Would you replace a Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G with a f/1.8G?

<p>I would love to have some experienced advice here. </p>

<p>Last year, hoping to do a lot of portrait photography and maybe sell some portrait sessions, and in a moment of very severe NAS, I went crazy and bought a Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G.</p>

<p>About a year later now, having learned that equipment does not a photographer make, I realize that I barely used the (very nice) piece of equipment. Lack of time (I have a day job and 2 small kids), lack of drive, etc. </p>

<p>I am still very interested in portrait photography and am doing some, but mostly in a home studio where I think the more affordable f/1.8G would work as well as its big brother. Heck, I wonder if I couldn't just "get by" with my beloved 70-200 f/2.8 (which I use mostly for sports). </p>

<p>I hate the idea of having a very expensive lens sitting in a drawer depreciating, so my questions: </p>

<p>1) Would you sell the lens, take the hit on it (I guess the cost of learning) and replace it with the f/1.8G while freeing up some cash? </p>

<p>2) Would you sell the lens, take the hit on it and just use the 70-200 f/2.8 for portrait photography (i already own that one)?</p>

<p>3) Would you keep the lens since it's already there and paid for, and since good Nikon lenses don't seem to depreciate that much? </p>

 

<p>Everything I read about the f/1.8G says it's a great lens and I know the 70-200 is already a great lens too (bulky though).<br>

I guess it really boils down to figuring out if I might want or have to use a 1.4G in the future or not... </p>

<p>Cesar<br>

Note: I am currently using a D7000 and plan to move to FX in the next 6 months. </p>

 

Note: I don't have an immediate need to free up the cash (but I wouldn't mind having it!)

<p>I have used all three lenses you mentioned. If you don't need the money, I would suggest hanging onto the 85mm/f1.4 AF-S; it is an excellent lens. So is the 85mm/f1.8 AF-S. If you are starting from having no 85mm, I would highly recommend the f1.8, but since you already have the f1.4 and as long as you don't need the cash, you might as well hang onto it.</p>

<p>The 70-200mm/f2.8 can be used as a portrait lens, but it is big and it is not as fast.</p>

<p>Availability of the 85mm/f1.4 AF-S has eased and the value has dropped a bit, but most likely it will keep its value quite well from now on. Unlike DSLRs, should you decide to sell the 85mm/f1.4 AF-S in the future, most likely you won't lose any more value, unless you damage it.</p>

<p>On a similar basis, for similar reasons, I've been wondering about my under-used 85mm 1.4D and whether to swap it out for a 1.8G, so I can use it on my V1, D3200 and D5100.</p>

<p>Mike, your situation is different. It makes a lot of sense to switch to the 85mm/f1.8 AF-S version so that you gain AF on the D3200 and D5100.</p>

<p>I captured the following two images with the f1.8 and f1.4 AF-S versions, respectively, both wide open, both at 1/80 sec. I am very happy with both of them. It is the same girl in the two images.</p>

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/15808077-lg.jpg" alt="" /> <br /><br />85mm/f1.8 AF-S @ f1.8 on D800, ISO 3200</center><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>I realize that I barely used the (very nice) piece of equipment</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Will that likely change? If not - sell. But if it doesn't - then why get the f/1.8 to replace it - to have a cheaper lens sitting unused on the shelf?<br>

Shun already covered the financial side of this thoroughly. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The 70-200mm/f2.8 can be used as a portrait lens, but it is big and it is not as fast.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not seeing how this is a negative in a studio setting. And outdoors, the ability to change focal lengths might come in handy. But of course one isn't going to get the thin DOF of the 85/1.4 or its bokeh.</p>

<p>Shun: thanks for your answer. <br>

Your reasoning is along the lines of what I've been thinking to justify keeping the lens. It makes sense to me. </p>

<p>On the other hand, and unless there is a remote chance that its value increases (I doubt that), if there is only a limited chance I might need the f/1.4 aperture (not sure why), wouldn't it make more sense to sell it now that it is still in pristine condition? </p>

<p>After accumulating gear for a couple of years now, I am starting to believe that maybe I should just get what I need now and/or what I am pretty sure of using rather than the fanciest thing available... </p>

<p>Decisions, decisions :)</p>

<p>The obsession with the 85/1.4 is interesting, but if you need to free up some ca$h I'd go with the 85/1.8 and you can certainly do stunning portraiture with a 70-200/2.8.</p>

<p>Just take a look at the two example images I posted. I was aleady using the D800/D800E at ISO 1600 and 3200 with those lenses wide open without flash. The 70-200mm/f2.8 is not going to give you that same low-light capability. At maximum f2.8, either you have to boost the ISO even further, thus compromising the quality even more, or you risk a slow shutter speed. Even though VR will help a bit, subject motion will still be an issue.</p>

<p>If you like to shoot indoors without flash as I do, I would stay with an f1.4 or f1.8 lens. 1.4 is like 2/3 of a stop faster, but the f1.8 can get the job done at 1/3 of the price.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Will that likely change? If not - sell. But if it doesn't - then why get the f/1.8 to replace it - to have a cheaper lens sitting unused on the shelf?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is a very good point. If you are not going to use the 85mm, it makes little sense to replace the f1.4 with an f1.8 that you will also not use.</p>

<p>With two kids growing up, though, I think you may start shooting more portraits in a few years.</p>

<p>After seeing the results from several local portrait photographers, I'd rather have the Sigma 85mm f1.4 than either of the Nikons. That said, you mention you've spent a lot of money on a lens already, and will also spend a lot of money on a camera. I saw no mention of you spending money on the most important thing for pro portraits--a lighting system (monolights, modifiers, stands, maybe a battery pack, etc.)</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<blockquote>

<p>After seeing the results from several local portrait photographers, I'd rather have the Sigma 85mm f1.4 than either of the Nikons.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kent, are you suggesting that such results are mainly due to which lens they used rather than those portrait photographers' skills? :-)</p>

<p>I have never even seen the Sigma 85mm/f1.4, but either Nikon is excellent. I can't imagine using a Sigma lens will make all that much of a difference.</p>

<p>And getting some lighting set up is not going to be the answer to every single question. :-)</p>

<p> Once I buy a piece of gear then I just keep it and use it for the life of the item. So, no I would not sell the lens. However being a family guy and one that watches my hobby money I would not have bought it to start with especially with the crop sensor camera's that family folks usually buy. A 50mm f1.8 makes a great portrait lens or general purpose lens with the D7000. Actually the D7000 is a very nice camera and I would prefer that to whatever FX camera you wish to waste more money on. </p>

<p>Twice the OP has mentioned selling it while the price is up. I doub't that wonderful lens is going to depreciate much if any over the years. They are $1650 on B & H and over $1500 used on Ebay so why not keep it until you are certain.</p>

<p>You appear to be seriously over-gunned for what you want to do. You said as much when you said:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>After accumulating gear for a couple of years now, I am starting to believe that maybe I should just get what I need now and/or what I am pretty sure of using rather than the fanciest thing available...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This happens pretty often. People buy way more than they need. Having said that. I agree with Chun. If owning this lens is affordable then keep it. You won't lose much in the long haul and you may grow into it. If you DO think that you have gotten in over your head and need the money for other things then let us know and we can talk about a good basic kit for you. It is, it would appear in your case, just about the money. If that doesn't matter then it is all academic. I suspect the money does matter or you wouldn't have asked the question. </p>

<p>I would sell it if you want to free up the cash. You can probably buy a replacement used one for about the same price. I love the f/1.8 version on FX. I find 85mm is too long for portraits on DX much of the time, especially when indoors. If I was in your situation I probably wouldn't buy the f1/.8 version until I got an FX camera, since you haven't been using it much on your current camera.<br>

The obvious other choice is to hold onto it until you buy an FX camera and reevaluate the lens at that point. For your uses it may be better than the f1/8 version. For my uses the f/1.8 version is better (smaller and sharper).<br>

If you don't have it, the 50mm f/1.8 AFS is very nice. So is the f/1.4. You may find one of those to be more useful on the D7000, and you will still be happy to have it on the FX camera. </p>

<p>Yes.</p>

<p>cesar, keep the lens. you may find you use it more when you jump to FX. since you already have it, it's kind of pointless to downgrade to the 85/1.8G. from shun's pics you can see how much better the 1.4 is. also, if you don't need the cash, no reason to sell right now. the answer to your query is simply to shoot with the lens more.</p>

<p>i also have the 70-200, along with the sigma 85. the 70-200 is a great lens but the 85 is also. i could probably get by with either, but it's nice to have both. it's not always practical to take the 70-200, and the 85 is great at open apertures.</p>

<p>Here are some side-by-side comparison shots done under controlled shooting which illustrates the differences between frou 85mm lenses including the 85mm f1.4 and f1.8.</p>

<p>http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_85mm_telephoto_lens_comparison/</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm of the camp that if you don't use it, don't let it lounge around, costing you (although, I don't agree that it will depreciate; it doesn't matter whether you sell it today or in 2 years, you'll get about the same price for it). As to replacing it with either the f/1.8G or just substituting your 70-200mm, well you need to decide what kind of portraits that you shoot. If you stick to the classic 85mm, and you're open wider than f/4 or f/2.8, then obviously one of those 85mm lenses is necessary. However, one of Nikon's most famous portrait lens, still used often today, is their manual focus 105mm f/2.5. Your 70-200mm zoomed to that focal length compares favorably to that lens, and even at 70mm on your current DX camera, it's a good focal length, but just a stop slower. Or, as you see from Shun's photos, the depth of field is rather thin wide open, so perhaps for your portraits, you will be stopping down to f/4 or so, but this is all personal preference, as there is no right answer. Some people love using their 85mm f/1.4 or 135mm f/2.0 wide open, while some people use backdrops and do their portraiture at f/8. I've seen some that use their focal length to get that shallow depth of field, using a large space and shooting with their 70-200mm wide open at 200mm instead of an 85mm at f/1.4. Well, in that case, as long as you don't mind hanging the 70-200mm lens off of the front of your camera, there are a lot of things I could do with $1,000.</p>

<p>As for needing the larger apertures for capturing light, unlike Shun, I never find myself in a situation where I'm maxed out on my ISO, maxed out on my aperture, and at the limits of handholdable shutter speed, although given the popularity of image stabilization, I seem to be in a minority. If I anticipate going into those situations, I either use a bounce flash or continuous light (if you're doing portrait photography as a business, then you WILL have artificial lighting), use a tripod, or turn on more lights. Even a $150 LED light panel or two, if you have the capability to control lighting in your environment, will be better than trying to stick with available light. This also allows me to turn down the ISO, preserving image quality. For studio and posed portraiture, aperture will be more about depth of field than light control.</p>

<p>And last, I definitely agree about buying what you need rather than the fanciest thing available. As of 3 years ago, one of my photo mentors was still using his D200 for all of his paid architectural work, despite the D700, D300, and D3 being out. Another was using a Minolta point and shoot to create a book. They definitely taught me that you just choose a tool that's good enough to do the job you need. Also, stepping up to the best gear is the quickest way to burn yourself out. Start small, and only move up when you start reaching the limits of your current gear. That probably means putting your full frame camera on the backburner, until you have exhausted the limits of your current camera. I never understood the obsession with jumping straight up to the best, like a guy I recently met who never used a DSLR before a year ago, and liked his D5100 so much that he is now shooting a D800. I guess, if that works for you, but I would never do that. To me, it seems like wanting to learn how to drive, and going straight up to a Lamborghini as your first car.</p>

<p>So, I guess to provide Cliff's notes: If I were in your position, I'd see what I need to shoot. If I never shot my portraits at 85mm, I sure as heck wouldn't keep my 85mm around! If I decided that 85mm at f/1.4 was my bread and butter, I'd keep that lens. If I did like 85mm, but I found that I always stop down to f/2.8-f/4, then I'd sell the current 85mm, and either deal with the weight and size of the 70-200mm, or I'd get the cheaper 85mm, which will be nigh-indiscernable at those apertures.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>from shun's pics you can see how much better the 1.4 is</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eric, I am curious about why you feel that the f1.4 is so much better.</p>

<p>I am happy with both the f1.8 and f1.4 versions, but I have not used them side by side for a close comparison. To me, the f1.8 AF-S is very good also, and it is a much better deal at about 1/3 of the price. The f1.4 could be "better," but it is hard to justify 3 times the cost.</p>

<p>Agree with Eric .The second picture is much better,the bokeh is wonderful while in the other is so so.That mimic my experience with the two 85mm lenses.</p>

<p>I do not own an 85 1.4G, but I owned (and loved) a 1.4D for a long time. I understand that the performance of the lens for slower-moving work is extremely similar, so hopefully my personal experience will be of use to you.</p>

<p>I found that on a DX body (most recently the D7000), using the lens at f/2.8-f/4 produced very similar results to my 70-200 f/2.8. The 85mm was just a hair nicer, but the extra 15mm (22.5mm or so on DX) was just enough that the 70-200 was significantly easier to use indoors, despite the larger size. However, I did find the 85mm to be sharper at f/5.6, and the 70-200 to have diffraction issues a little later in the aperture range. I have not tested this lens on any APS-C-sized sensor camera made since then, so I have no idea what it's like now.</p>

<p>I found that on an FX camera (D700, at the time), the 85 1.4 was substantially better. Not only was the 85mm lens now very easy to work with, but the 70-200 was quite soft in the corners. This was the 70-200 Mk1 though; I understand that the MkII has solved this problem. Either way, the overall look of the 85mm lens was better in every way and at every setting than the 70-200mm set at around 85mm. Considering the great leap the D800 made over the D700 in terms of sharpness and print size, I would suspect that the 85mm is a huge improvement over the 70-200mm on the newest FX cameras.</p>

<p>The reason why I no longer own an 85mm f/1.4, even though I really like it, has nothing to do with the lens itself, and everything to do with the bodies. I regularly print large, but I also shoot a lot of medium and large format film, and almost never shoot any of the stuff that I might want a big print of with my digital cameras. Because of that, I see no need to buy an FX camera anytime in the foreseeable future. And without the FX camera, there's no major advantage for me to have the 85mm lens. And so away it went.</p>

<p>I realize that's convoluted reasoning, but that's sort of the way that I think :)</p>

<p>Anywhoo, hope that rant was useful!</p>

<p>1) Would you sell the lens, take the hit on it (I guess the cost of learning) and replace it with the f/1.8G while freeing up some cash?</p>

<p>I re-read this, and if you're really going FX in 6 months, I'd keep it at least until then. It is a long lens to use in Dx for available light. A 50/1.4 would be more practical.</p>

<p>2) Would you sell the lens, take the hit on it and just use the 70-200 f/2.8 for portrait photography (i already own that one)?</p>

<p>Wait 6 months. For other than unavailable light or minimal DOF, the zoom is big, but it will do a great job.</p>

<p>Get a 50/1.4 if you don't have one. It will work well with Dx and as a normal lens for torso-length or further on FX.</p>

<p>Any of these lenses are amply good enough to make you the most famous portraitist that ever lived, if you did your part behind the camera.</p>

<p>If you don't need the cash, I would not sell it to get the f/1.8 version. I would only sell it if you really feel you have no desire to own an 85mm prime lens. The f/1.4 is technologically a better lens with less CA. The "is it worth 3x more than the f/1.8" question is a personal issue that varies from person to person.</p>

<p>As far as the lens not getting a lot of use, I think many of us here are in the same position as hobbyists (with full time jobs, families, and other interests). Personally, I have a 105mm VR micro that I bought in February and have used only three times since, but I absolutely love macro when I do it. Maybe I could have saved some money and rented the lens when I needed it, but every time I used it, it was on an occasion when I woke up saying "I feel like going out to shoot some macro today." Hobby versus job. I have a buddy who has $2500 golf clubs and only hits the course four or five times a year. He's not a terrible golfer (not great either), but he wanted the Callaway clubs because of the quality and reputation. Hobby versus job...if you have the means to enjoy a hobby, then by all means do it as long as you don't bankrupt doing it. You may not use the lens very much, but on that morning when your kids are in order for a great shot or your significant other has that certain look you want to capture that only the 85mm can give you with its 1.4 aperture, you'll be happy you had it in that drawer.</p>

I know I'm a bit late to the party, but here are my thoughts. While it sounds to me that it would have been more

appropriate to your needs to get the 1.8 G version, now that you have it, I wouldn't part with the 1.4. I am frankly amazed

at this lens and see it going down as one of the greats. Now that you've used it, going backwards would not be enjoyable

- it is almost painful for me to mount my old 85mm 1.8 AF on my camera - the difference is shocking. I know the 1.8 G is

a better lens than its predecessor, but I still think it isn't worth it.

 

Enjoy your lens and find more excuses to shoot with it.

<p>Shun--<br>

A competent lighting system isn't the answer for everything, but for portraits it often is. Portrait work is more about lighting than anything else. As for the OP, I think the smart thing to do is simply start selling portraits and raise the money to buy more stuff. I seriously doubt he'll earn more money if he spends the big bucks for an FX camera. I would sell the lens and put the money into a portable lighting system of the type you can do location senior photos with. I'm looking at it from a business angle, not a gear angle.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Have you tried using the 70-200mm f2.8 for portraits? I have and I like it a lot for portraits. At f2.8 (or stopped down further), you likely would not see much of a difference if any between the various lenses at 85mm.</p>