Nikon portrait lenses - Ai-S versus AF-D (135/2,85/1.4)

<p>Hello, I'd love to get serious about portraiture and I want to buy a few good performing lenses for that purpose. I shoot mostly film (FA) but sometimes DX digital too (D40) and surely some FX body in the future.<br /> I've read lots of older posts but none of them gave me satisfying answer. So sorry about asking repeatedly but it can't let me sleep.<br /> Here's my question about lenses, I would love to buy a short tele,85/1.4 and medium tele 135/2 and maybe 105mm either. Ai-s versions are greatly built and are cheaper but how do they stand against they're newer cousins. Are they only legends or really great performing lenses? And I really don't care about AF as I use manual camera. Performance is all I want(for portraits mostly).<br /> So,what is the real difference between 135/2 Ais and newer 135/2 AF-D,despite $500 price difference and DC ring,is D version worth twice the price,what is the bokeh like when compared? Is there anybody who owns both of them and can compare? What about CA,and LoCA? Some say AIs have more of them,others say that AF-D is worse. I've read a few reviews too but opinions vary greatly in this subject.<br /> Same thing with 85mm/1.4. Some say that 85mm f/1.4 Ai-s is a king,but I've also read that 85mm f/1.4D is sharper and has a better bokeh. I don't consider G version because it will not work on my FA camera. <br /> Easiest thing would be try them all,I know, but I don't really have that option. So I'm asking you first. It's a significant amount to invest for me and I want a truly great performing lens without selling it next week. And I'm really new to this field.<br /> I know it's a hard question to answer but I'll be grateful for all your opinions.<br /> Thank you.</p>

<p>Hi Rastislav. I don't own all these, but I'll give such feedback as I can...<br />

<br />

The 135 f/2 AF-D DC has "defocus control" that actively alters the spherical aberration behaviour in order to modify the appearance of bokeh in front of and behind the lens (photozone's review shows the effect). I'm sure the Ai-s version is a lovely lens (I've only read reviews), but it doesn't have this feature, and there's no way the bokeh is going to be as smooth/controllable. That said, the DC lens can play hell with autofocus and it introduces relatively hellacious LoCA, which is why I've been meaning to sell mine for so long. The bokeh is <i>very</i> smooth, but a few experiences of green hair from being slightly out of focus were enough. That said, stop down to f/4 (or don't pixel-peep) and it's very good - but I wanted a lens that can lose the background more than f/4! I do own a 135mm f/2.8 Ai; there's a little LoCA wide open, but for something so small and cheap (the DC is neither, although the weight helps with hand-holding) it does pretty well, so long as you can focus it.<br />

<br />

I've not used an 85mm f/1.4 Ai-s, but they're still quite expensive on the used market. Every review I've seen of the AF-D suggests that it's very soft in the corners until you stop down a lot - this may be fine for you, depending on your subject matter, but it put me off, especially at the price of the AF-D. The 85mm f/1.4 Samyang is a relatively good performer and much cheaper, if you're prepared to manual-focus - that's the solution I went with, and I'd recommend at least considering it in your position. The AF-S replacement for Nikon's 85mm f/1.4 is much sharper wide open, but obviously very expensive and prone to LoCA (and G).<br />

<br />

None of these lenses are especially good with LoCA until you stop down. If LoCA bothers you (as it does me), the best options in faster lenses seem to be either the Voigtlander APO series (expensive, rare, discontinued), the Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro lenses (not strictly perfect, but not bad and relatively affordable) or the solution I went with, the 200 f/2 (very expensive and enormous). I may add a Sigma 150mm to my selection at some point, if only because they're more portable than the 200mm, but I think they're "G" and therefore won't help you. I'm not aware of any lateral CA issues with any of these lenses.<br />

<br />

I hope that helps, at least until someone with experience of the older lenses can chime in. Good luck.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I only have one of the lenses you mention, but for that one I can answer this question: <em>Are they only legends or really great performing lenses?</em><br>

The 105mm f/2.5 is a really great performing lens. In my view, it holds up easily against newer lenses (in my case, best comparison is a AF-D 80-200 f/2.8). The 105 can be found for relatively little money and is worth every penny.</p>

<p>I agree that 105/2.5 AI(S) is one of the best options at hand for MF portraiture. My copy is very sweet and I'll never part with it. I did not tested 85/1.4 AI-S but it seems a very good lens and its price tag reflects that. Instead I have a good copy of 85/2 AI-S and I'm delighted by it. Small, inexpensive and very nice character. I also have 85/1.4 AF-D and this lens is a classic for portraiture. Very nice bokeh and who cares for soft corners at portraits? Also I tested in a shop Samyang 85/1.4... it's a real beast with incredible good IQ. Anyhow my preferred 85 is Sigma 85/1.4 but since is a G lens does not work for you.</p>

<p>My less good experience is with 135/2 DC. I'm not so excited about it... using or not the defocusing control. I may part with it one day. Never tried 135/2 AI-S but heard and seen very good things / pictures from it.</p>

<p>Few hours ago I have read Rorslett comments about the 85/1.4 versions. To be short, he mention on the AFD fringing issues, high sharpness up to f5.6, softer if smaller. On the AiS, softness up to f2.8, and sharper from f8 and smaller, here he doesn`t mention fringing issues.</p>

<p>Looks like the fringing issue came with the IF fashion; the only 85 without IF is the AiS Nikkor.</p>

<p>About bokeh, I don`t know what to think. He mentions the highlight harshness of the AiS in comparison to the AFD. Personally, I dislike all that circular spots, I don`t care if they are more or less obvious, usually splitting hairs; to my liking all are ugly. In other than this, the diferences use to be minimal to my taste.</p>

<p>Although I have an AiS sample, I cannot tell about my own experience because I keep it unused since a long time ago. I always end using 105mm lenses, which I prefer.</p>

<p>My favourites are the mentioned 105/2.5 in MF, and the not-so-sexy-for-portrait-purists 105VR. I only use FX and film.</p>

<p>For portraiture I -by far- prefer an AF lens, simply because I get more perfectly focused shots. Most of my portraits are not posed at all; I have to press the AF-ON button a lot of times before getting the shot, while framing and/or waiting for the right moment. The 105VR have a reasonable bokeh quality, AF speed and the VR aid that makes me not to look for another one.</p>

<p>I have been playing a bit with my 85/1.4AiS, something I wanted to do since I read some Andrew`s posts. I wonder if his Samyang performs similarly.<br /> I wanted to take all the fringing I can get from the lens. One flash for the subject, another for the background. Don`t know if it says anything, <em>I have never seen a lens that doesn`t show this fringing issues under this conditions</em>.<br /> First, the whole frame. This pic is taken at f8; at f1.4, with the same exposure levels, you can guess that is a green fringe, but not so evident:</p><div></div>

<p>At f1.4, under extreme contrast, there is certainly a green fringe. Softness is also obvious... with a flare effect that recall me the "Leica glow" of the 35/1.4AiS wide open that I use to like so much.<br>

This is not the focus plane but the area where the fringe is more evident:</p><div></div>

<p>At f2, the fringing is slightly softer but still visible. The lens become noticeably sharper:</p><div></div>

<p>I don`t want to be boring; the last one at f8 where the thing has gone completely. Now the lens is really sharp... I`m surprised how close is this lens to the mentioned 35/1.4. I can post more pics if needed.</p><div></div>

<p>Forgot to mention that are 100% crops.</p>

<p>I would not worry about the marginal increase in image quality of the autofocus lenses in this range.</p>

<p>I had the 135/2 AIS and liked it but I had the Nikon 200/2 AI, and Zeiss/Contax 85/1.4, at the same time and the 135/2 did not have the "wow factor" characteristics of the other two much more expensive lenses. Obviously the 200/2 is an unfair comparison. What I learned about the Zeiss 85/1.4 and I suspect the Nikon 85/1.4 Ais is very similar is that from f1.4 to f2 their image quality is directed at creating pleasing portraits with a slight softness (not unlike that of the a 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 lenses that I have owned in the past) and with nice soft rendering of out-of-focus foregrounds and backgrounds that the cheaper lenses cannot duplicate. Then by f2.8 the Zeiss was the sharpest lens I have ever had, and again I suspect the Nikon 85/1.4 would sharpen significantly as well from f2.8 to f5.6. </p>

<p>I anticipate the purchase of a Nikon 85/1.4 AIS sometime in the next two years, myself, and I highly recommend this one. Just in the past couple of weeks I considered one of the Samyang/Vivitar/Rokinon 85/1.4 lenses until I read of repeated aperture blade problems, and my concern over longevity of the lens. </p>

<p>I would love the Zeiss lens again but I prefer a lens that works on both my Nikon bodies and Canon bodies.</p>

<p>The other lens that I have considered is the very affordable and very highly rated Nikon 105/2.5 AIS.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I wanted to take all the fringing I can get from the lens. One flash for the subject, another for the background. Don`t know if it says anything, <em>I have never seen a lens that doesn`t show this fringing issues under this conditions</em>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Challenge accepted. :-) At the risk of flooding the thread, here are some example. Two-flash setup and the nearest thing to Jose's model I could find. I seem to be struggling to saturate the background (operator incompetence of some sort). I tried to match the subject size in the frame for each lens (i.e. I was farther away with the 200mm, closer with the 85mm); apologies for not getting it perfect - the minimum focus distances didn't help.<br>

All these are at 1/200s hand-held (not that it should matter with the flashes), ISO adjusted to compensate for changes in aperture (ISO 400 at f/2) and occasionally pushed a stop in RAW in RAW because it's late and I can't count - in case you wonder why the smaller apertures are noisier. All via ACR's defaults with no additional sharpening provided. The 200mm had VR on.<br>

Starting with the "oh dear" case, here's the 135mm f/2. I'll begin without playing with the defocus control...</p>

<div></div>

<p>Here's the same at f/2.8...</p><div></div>

<p>And, when it starts getting more reasonable, at f/4.</p><div></div>

<p>I should probably take a second to show you what you're looking at. Everything but this image is at 1:1 from a D700 - LoCA will occupy more pixels on a D3x, for example.</p><div></div>

<p>Still on the 135 f/2 DC, now playing with the defocus control - I set it to rear ® and the number for the aperture, as per instructions.</p><div></div>

<p>Stepping the aperture back up...</p><div></div>

<p>And the case that I was hoping was going to be useful - f/2, DC at R2.</p><div></div>

<p>Just to show how bad this really is, here's elsewhere in the image...</p><div></div>

<p>Finally, here's the worst of the flare from elsewhere in the image. Note: this is making a very good lens look very bad, and I'm not just saying that because I want to sell mine. Sadly, I take a lot of wide-open photos with black and white edges out of focus...</p><div></div>

<p>So much for Hypnoken's "some chromatic aberration" and "don't be afraid to shoot at f/2".<br>

Now the Samyang 85mm f/1.4. I've not had any aperture blade problems, but I've not had it long, so it may be in store. So far, though, I'm a happy customer (for the price, which was a quarter the 135 DC's).</p><div></div>

<p>f/1.4 on the Samyang isn't as bad as f/2 on the 135mm DC, but it's not quite perfect. Let's try to match the depth of field rather than the background blur, and drop to f/2...</p><div></div>

<p>For me, f/2 is pretty good for LoCA. Just for completeness, here's f/4.</p><div></div>

<p>Just to show the Samyang's good points, here's the leg crop to match the last image from the 135mm.</p><div></div>

<p>So the Samyang's better than the 135mm, and something well worth the price to me, but definitely not perfect (at least wide open). To really meet the challenge of being able to lose the background and not have LoCA, here's the 200 f/2. It better be able to do this, because this is why I paid three times the price of the 135mm to get one...</p><div></div>