ever", then the f/1.8 makes a lot more sense.

Edited May 24, 2017 by rodeo_joe|1

There's a noticeable shift in focus as the Nikon 85mm f/1.4G is stopped down. The focus shifts backwards as the aperture is closed. This means that LiveView is the only way to get critical focus with this lens at anything other than wide-open aperture.

You could focus while the DOF Preview feature is engaged.

The best 85mm lens in Nikon mount is now the Sigma 85mm f1.4 ART. No surprise there.

Has a new champion been crowned? Sigma 85mm F1.4 Art lens review

 

 

Kent in SD

The Sigma 85 f/1.4 Art is a heavy lens, even heavier than the Nikon 105/1.4 and about twice the weight of Nikon's 85/1.4G. The Nikon f/1.8G is definitely a light-weight.

Pricewise it's only slightly cheaper.

$400 difference here in the US.

I would get the f1.8 version unless you must have f1.4.

consider the Nikon f/1.8 version. How often are you going to be working at f/1.4 with its razor thin depth-of-field, and compromised IQ? If the answer is "hardly ever", then the f/1.8 makes a lot more sense.

I do have the f/1.8G version too; didn't see any reason to go to f/1.4. I am not particularly fond of those portraits shot at f/1.4 where only a small sliver of the face is actually in focus. For the same reason, I will stay away from the Sigma 135 f/1.8 Art; my Sigma 150/2.8 OS does just as well and can do macro too.

 

The f/1.4 85mm lenses (Sigma and Nikon) might be a tad sharper stopped down than the f/1.8G, but I think one's really splitting hairs there. While there are differences in OOF rendering, in real life images I find it hard to tell the difference.

"$400 difference here in the US."

- Wow! That surprises me.

I did a quick Google of UK £ prices and the Sigma Art seemed a lot closer to the Nikon. It wasn't an in-depth research of best prices though.

"You could focus while the DOF Preview feature is engaged."

- On any Nikon SLR/DSLR, the DoF preview makes absolutely no difference to the viewfinder image between f/1.4 and f/1.8.

 

Because of restrictions in the viewfinder optics, you're effectively viewing the lens stopped down to around f/1.8 regardless of its maximum aperture. The same seems to be true of Canon's viewfinder system as well. Although I haven't sampled more than one Canon DSLR.

 

LiveView is obviously unaffected by the mirror/Fresnel/GG/condenser optical viewfinder system and shows true focus and depth-of-field.

I have one Sigma lens, a 50 1.4 and the bokeh is fantastic. I shoot the Nikon 85 1.4 and it's bokeh is gorgeous. Now for me, the 135 dc bokeh is magical. That said, I probably use the 85 more than the 135. Both Denis Reggie and Joe Bussink are canon guys and use their 85 1.2 extensively when shooting weddings for $30-50k. Can be used for head shots but I use it for 1/2 to 3/4 shots. Puts you far enough away and includes some of the environment to tell a story yet has a usable shallow dof. Have to watch getting the eyes on multiple people on the same plane though. I would not shoot a wedding without one. I often don't have room to use the 135. The 1.4 combined with cranking the ISO really helps with bouncing flash as well allowing it to function as the main light up to 160 foot round trip bounces.

I don't really have any significant focusing issues on the Nikon 85/1.4G AF-S. I quite like it, a balanced design with pleasing output in any conditions. It has been one of my favorite lenses for many years. I also used to love the 85/1.4D AF but only if stopped down to f/1.8 or more. At f/1.4 the focus of the AF D lens was not consistent from shot to shot; with the AF-S version this problem has been greatly reduced in my experience, especially with Multi-CAM 20k.

 

I would personally not buy the Sigma 85/1.4 Art simply because it's very heavy for the focal length and aperture and much smaller and lighter lenses are available which produce excellent results. I prefer classical size of primes if available rather than the new much heavier models though I do own some heavy ones also. As I carry a bunch of lenses it all adds up to the weight of the bag.

Edited May 25, 2017 by ilkka_nissila

Sigma 85/1.4 Art simply because it's very heavy for the focal length and aperture

I admit I was mildly tempted until I saw the weight - nearly twice as heavy as the Nikon f/1.4G and about four times the weight of the f/1.8G. I own two Sigma Art lenses that weigh about the same as their Nikon counterparts (35/1.4 and 24/1.4) and one that clearly is a heavyweight (50/1.4). For the latter, its performance is well worth the weight penalty.

Out of curiosity, I tested (time ago) how the screen on a couple modern AF cameras show the images through very fast lenses (f1.4 to f2.8).

The screen actually show differences between say, f1.4 and f1.8 or f2, and in different ways depending on the viewfinder design, but they are quite small, so really hard to notice unless specifically looking for them. If I recall it correctly, it was easier to notice that differences on bright spots.

Edited May 25, 2017 by jose_angel

I tend to use the 85 at events and weddings where weight is a factor but not determinative. Heck the 70-200 2.8 is 3 lbs and that is on a body over my shoulder for such shoots with another body around my neck with 24-70 or 85 or 50 1.4 swapped in. Like Ilkka, it is one of my favorite lenses.

LiveView is obviously unaffected by the mirror/Fresnel/GG/condenser optical viewfinder system and shows true focus and depth-of-field.

Live View is a little awkward in real time, unless you like holding the camera at arm's length like a cell phone. Now if you had live view through the viewfinder ....

 

Focus shift is due to the position of the diaphragm, design of the optics and the actual aperture, not to any limitations of the viewfinder.

"Out of curiosity, I tested (time ago) how the screen on a couple modern AF cameras show the images through very fast lenses (f1.4 to f2.8).

The screen actually show differences between say, f1.4 and f1.8 or f2"

- Was that with Nikon cameras Jose?

 

I've used a sensitive eyepiece photometer on various Nikons, F2, F3, F4, D700 & D800, and can detect no difference in screen brightness on stopping down from f/1.2 or f/1.4 to f/1.8.

 

Neither can I see the slightest change in DOF by eye.

If you don't mind the cost and weight, the Zeiss Otus 1.4/85 is as good as it gets optically. I like it because it has an aperture ring and I can use it on my FM2n and D800. It is manual focus but chipped to work with the electronics of modern cameras.

My two cents....After having used all Nikon versions from the f2 through f1.4 the most practical choice is the 85mm f1.8 AF-D. It will balance better on your 7100 and save you a bundle. It's perfect for portraits and at f5.6 it would be very difficult to tell it apart from the others.

Many will claim the big glass f1.4 will do a better job or like to show off and boast they have a Zeiss, carry a f1.4 AF version around a while and you'll wish you had the f1.8 AF or older f2 MF.

Thanks all for taking the time to answer, & I value all your opinions. Sounds to me like the f1.8 AF is a better value for the money

I owned the 85/1.8 AF for many years, hardly ever using it. It was prone to flare, had mediocre bokeh for a portrait tele and so I just didn't like the images though it was sharp. The AF 85/1.4D Nikkor was really a revelation after that I started to love the 85mm focal length.

 

What a lot of people don't seem to know about Nikon portrait teles is that (as far as I've understood) they intentionally focus the red wavelengths in a slightly different plane so that when the focus is set using the other wavelengths, you get smoothed skin blemishes and blood vessels don't show up as clearly as they would using an apochromatic lens. This is especially true of the DC Nikkors which produce the most pleasing rendering of skin in my opinion, but true also of the 85/1.4's. This may be why I don't like images I've seen shot with the 85mm f/1.4 Art - it appears to accentuate skin blemishes compared to what I'm used to with my long time favorite Nikkors. I sometimes get "thank you for not making the shots so clinically sharp" when I've photographed an event in available light and used my Nikkors wide open, so it's not just me who likes this.

 

Jim Kasson has an interesting blog post here:

 

Another medium tele test — Otus & Nikon LoCA

 

Another interesting thread on the topic of the 135mm DC which touches upon this subject is here:

 

I love my Nikon DC 135 f.2.0 and Wide Open: Nikon SLR Lens Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

 

Personally I found focusing the 135 DC challenging wide open but can't deny Benjamin gets great results.

Edited May 25, 2017 by ilkka_nissila

Thanks all for taking the time to answer, & I value all your opinions. Sounds to me like the f1.8 AF is a better value for the money

 

 

Yes 85mm f1.8G best value, (I once had that lens,) but your title asked what is the BEST 85mm, and that is the Sigma.:)

 

 

Kent in SD

I should add that I mostly shoot landscapes and find chromatic aberration a big problem with some lenses. Another issue is that when Niikon went to G lenses they left the aperture ring off. I also use ais lenses and some are good. I shoot a lot of film and my favorite camera is a FM2n which requires lenses with an aperture ring. The Nikon 85mm 1.8g is a good lens that I purchased for my son. I would purchase one for myself if it had an aperture ring.

"Out of curiosity, I tested (time ago) how the screen on a couple modern AF cameras show the images through very fast lenses (f1.4 to f2.8).

The screen actually show differences between say, f1.4 and f1.8 or f2"

- Was that with Nikon cameras Jose?

 

I've used a sensitive eyepiece photometer on various Nikons, F2, F3, F4, D700 & D800, and can detect no difference in screen brightness on stopping down from f/1.2 or f/1.4 to f/1.8.

 

Neither can I see the slightest change in DOF by eye.

I tested it on my F6 and D700, comparing them to "classic" ground glass finders like the one on the F3. I try to remember that I noticed it on the shape of the bright spots, as it was really difficult to notice on the blur areas.

What surprised me was the shape of the stars in the bright spots, quite different in the AF cameras, formed by small circles or so (micro cilinder screen construction?), also with a different shape between the F6 and the D700. I even took some fast dirt photos of the screens to see this effect more clearly. The size of the spots were variable accordingly with the aperture used, so there was actually a (hardly noticeable to the eye) difference.

I promised myself about repeating the test with good photos to post the results here, but I'm still in other tasks...

Edited May 25, 2017 by jose_angel

Landscape photos usually are taken stopped down for depth of field (f/8 to f/11 are typical). I find that what LoCA there is wide open in a fast lens tends to disappear stopped down to f/5.6 to f/11, and lateral CA can be removed using software. I've never felt this was an issue with modern high quality lenses and digital capture. LoCA can be an issue if you shoot landscape wide open using a fast lens (i.e. f/1.4) but then this is not the most common practice, and apochromatic lenses do exist that can be applied for such images if needed. However, for me at least fast primes are used for images of people and beautiful skin while rendering eyes and hair sharply (and fabrics sharply where they are in focus) is the effect I aim for.

 

I typically shoot landscapes using PC Nikkors or the 24-70/2.8E or 70-200/2.8E zooms (and before that their predecessors).

 

As far as I know some manual focus Nikkor primes had an advantage over early AF lenses because many of the latter were internal focus to facilitate AF and LoCA tended to show up with early IF designs. These days even IF lenses tend to be well corrected (apart from the kind of effect I was talking about where the intention is to render beautifully rather than clinically sharply) but with what software correction is available it is assumed that it will be used. Film era lenses tended to have less distortion and vignetting because they couldn't be corrected in post-processing but today they seem to allow a bit more distortion and vignetting in the lens design to gain advantages in other areas. I think some Nikon lenses were designed with the idea that also lateral CA would be corrected in software (24-70/2.8G). I noticed some CA in that lens photographing inside a church; the window light would be overexposing parts of the image and some color fringes would appear. I found Nikon's raw converter could fix it with the LoCA reducing feature which really took a long time to calculate, but this aberration seems largely absent in the newer E VR version of the 24-70/2.8 zoom. LoCA is also greatly reduced in the 105/1.4 and would be hard to detect. This also results in highly consistent AF in my experience. I guess it is a matter of taste and subject matter, what level of correction one prefers. Anyway the great thing is that today we have so many options available.

Ilkka, I agree. I couldn't put my finger on what the 135 did to the skin rendition that I loved but that makes sense. Combine that with the bokeh, it's my favorite lens. I often combine mine with a 7 foot octa. The combo produces wow images in camera. The Zeiss is manual focus and it just doesn't work for me on digital. Not when I have less than an inch of dof. I am not a clinically sharp kind of guy. Heck, I will sometimes push the DC ring past my set aperture for the added softness I get. Sweet. There is a softar filter in my bag. Thank you Bob Bernardo. Stop it down to 5.6 matching the dc ring and bokeh is still wonderful. Want tack sharp and entire head in focus, f/8-11 more than sharp enough for me. Look at that skier photo above, do you really want more skin texture? Stieglitz is one of my favorite photographers for his response to the NY Camera club folks who told him to throw away his shot of the horse drawn carriage in the snow because it was soft. He told them, it's supposed to be. Who remembers those camera club members now?

"What surprised me was the shape of the stars in the bright spots, quite different in the AF cameras, formed by small circles or so (micro cilinder screen construction?)"

 

- Jose, yes I do believe that DSLR screens are more like an overall microscopic microprism surface, rather than the etched GG facsimile screens of Nikon's film SLRs.

 

However, their behaviour WRT lens aperture is practically identical. It's my belief that the reflex viewfinder system places a restriction on the size of exit pupil that can be imaged on the GG and projected into the eyepiece. In other words it's exactly as if you're viewing the lens stopped down to around f/1.8, regardless of how much wider it actually is.

 

Not only that, but the viewfinder brightness is entirely non-linear with aperture down to around f/8. Both eye and photometer see no halving of brightness between f/2 and f/2.8 for example. It's more like only a 15% drop. Slightly more between f/2.8 and f/4, and so on until only between f/8 and f/11 do I detect a true halving of screen brightness per stop.

 

The only conclusion I can draw is that if you fit an f/1.4 or f/1.2 lens to your Nikon hoping for brighter optical viewing, then you're wasting your time and money. You also won't see the true DOF either. What you'll see is how the lens will render at around f/1.8, and this obviously has consequences for how accurately you can focus the lens by eye. Especially if that lens shows a stopped down focus shift.

 

Roll on high resolution EVFs!

Edited May 26, 2017 by rodeo_joe|1