The Nikkor 85mm F1.4

<p><br />Hi there,<br /><br />I'm shopping for a "king of bokeh"-type portrait lens. However is this thing truly good enough to uphold the fact that:<br /><br /><br />1. It's more than twice the cost of its F1.8 sibling.<br /><br />2. It's infringing on the price of the versatile 24-70mm F2.8.<br /><br /><br />If anyone has direct comparison samples that pertain to either 1. or 2., they would be hugely appreciated.<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />Calvin<br /></p>

<p>What format camera are you shooting... DX or FX (or, film?). If you're on DX, seriously consider Sigma's new 50/1.4 HSM (which is also a terrific - if relatively large and heavy) "normal" focal length lens on FX. But one thing it does, really well, is bokeh. And... it's not a killer, price-wise - certainly a lot less than the other two you mention, and possibly a much more versatile focal length. Whether a 50mm would serve your needs is an important consideration, but if it will - there's no better 50 on the market right now, if you like that creamy bokeh and great DoF control.</p>

<p>There are some reports that the f/1.8 is as good as the f/1.4. I own both an AIS version of the f/1.4 and the new f/1.8. If money was tight, I'd easily be content with just the f/1.8. It has superb bokeh. Of course there's nothing like an extra stop to emphasize the bokeh.</p>

<p>if you look up 'king of bokeh' in the dictionary, there's a picture of the nikon 85/1.4 next to it.</p>

<p>I bought the 85 f1.8 hoping to save some money but returned it for the f1.4 AFD.</p>

<p>The 1.8 had a horrible cheap looking plastic case. Awful manual focus and poor tactile feel. But it did produce sharp images though.</p>

<p>The f1.4 AFD has silky smooth manual focus, fabulous tactile feel and build. It also produces sharp images as you would expect. <br>

The photographs can look very special with this lens, it separates the subject from the background in a unique manner. The effect can look almost three dimensional.</p>

<p>To sum up my experience the f1.8 is a good lens capable of excellent results.<br>

But the f1.4 is a special lens capable of gorgeous images, and you feel the build quality in use. It is a lens I would never be without!</p>

<p>When it comes to bokeh I personally like to think of it as two separate issues - the degree of background blur that can be attained and the quality of that blur. I think that the word bokeh is most correctly used to refer to the latter, but never mind the semantics.</p>

<p>The actual degree of blur attainable is very strongly related to the focal length used, so an 85mm lens will produce much more blur than a 50mm lens; a 200mm lens far more still.</p>

<p>However the quality of the blur is, I think, what the 85/1.4 is best known for. I haven't used that lens but I've seen lots of samples with it, including direct bokeh comparison with other similar lenses, and it really does have a significantly nicer effect to the blur, f/stop for f/stop, from what I have seen.</p>

<p>Another important thing with a portrait lens is that you really don't want it to be TOO sharp. If you review the tests of the 85/1.4 at photozone you will see - and they have presumably tested multiple samples - that it is actually not extremely sharp at wide openings.</p>

<p>I did own the 85/1.8 and sold it as I did not think it was as good a lens for my purposes as its reputation led me to expect. The colors it produced were not particularly bright and crisp. It did however do well with skin tones and it was not super-sharp wide-open, so it was very decent for portraits. However I plan to replace it with its big brother when I find the right deal.</p>

<p>I have also used my 80-200 f/2.8 for portrait-type photos of family and friends. It also has very nice blur qualities, but probably not as nice as the 85/1.4. However, it is too sharp, even wide open. I think that like so many aspects of photography, our eyes compensate for imperfections when we look at a person live in the flesh - however, on photos taken with a sharp lens, every flaw is visible in perfect clarity and their appearance in the photo is less appealing than what we expect. Of course this is only one variable and I make no claim to being a master of portraiture.</p>

<p>I do suspect the 85/1.4's reputation as a portrait lens is well deserved and worth the expense.</p>

<p>Matt, I am DX and have heard good things about that Sigma too. One of my experienced friends is planning to trade up to it from his Canon 50mm F1.4.</p>

<p>Thanks for the detailed analysis, Glenn.</p>

<p>Can you tell me what you mean when you say a portrait lens should not be too sharp?</p>

<p>Don't forget about the 105mm f/2 DC AF and the 105mm f/2.5 AIS. Both lenses are legendary for their sharpness and bokeh as well. There's tons of posts about the 85mm f/1.4AF vs. the 105 f/2 DC both here and at dpreview's Nikon SLR forum. Bottom line seems to be that the 85 is a little punchier and more "photojournalist" looking than the 105DC, which is more "painterly" and does a better job with flesh tones. Of course, on DX the 105's are going to be a little long for you, but in terms of absolute bokeh they are right up there with the 85mm f/1.4AF.</p>

<p>Your #1 question is subjective, as is the answer. I bet you'll find the 1.8 images to be perfectly acceptable. It is a very good lens, plain and simple. I doubt anyone would dispute that. I would also speculate that a lesser-trained eye will find the differences between images (1.8 vs. 1.4) to be negligible/nonexistent at the more commonly used apertures. <p> Introducing the 24-70/2.8 into the conversation confuses the matter. The zoom is an entirely different animal altogether. Consider your priorities...where's the biggest bang to satisfy your needs/wants? <p> Anthony noted the 1.4D has 'silky smooth manual focus'. I disagree. The manual focus version of the 1.4 is silky. The D80 finder doesn't lend itself well to manual focusing in this (portrait) context; tele at wide ap, short distance. I do not have a 1.8 but do have MF and AF versions of the 1.4.</p>

<p>In addition to the responses above, I would like to add that the 'desaturated' look that the 85 1.4 produces also makes it very special for portraiture.<br /> Also I think that the 50mm lens, even on DX, may be OK for child portraiture, but it still has the typical perspective distortion of a 50mm that won't be ideal for a close-up (headshot type) of an adult.<br>

Below:<br>

The typical desaturated look. I focused on the right eye of my daughter, and at f/2, the left side is 'soft'.</p><div></div>

<p>Alex, thanks for your thoughts.</p>

<p>I brought up the 24-70mm F2.8 because I'm also considering it and was wondering how its bokeh compares. Not at all fair to put it up against a powerful 85mm prime, I know. I just wanted to hear opinions on how far, or little, it falls behind with respect to portraits.</p>

<p>Calvin, perhaps if you're doing professional fashion photography and shooting perfect models in perfect light it doesn't matter - but to my eyes, close-cropped photos of ordinary people taken with sharp lenses are just not usually flattering. A little bit of softness in the lens will tend to give ordinary peoples' skin a healthier, more even, more attractive look. To my eyes it is not a subtle difference.</p>

<p>Thanks, Glenn.</p>

<p>Mahmud,</p>

<p>That's a lovely photograph, but it shows nothing about the out of focus highlights, which is what Calvin is looking for.</p>

<p>Calvin,</p>

<p>I have the 85mm f/1.8. It is an excellent lens, and its light weight helps me shoot candids for hours without the tendinitis in my wrists acting up. However, it does not render the out of focus highlights as nicely as I've seen on images from the 85mm f/1.4. I'm attaching a photo with the f/1.8 which should give you an idea of what it can do and what it can't. You'll the slight harshness in the out of focus background.</p>

<p>For some reason, it didn't upload before.</p><div></div>

<p>Hector, I am following this thread with interest, as I own a Nikon 85mm f/1.8 AF which I bought both for my D80, and for my F4. Is your camera FX or DX? This is the same question that Matt asked of Calvin. Knowing this helps to interpret your fine example. Thanks, Chris</p>

<p>Sorry, I'm using DX. That was shot with a D50, f/1.8 at 1/250, hand-held. I know mostly use a D90. Maybe I should post a 100% crop of the bokeh.</p><div></div>

<p>Hector, since the 85mm's effective focal length for DX is 127mm, the depth of field is of course very shallow at f/1.8. It would be interesting to progressively stop the lens down and note how the out of focus highlights begin to change. Hmm, a good project for the weekend, as I haven't had the opportunity to use my new 85mm very much.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>if you look up 'king of bokeh' in the dictionary, there's a picture of the nikon 85/1.4 next to it.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Eric, I Googled it and it came up with the Leica!</p>

<p>*Leica 35mm pre-ashp Summicron</p>

<p>okay, but this is the nikon forum, tom. is that lens even available in F-mount?</p>

<p>sure it is...... <a href="http://www.leitax.com/leica-lens-for-nikon-cameras.html">here</a></p>

<p>Hector, thanks for the beautiful bokeh sample.</p>

<p><em>1. It's more than twice the cost of its F1.8 sibling.</em> <br /> One look at the bokeh of the f/1.8 will convince you to go for the f/1.4 (just take a look at the pic posted by Hector - yuck), especially as you after "the king of bokeh"<br /> <br /> <em>2. It's infringing on the price of the versatile 24-70mm F2.8.</em> <br /> You can only open up to f/2.8, probaby not what you want if you are after bokeh<br /> <br /> I bought the f/1.4 after seeing samples from the f/1.8. The price difference is harrowing but the bokeh and much improved build quality made the decision. I just wish it would perform like the f/1.8 at the corners wide open but then this is a portrait lens so this is not so important.<br /> <br /> Perhaps this will help you with your decision, D700 with 85mm f/1.4 @ f/2:<br /> <img src="http://www.liddellphoto.com/iw/grass.jpg" alt="" /></p>