Photozone Highly Recommend Nikon AF-S 85/1.8 G !!!....

<p>See the review <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/717-nikkorafs8518ff">here</a>...</p>

<p>That does not surprise me at all :-)</p>

<p>Ease up on the caffeine !!!....</p>

<p>hmm, that IS a good review...</p>

<p>Any hope for AFG f1.8 24mm or 28 FX?</p>

<p>I think all 85mm primes Nikon has made over the decades have been splendid optically (for their time). It's a "sweet spot" of optical design. I think my 85/1.4 AF-S is the most impressive lens I've bought in many years, and I could shoot days with just this one lens, never being unhappy with the quality of the results or its versatility (you can do a lot with just a short tele prime). I have no doubt the f/1.8 AF-S is in the same ball park in optical quality yet offers a more affordable path to this kind of quality. I read somewhere that the f/1.8 is geared slightly more towards long distances (landscape) and the f/1.4 more towards close distances (portraits). I haven't used the f/1.8 AF-S myself but the f/1.4D certainly was optimized towards close distances. I haven't used the 85/1.4 AF-S for landscape yet so I can't say for sure.</p>

<p><em>Any hope for AFG f1.8 24mm or 28 FX?</em></p>

<p>Mm. I think there is some hope, but I suspect they will be of the f/2.8 variety, optimized for compactness. I wish they'd make a 28/2 or something like that ... it would be a great complement to the 50/1.8 AF-S and 85/1.8 AF-S, more affordable and compact than the f/1.4 yet still very fast.</p>

<p>That is certainly a favorable review. I find it strange that for such a popular portrait lens (as PhotoZone.de themselves point out), there is no portrait image sample among the 22 they provided.</p>

<p>Nikon USA is supposed to send us a copy of the 85mm/f1.8 AF-S for review. I signed the loan contract last week but we are still waiting for it. I have been considering the f1.4 version but have been hoping that supply will ease and the price would come down a bit. Given all the disasters in Japan last year, the f1.4 version remains hard to find. Perhaps this f1.8 would fulfill some of the demand.</p>

<p>As far as more 24mm and perhaps 35mm and 20mm options, I would expect maybe f2 for 35mm and f2.8 for the wider lenses. A 24mm should be an excellent landscape lens that will be used at f8 or so a lot. There seems to be no point to make an additional f1.8 besides the existing f1.4.</p>

<p>As long as we're in the wish list mode, please put me down for a Nano coated 300/4G AF-S VR-II with a quality factory tripod foot ;-)</p>

 

<p>Slightly off topic, but Leslie was referring to this thend:<br>

Nikon first introduced the f1.4 AF-S versions of these lenses:</p>

<ol>

<li>50mm/f1.4 G AF-S, introduced on September 22, 2008</li>

<li>24mm/f1.4 G AF-S, February 9, 2010</li>

<li>85mm/f1.4 G AF-S, August 19, 2010</li>

<li>35mm/f1.4 G AF-S, September 15, 2010</li>

</ol>

<p>And then added some f1.8 lenses:</p>

<ol>

<li>50mm/f1.8 G AF-S, April 27, 2011, just a little more than a month after the March 11 earthquake/tsunami.</li>

<li>85mm/f1.8 G AF-S, January 6, 2012</li>

</ol>

<p>It certainly makes you think that there may be slower, more affordable 35mm, 24mm and perhaps 28 and 20mm versions in the near future.<br>

Likewise, we had:</p>

<ol>

<li>16-35mm/f4 G AF-S VR, February 9, 2010</li>

<li>24-120mm/f4 G AF-S VR, August 19, 2010</li>

</ol>

<p>A 70-200mm/f4 AF-S VR seems obvious.<br>

Of course, updating the 300mm/f4 and 80-400mm is way overdue.</p>

<p>A 28mm /F2.0G AF-S would make perfect sense.</p>

<p>Good, should be a healthy addition to my 35mm f1.8 (and need to buy a 50mm again, kind of regret selling it now).</p>

<p>Would you prefer an f2 wide angle, instead of more compact f2.8 versions as used to be?</p>

<p>Here is the unfortunate thing about ... let's take 28mm Nikon lenses. Back when Nikon was making manual focus lenses, Nikon's 28mm f/2.8 lenses went from good to excellent (for non-ASPH lenses), with the zenith of that lens being the 28mm f/2.8 AIS lens, with eight elements in eight groups. I've owned several of these and they were superb with film cameras.</p>

<p>Then, Nikon went to autofocus with the mediocre "screwdriver" AF system, and darkness fell on the 28mm f/2.8. The first AF lens, the 28mm f/2.8 AF lens was a five-element lens design derived from the so-so 28mm f/2.8 Series E lens. One assumes Nikon went with this design because there wasn't as much glass for primative, first-gen AF motors to move around. Also, the fit, finish and construction of that lens was dismal. I owned one of these I used on an F4 and the image quality was regrettable.</p>

<p>The current 28mm f/2.8 AFD lens, around since 1994, has six elements. It isn't bad as bad as the first AF lens, but its nothing to write home about. Again, the fit, finish and construction of the lens is underwhelming. I also owned one of these I used on F100s and F5s and wasn't sorry to sell it.</p>

<p>I would love to see Nikon field a superb 28mm f/2.8 AFS ASPH lens. I mostly shoot a 28mm outdoors in bright light at f/5.6-8, which would be the sweet spot of such a lens. Certainly, I'd pay more for good construction. Also, I'd prefer a lighter, more compact lens.</p>

<p>That said, while I can't know Nikon's collective thought process, it would appear that starting with my 28mm f/1.4 AFD ASPH lens, Nikon has lavished the best AF lens design and construction on lenses for which it can charge more money. Unlike its f/2.8 AFD, the f/1.4 AFD is an ASPH lens with mostly excellent construction (I've had the thin, plastic AF/M ring break on me twice. When the lens was discontinued, I orederd two of the rings from a dwindling supply in Japan as back-up). I've had mine for years, and it is still quite good on my D700s.</p>

<p>But I'll give Nikon its due. Nikon is a business and can't be expected to lose money on products. The current 28mm f/2.8 AFD lens sells for $260. If Nikon made a lavish, high-quality, alloy-body 28mm f/2.8 AFS ASPH lens, and had to double or triple the price to make a profit, in a day and age when most professionals shoot high-end f/2.8 zooms, how many people would buy an expensive, f/2.8 fixed focal length lens? </p>

<p>If Nikon made a top-notch 28mm f/2.0 AFS ASPH lens, that's be swell too. Though, one would have to understand that the manual focus Zeiss 28mm f/2.0 Distagon in a chipped Nikon mount lens is selling for $1,283. Who is going to pony up the better part of $1,300 for a Nikon AF 28mm f/2.0 lens?</p>

<p>One issue to keep in mind is that back in the AI-S era, there were not early as many zoom as there are today. And among the zoom that existed 25, 30 years ago, mainly those 50-135 and 80-200 were good. Today, given the popularity of the 17-35mm/f2.8 AF-S, 16-35mm/f4 AF-S VR, and 14-24mm/f2.8 AF-S, most likely Nikon will not offer as many fixed wide-angle selections as they did 25 years ago. Back in 1987, I bought my 35mm/f1.4 AI-S, but there were also f2 and f2.8 versions available.</p>

<p>Today, a lot of us have various 24-120mm/f4, 70-200mm/f2.8 and 80-200mm/f2.8 lenses. I am glad that Nikon still provides an affordable version of 85mm AF-S, and it seems to be excellent as well.</p>

<p>When I first looked at the photozone highlights out of focus -- the christmas tree balls with the coloured fringes-- I thought that looked pretty bad compared to my old (and freshly chipped) 85/1.4 AIS. But then I took a few pics of my special LED HOOF/bokeh setup, and it shows the same effect :-(<br /> Well, maybe a little bit less? D70 + 85/1.4 AIS, wide open, focus as close as possible:<br /> <img src="https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-xr0YH_46JtE/T02Ittw0gCI/AAAAAAAAHj4/UlarO8qUfWs/s800/D70_3-0350.jpg" alt="" /><br /> far highlights:<br /> <img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-mUqG6ipQi4U/T02PWOdlOhI/AAAAAAAAHk8/0zNrDs8kjQw/s800/D70_3-0350-3.jpg" alt="" /><br /> near highlights:<br /> <img src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-dfVVxKIQ0j4/T02PV8Sa4uI/AAAAAAAAHk0/BjMXF3lTKoc/s800/D70_3-0350-2.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Excuse me, I`m a bit off topic. That`s true... for "quality" shooting I`m already taking 24mm (28mm) from the zooms, specially from the 24-70. I also have a 14-24, and 24-120/4. There are certainly good lenses that cover the focal.</p>

<p>Anyway, I still use the 24AFD prime (probably the only screw lens I still use), mostly for "casual" shots, weekends, family indoors... it is pretty confortable in comparison with the current sizes&weights. I used it a lot in DX and now a bit less on FX. But I agree in that there could not be enough market to develop a new version. It`d be nice, thought. It`s remarkable the longevity of this lens/design.<br>

---<br>

Stefan, I`m afraid our 85/1.4AiS has been superseded with the new versions. It`s still perfectly usable, but not like other MF lenses that are still on the "to be updated" list...</p>

<p>Every new lens always tempts me. As mentioned, I already have other zooms that cover this focal lenght; out of curiosity, I checked photozone to see how the 70-200VRII stands against this new lens, and got impressed... (<a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/511-nikkorafs7020028vr2ff?start=1">link</a>)<br /> Anyway, given the price and ratings, this lens is very tempting for an "ordinary citizen" like me; the 70-200 is simply too much bulk&load to carry, although the versatility of the zoom is always inevitable.</p>

<p>I have now used the 85mm/f1.8 AF-S a bit, and my initial impression is quite good also. This lens has a similar construction as the 50mm AF-S, both f1.4 and 1.8 versions. The barrel is plastic but IMO that is sufficient for these relatively small lenses. The front element on the 85mm/f1.8 is still quite big, although the one on the 85mm/f1.4 AF-S is huge and requires 77mm filters.</p>

<p>Below are three lenses side by side. The 85mm is quite a bit larger than the 50mm/f1.8 but still considerably shorter than the 105mm/f2.8 AF-S VR micro. All three lenses are now manufactured in China. The 105mm has a metal barrel and is the heaviest by far among the three. All three have a metal mount with the rubber gasget to seal out moisture.</p>

<p>I happens that the three lenses all have different filter sizes:</p>

<ul>

<li>50mm/f1.8 AF-S: 58mm filter thread</li>

<li>85mm/f1.8 AF-S: 67mm</li>

<li>105mm/f2.8 AF-S VR micro: 62mm</li>

</ul>

<p>Gone are the days when Nikon standardized filters to a few sizes. For example, back in the 1970's, my first four Nikon AI lenses all used 52mm filters: 43-86mm/f3.5, 24mm/f2.8, 105mm/f2.5, and 200mm/f4.</p><div></div>

<p>As Leslie Cheung suggests on another thread, I'll mainly focus on images that are in focus and unlike Photozone, I'll provide some portrait samples.</p>

<p>This was captured wide open @ f1.8. I was hand holding the D700 inside a restaurant @ ISO 1600, 1/100. Depth of field is very shallow. The boy's right eye is in focus but the left eye is not. The iPhone he was playing with is also in focus. It is great to have f1.8 under such dim light, but if I have a choice, I would much rather stop down a bit to f2.8 or f4 or a little more depth of field.</p><div></div>

<p>Now I have used the test sample 85mm/f1.8 AF-S for several days, it works really well on the D700. However, on my D7000, it has some back focus problems. It is very obvious at f1.8 but by f4, f5.6, the depth of field covers it up. Initially I thought maybe my D7000 is damaged, but I tested my 24-120mm/f4 AF-S VR and 50mm/f1.4 AF-S on it, and the focus is accurate even at f1.4. Eventually I need to fine tune AF to -8 and then the 85mm/f1.8 AF-S works great on my D7000.</p>

<p>I am quite impressed by this new lens. Chromatic aberration is minimal even though there is no ED element and no nano coating. It should also work well, at least in the center of the frame, on the up-coming D800.</p>