Nikon Introduces Mirrorless 85mm/f1.8 S Lens

When Nikon announced the Z series mirrorless cameras last year, their roadmap showed 6 new Z-mount lenses slated for 2019. To begin the year, Nikon quickly introduced the 14-30mm/f4 S in January, followed by the 24-70mm/f2.8 S in February. When I thought Nikon was moving rather quickly, it has been quiet in the following 4 to 5 months. Finally, now at the end of July, Nikon announces the third installment in a 85mm/f1.8 S lens:

 

Specifications:

• 12 elements in 8 gruops, among them 2 ED elements, nano crystal coating
  
• minimum aperture f16
  
• aperture diaphragm: 9 blades
  
• minimum focus distance: 0.8 meter, 2.6 ft from the focal plane
  
• filter diameter: 67mm
  
• weight: 470 grams/1 lb 6 oz
  
• price in the US $799.95
  

Available in September, 2019

 

While I haven't seen this new lens yet, it looks similar to the 35mm/f1.8 S that I have. It is on the long side, compared to its F-mount counterpart.

 

Images supplied by Nikon for product announcement. Obviously a 85mm/f1.8 is mainly for portraits, fashion, and wedding type people photography.

 

Crap - $800!!!:oops: But obviously a totally different optical design. MTF looks a lot better than the current G version.

Heavier than the F-mount version:eek:

24/1.8S or 70-200/2.8S next?

Z 70-200/2.8 S should be coming soon.

 

Of course it's more expensive, manufacturers don't make improvements (this uses ED glass) and offer the new product at the same price as the older ones they improved upon, that would put pressure on prices to go down industry-wide. I was thinking it might cost 1000-1200€, but that didn't happen, luckily enough. The weight goes up as it usually does when making a lens that has higher degree of correction of optical aberrations. If you want medium format quality out of 35mm camera, the lenses will then look a bit like medium format lenses. Take a look at Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art. Wide angle lenses tend to be more compact on mirrorless, however, that assumes the manufacturer uses the advantage to make the lens more compact and less heavy rather than better corrected optically. For the most part Nikon seem to take the position that they take advantage of the shorter flange distance to make better corrected lenses, so they don't become smaller, really. The 14-30/4 is an exception and is really small when packed into transportation mode, but some people have been complaining that there is vignetting and soft corners, so there you go. The images from that lens do look good in my opinion, but it's not on my list as it is quite expensive considering it's an f/4 lens, and I'm not big into superwide angle lenses. Given that it does take front filters, it may become quite popular among those landscape photographers who use filters.

 

In fact the 85/1.8 has been the lens I've been waiting for, as I shoot a lot with short telephoto lenses when photographing people, and so now with this lens, the Z system becomes something I could potentially use.

Edited July 31, 2019 by ilkka_nissila

I want a small light pancake wide prime for my Z6! I am sure this new 85 will be outstanding, but probably not dramatically better than good existing F mount 85's. IMO, if Nikon were to introduce wide lenses with size and performance not available in F mount, more Z bodies would be sold. I have and like the 14-30, but would like something smaller.

With 12 elements and two moving groups, the 85/1.8 is an advanced design. The lens also focuses more closely than most 85's, using some of those design "credits" to provide good imaging from infinity to 2.6'. It is also possible Nikon reduced or eliminated focus breathing, normally a problem with internal focusing. Focus breathing strongly detracts from video use, but also composition when working at portrait (or closer) distances.

 

Three lenses, 35, 50 and 85, with similar form-factor and (hopefully) similar rendering, harkens back to a time before zooms, where a 35, 50 and 90 comprised a useful, compact travel/documentary system. Throw in a 24/1.8 and you have a lightweight kit with with updated flexibility. Mirrorless systems can be very compact, but they don't have to be if your needs differ.

 

The price point is reasonable for a high performance lens. The Zeiss Loxia 85/2.4 and Batis 85/1.8 for Sony cost 75% more, albeit with consistent rendering, outstanding sharpness, bokeh and color.

$800 is in the expected ballpark for an S-line f1.8 prime. I have the 35mm/f1.8 S and that is $850. Nikon has discounted the Z lenses in Europe, e.g. the 24-70mm/f2.8 S, but we haven't seen that in the US yet; only the Z bodies are (deeply) discounted. Maybe in the holiday season we'll see new discount.

 

Besides having 2 ED elements, this 85mm/f1.8 S is sealed around both the front and rear. See the diagram, about 70% down on the following Nikon USA page:

Nikon NIKKOR Z 85mm f/1.8 S | fast aperture portrait lens from Nikon

 

Concerning pancake lenses, since wide-angle lenses for digital (DSLR or mirrorless) need to be telecentric such that light can hit the sensor in a more perpendicular fashion, I think it will be difficult to make them small and of high quality at the same time.

 

My main concern with Nikon is not that their Z lenses are poor. Rather, I think they are introducing them too slowly. Nikon announced the 14-30mm/f4 S in January, following by the 24-70mm/f2.8 S in February. But there was this long gap until the very last day of July when they announced the 85mm/f1.8 S. So far there are six native Z-mount lenses, and there are still plenty of holes to fill.

The current F-mount 85f1.8 is a great, compact, little lens. The 85f1/4 is more of a monster. This is longer and heavier? Offsetting the advantage of a smaller, more compact, body . . . It seems to me, that if Nikon wanted to sell a lot of these bodies, they would be making many of the popular current crop of lenses in the new mount. Instead, they are trying, like many have before, to build a new system that will sit above the F line. I don't even come close to seeing the advantage yet.

I don't even come close to seeing the advantage yet.

A lighter and smaller camera body, offset by larger and heavier lenses - something appears to be quite wrong with that picture. Advantages of the new lens designs appear undeniable though.

 

My main concern with Nikon is not that their Z lenses are poor. Rather, I think they are introducing them too slowly.

My point exactly. IIRC, Sony didn't bring them on at a much faster pace either - and there were two companies that produced native E-mount lenses almost from the get-go. And Nikon certainly aims to get the f/2.8 trio out a lot faster than Sony did. Though I think Nikon should have had either the f/2.8 trio or an equivalent f/4 trio ready at the launch of the Z6 and Z7.

Nikon has been pushing their customers to FX, i.e. the higher end, since 2012 or so. Recall that they introduced the D4, D800/D800E and D600 all within the first 9 months in 2012. I think it has been clear to Nikon, as well as Canon, Sony, etc. that the low end of the camera market is disappearing, to smart phone cameras, etc. A friend when to Scotland a couple of years ago, and his cellphone pictures of castles look great on a large monitor, although those tiny sensors probably suck under dim light.

 

There will probably be Z mount DX bodies and lenses, but the F-mount ones are still selling ok. DX Z will probably be 1 to 2 years down the road.

Multi-focus system may refer to two motors being used to drive different focus groups (the same term is used for the 24-70/2.8S which has two motors). The press release uses plural "motors".

 

if Nikon wanted to sell a lot of these bodies, they would be making many of the popular current crop of lenses in the new mount. Instead, they are trying, like many have before, to build a new system that will sit above the F line.

In order to motivate people to purchase the new system, they have to offer improvements to justify the cost. In recent years, Nikon have held their own regarding many specialist lenses and zooms (e.g., 105:1,4, 180-400, 19 pc), but many of the wide to short tele primes they introduced with AF-S have been criticized for their image quality (which is not bad, it is very good, but others have surpassed them in some respects, including Sigma at a much lower price for the focal length and aperture). It was obvious that in order to compete with modern fashion in optics (high resolution, high contrast, low CA) Nikon needed to redesign many of the primes. I quite like many of Nikon's more traditional primes but the reality is that now many photographers want piercingly sharp eyes, in focus, rather than silky smooth skin and they don't seem to care if the eyes almost seem to rip the paper due to the apperance of sharpness. The extra sharpness has been made possible by the high resolution sensors, but Nikon didn't initially fully take advantage of the possibilities, preferring more to dwelve in the niceties of in-to-out-of-focus transitions. I recall relatively short time ago Sigma surpassed Nikon as supplier of lenses (in terms of number of lenses sold). Nowadays many stores in my country no longer dare to have most Nikon primes in stock as they're afraid they can't sell them, so most things have to be ordered and waited for. Also many of the Sony and Canon new lenses have similarly very high definition (Canon's new 50/1.2 RF and 85/1.2 RF, for example). I think it is excellent that instead of holding back quality to more expensive (1.4, etc.) lenses, Nikon now make very high-quality f/1.8 primes. In some cases, the difference is rather striking (the 50/1.8 S is such an example). If you doubt the quality of the new lenses, try the 50/1.8 S with Z7, I suspect that you'll be shocked at the detail the lens is capable of rendering wide open, and the relative lack of aberrations, not to mention the accurate AF. This lens is a delightful experience, in my opinion. I also like the 35/1.8 S based on very brief testing.

 

Nikon have said there will be lower-priced lens lines for the Z mount that cost less than the S line lenses (which are their premium offerings). I guess these new lines will include less expensive primes as well as superzooms etc. and may be launched when they have a less expensive camera body.

 

The world has changed and expectations on lenses along with it. I personally am quite fond of some older lenses such as the 85/1.4 AF-D and the DC Nikkors in how they render subjects. But their autofocus is dated, and detail and aberrations control isn't to the level of expectation of many who pixel-peep their images and with the new eye AF feature of the Z, I expect many people will purchase into the new system (those who didn't already buy Sony).

 

I think they are introducing them too slowly.

 

Well, this is Nikon and they typically average six new interchangeable lenses per year. Other manufacturers are similar. I don't see a problem with this; it's better that they do the design well so that people don't have to be disappointed and wait for the second generation of lenses, that could take quite a while. In ten years, they'll have 60 lenses that's more than enough for the majority of users. Now it may be that most consumers have dropped out of the camera buying hobby, and so it could be that Nikon won't be making ten different 18-xxx DX zooms for the Z mount. So these resources are freed on designing mid and higher end lenses, which I think is very good.

 

For my needs I mainly am interested in Z system for quiet photography of people at events where additional sound from the camera would be noticed by the guests. The Z7/Z6 are noticeably quieter than the DSLRs and although there is still the mechanical shutter. For these shots I imagine I would be able to get by using just a 35/1.8 and 85/1.8 and if I need a wider lens, I could use the adapted 20/1.8 F mount lens (which is excellent). With these three lenses I could cover my needs for Z. I probably would get the 50/1.8 also just because it is so good. I don't necessarily need anything else to solve these situations.

 

If you have more ambitious needs for Z and want to replace your whole system with Z mount lenses, and are in a hurry, then I imagine you might feel frustrated. I think it will take about 10-15 years to design a reasonably complete system. I would just sit back and enjoy photography with what already exists, which is remarkably excellent compared to what we had to work with in the 1980s or 90s.

It's longer than the F lens because the lens just have to sit that far away from the sensor. If you do not have this space on the flange distance you have to put it in the lens barrel.

It's longer than the F lens because the lens just have to sit that far away from the sensor. If you do not have this space on the flange distance you have to put it in the lens barrel.

 

This simply isn't true unless you are reusing the old lens designs.

unless

Indeed!

 

I think the derogatory term 'pixel peeper' is often (miss)used when infact what people want to do is to make a big crop 'cos who can afford a 800mm 5.6? and want to see what's possible with what they own.

 

The pixel level equivalence of the DX D500 and FX D850 is case in point.

 

The extra 'reach' gained by DX over FX was true with respect to pixels on target until the D850 turned up. The same drive to 'extreme' sharpness is equally, for me, an important factor.

 

I've taken to using my 300mm 2.8 VRI on a gripped D850 when out birding. Sure it doesn't have the optical and digital reach of my 500mm f4 on a D500, BUT it allows the bird to get big in the frame and for smaller birdies they can get cropped to size because the 300mm 2.8 is darned sharp and the AF very fast..

 

Very sharp lens + fast AF + 'spare' pixels gives one helluva single lens/body combo.

 

I own the 200-500mm 5.6 which is truly excellent but in some situations the AF cannot keep up, a shorter but sharper lens that CAN keep up, wins.

I use the pixel-peeping term when referring to people who place the upmost importance on the experience of zooming in and seeing the finest detail of the image, rather than looking at the image as a whole. I believe that if lenses are optimized for the former, something else that affects the way the image looks as a whole can be lost i.e. another lens may produce nicer-looking images when not pixel-peeped. I have a number of printed images framed on my walls and to be honest many of them were shot with lenses that did not produce satisfactory reliability of giving fine detail and yet when viewed as a whole the images look really special. One lens had a propensity for vibration that was really annoying to me but it is extremely contrasty in backlight and this meant it produced very beautiful colors and contrast when the sun was in the frame. But I couldn't deal with its vibration tendency and so I sold it. Another lens was very difficult to get consistent focus with but it produced the largest number of memorable images of any lens I had used, judging from the images I have put up with in display for a longer time.

 

I completely understand the need of a wildlife photographer to have a lens with the finest detail, because it may not be possible to move to a different position with a big lens when the action takes place, but in an 85mm lens, this is usually not an issue and the image can typically be composed and displayed without significant cropping. Thus characteristics other than the finest detail may be of interest, for example, how the lens renders flare, skin texture, fabrics, and yes, even the out of focus areas and the transition between in and out of focus. Sometimes images can work through the feelings they evoke rather than extreme sharpness of the finest details.

 

However, sharpness and excellent correction of aberrations has other benefits apart from the detail itself, it makes it easier for the camera to focus accurately. For this I am fully on board and don't deny the benefit. But I still feel there is a place for other types of lenses rather than those optimized at all cost to produce the finest details with high contrast.

The lens also focuses more closely than most 85's, using some of those design "credits" to provide good imaging from infinity to 2.6'.

The close focus limit is 0.8m ( 2.6' ) is the same as the F-mount AFS 85/1.8 and only marginally shorter than the 0.85m limit of most other 85mm primes, so I don't regard this as a close focusing lens.

 

Probably more important is the maximum magnification, or how close you can frame a subject. The new lens gets to 0.12x (1:8.3), which is the same as the AFS 85/1.4, and slightly less than the AFS 85/1.8 which gets to 0.124x (1:8). The fact that the Z 85/1.8 focuses to the same distance as the AFS 85/1.8 but can frame less tightly suggests the focal length reduces a little more at close range - more focus breathing. I'm not sure how that matches up with the claim of minimal focus breathing. Do the F-mount 85mm lenses suffer from much focus breathing anyway? If not much, then maybe a little more does not matter.

 

The close range limit is a little disappointing since lenses with this focal length usually have fairly symmetrical optical designs which are well suited to closeups. Lenses which focus close are more versatile, I don't mind if corner sharpness drops off since outer parts of the picture aren't usually in focus anyway, and if corner shapness is required the lens is usually stopped well down for more DoF. Maybe Nikon wants you to buy their 105mm macro lens instead. By comparison the Z 35/1.8 gets to 1:5.2 and the Z 50/1.8 gets to 1:6.6, so they can frame much more tightly.

BTW, you can find the MTF chart and a lot of specifications on this link:

Nikon | Imaging Products | NIKKOR Z 85mm f/1.8 S

This simply isn't true unless you are reusing the old lens designs.

 

But the lens is longer isn't it?

It's longer than the F lens because the lens just have to sit that far away from the sensor. If you do not have this space on the flange distance you have to put it in the lens barrel.

From the diagrams in the Nikon site, the 85/1.8 S is a telephoto lens. The strong negative lens closest to the flange moves the rear node forward, shortening the lens relative to its effective focal length.

 

The Nikon 85/1.8 AF-S lens is 80 mm long from the flange, compared to 99 mm for the S version. The S version is more complex, with 12 elements v 9. For a fair comparison, you would add the length of the adapter to mount an F lens on a Z camera, approximately 1", which puts the two lenses at roughly the same effective length.

For a fair comparison, you would add the length of the adapter to mount an F lens on a Z camera, approximately 1", which puts the two lenses at roughly the same effective length.

So, Nikon are actually taking no advantage of the much-vaunted reduced flange distance of the Z series.

 

I see that Amazon have an offer on the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art, at £869. This puts it very much in the same price bracket, and with a 2/3rds stop and 2 lens element advantage - not that lens element count means a lot. Although the extra aperture could be put to good use.

 

If I was in the market for yet another 85mm lens, I'm pretty sure that Sigma would get my custom.

 

But it's pretty pointless arguing over which is the better buy until Nikon's new lens is actually on sale, and user reviews and non-sponsored sample pictures are available.

 

Comparison with the 85mm f/1.8 G Nikkor is also unfair, since the G lens is about half the price. Who's to say that the new formulation lens in F mount wouldn't perform just as well, or better?

Edited August 1, 2019 by rodeo_joe|1

So, Nikon are actually taking no advantage of the much-vaunted reduced flange distance of the Z series.

 

Mostly this advantage allows improved wide angle and normal lenses to be implemented; 85mm lenses have been excellent for a very long time already. The main advantages to the user are that Nikon are now using ED glass, reducing LoCA, and providing a quieter and better focusing motor solution which should allow precise focusing on the eye, together with the algorithms and focusing based on the main sensor in the Z cameras.

 

However, if you look at the diagram showing the optical elements in the 85mm f/1.8 S

 

Nikon | Imaging Products | NIKKOR Z 85mm f/1.8 S

 

it shows that the rear element extends closer to the sensor than the bayonet and so should be very close to the sensor itself, and covers the opening. This probably means some optical benefits to the user, as well. The MTF for 30lpmm is above 0.8 from image center to 15mm off-center (10lpmm line around 0.97), covering most of the image area. The older AF-S 85/1.8G MTF is between 0.5 and 0.7 within the same area of the frame (10lpmm line 0.9), suggesting there is a noticeable improvement in image detail and contrast. Corner sharpness in this case does not appear to be improved, but there is less divergence between tangential and sagittal MTF curves, so this could translate to better bokeh.

 

The S line are intended to be Nikon's premium lenses, and here Nikon regard it more important to provide high optical performance rather than the most compact size in this class of lens. Because it is f/1.8, it's still quite compact and lightweight compared to other high quality lenses such as the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art or Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 Milvus or Otus.

 

Cheaper and likely more compact lenses are expected in the lower tier lens lines in the future, if there is a sufficient market for them.

 

I see that Amazon have an offer on the Sigma 85mm f/1.4 Art, at £869. This puts it very much in the same price bracket, and with a 2/3rds stop and 2 lens element advantage - not that lens element count means a lot. Although the extra aperture could be put to good use.

 

There is a "slight" 470 g vs. 1135g (Sigma 85mm) + 135g (FTZ) weight difference. If you fill your camera bag with Sigma Art primes you will quickly notice it in the weight.

 

I don't know how well the Sigma focuses with Nikon Z6/Z7, but my bet is on the native lens working better with contrast-detect AF in dim light and algorithms such as eye AF.

 

Comparison with the 85mm f/1.8 G Nikkor is also unfair, since the G lens is about half the price. Who's to say that the new formulation lens in F mount wouldn't perform just as well, or better?

 

Well if you can make (say) a 2kg lens I am sure Nikon could make an F mount lens that is really good. But at least I want lenses that feel balanced and nice to use. Ergonomics are a big part of what makes photography enjoyable and in the long term a lot of photographers develop knee, back and ankle problems due to the weight they have to carry and the awkward positions they have to shoot from. I really appreciate Nikon putting a priority on high-quality f/1.8 primes for the Z system. That's where I want to be. I would have bought f/1.8 primes for F mount as well, but the manual focus rings were in many cases poorly implemented and it is really difficult to make precise adjustments. I don't like the acceleration of the focus-by-wire rings (a switch that would allow linear movement would be great) but at least fine adjustments are possible with the Z mount lenses.

Edited August 1, 2019 by ilkka_nissila

But the lens is longer isn't it?

 

Did I argue that the lens was not longer or did I dismiss your reason for it being longer?

 

Again, as I stated elsewhere in this discussion: If the lenses are bigger, doesn't that offset the advantage of the smaller body with a shorter sensor to flange length? In fact, since most people only carry ONE body and MANY lenses wouldn't the advantage be in a larger body that allows for smaller lenses?

So, Nikon are actually taking no advantage of the much-vaunted reduced flange distance of the Z series.

Au contraire! Nikon makes use of that length for additional elements and, presumably, better correction.

it shows that the rear element extends closer to the sensor than the bayonet and so should be very close to the sensor itself, and covers the opening. This probably means some optical benefits to the user, as well.

It is not the distance between the sensor and last element that affects telecentricity, rather the distance from the rear node to the sensor. That is precisely the effect of a strongly negative lens as the last element.

Cheaper and likely more compact lenses are expected in the lower tier lens lines in the future, if there is a sufficient market for them.

If we compare Nikon with Sony (and who doesn't), evolution favors larger, heavier, more highly corrected lenses rather than smaller, simpler, less expensive lenses. Appeal to the enthusiasts, and let the me-too manufacturers compete for the scraps. However much of the development is for slower lenses, instead of massive f/2.8 zooms, of equal or higher image quality. Nikon's (and Nikon fan's) race toward f/1.0 is more pandering to 1960 nostalgia than serving a practical need in the age of ISO 200,000.

 

You must temper the appearance of MtF curves with the knowledge that Nikon generates them using ray-tracing software, rather than by actual measurement. There is no allowance for manufacturing variations.

You must temper the appearance of MtF curves with the knowledge that Nikon generates them using ray-tracing software, rather than by actual measurement. There is no allowance for manufacturing variations.

 

From what I've read, Nikon use wavefront analysis to simulate lenses when they design them; I would imagine the MTFs are also simulated using that. This would then take into account diffraction etc. The differences between NIkon's simulated MTFs and Lensrentals' measurements on optical benches are quite small, typically of the order of 10%, which is not far from the order of magnitude of the lens sample variation. I don't think they'd publish data as part of the lens specifications that they're not comfortable as giving valuable information of the lens performance to the customers.Yes I know there is simulation, and there is simulation. I read that Canon recently changed the simulated MTFs they publish also for their older lenses, to account for diffraction which is now taken into account in their simulations. I've always been quite happy with the correspondence of Nikon's MTF simulations and my real-world experiences with the lenses in question.

 

While enthusiasts and professionals may now want a higher priority on lens optical quality (because of higher resolution sensors, the effects are more readily apparent in the results), I do believe that a huge majority of camera users are very budget-conscious. There is a very large gap between a 500€ cell phone and spending 5000-10000€ on a full frame ILC with a set of lenses. The gap needs to be filled with options, otherwise people won't make the jump. As of the moment, the hugely popular D7x00 and D6x0/D7x0 Nikon DSLRs are in that gap, both new and used, and there are a large number of affordable lenses for the F mount, both Nikon and third party. In the long term, if Nikon want the Z mount to be widely used, they must provide cameras in the 1000€ price class and lenses with around 500€ price per prime lens, some less and some more expensive. It's not going to work that they only produce high-end lenses. However, the recent price reductions show that Nikon probably have the margin to reduce the price of the f/1.8 S line Nikkors by 100-200€ and that means the market may be in the end satisfied. Still there are many photographers in less affluent countries that typically use the entry level gear for professional work, and Nikon and other manufacturers must not pretend that these people do not exist. The reality is that although the capture stage allows higher quality than in the past, the majority of photo viewing probably occurs on mobile phones, and these screens aren't even 2 megapixels on average. The reality is that there is a huge gap between camera capabilities and the real world of how photographs are now used. Thus there is plenty of space for devices of intermediate quality to be manufactured also in the future. Nikon are not in any hurry to create such products simply because they would prefer people to keep buying DSLR equipment where they have a larger market share than in MILC and they have a range of products with different price categories. But eventually I believe they will have to do something about making mirrorless affordable to the less affluent, unless they're fine being a company much smaller than they used to be. I'm not in favour of filling the world with unnecessary industrial/consumer products. But the whole world is now photographing their lives and it doesn't seem justifiable to make ILC photography available just for the richest 1%.

Edited August 1, 2019 by ilkka_nissila

In the real world, Japan now concentrates on high end automobiles, and manufacturing of "affordable" models has shifted to elsewhere in Asia. The same is true for cameras and lenses. There are plenty of choices for entry-level lenses, including Samyang, Sigma, Tamron, even Voigtlander. Mirrorless FF cameras also have excellent compatibility with legacy lenses, so you don't need to buy everything at once.

 

That said, after using lenses specifically made for that camera, it's really hard to go back.

...If we compare Nikon with Sony (and who doesn't)...

Actually, for some reason you do (feel the need to) compare the two more often than most other members here bother to do.

In the real world, Japan now concentrates on high end automobiles, and manufacturing of "affordable" models has shifted to elsewhere in Asia...

In the real world, most "affordable" kei cars are still made in Japan.

 

On topic - great news and it really looks like an interesting 85 mm lens! I completely agree with Illka that prices must come down in order for the masses to make the transition from phones to mirrorless ILCs.