85mm f/1.8D - A good choice?

[Carl Stone]

With that much DOF, it doesn't look like the lens was wide open. But, I'm not arguing

with you, they're your pics.

[peter_h1]

The 85mm f/1.8 is a wonderful lense with film. I haven't had luch luck with it on digital though with cropping and softness wide open, but I'm still playing with it.

As a companion to a 50mm its a good choice, however remember that the 50mm uses 52mm filters and the 85 uses 62mm filters, so you'll be buying a whole new range of filters to use with the 85mm. Also the throw isn't 'that' much better then the 50mm, so if you went for a 105 you'd probably win out overall (ie. more focal length, same filters).

 

Using it for taking shots of rally cars going through water is a blast. The lense is fast, light and unobtrusive.

 

My only gripe with the AF 85mm is the focus ring has a lot of play in it. It may just be the one's I checked out (all new ones), but I hope nikon have dampened them down a bit (getting them to the level of the 24mm AF would be very nice).

[Carl Stone]

"so you'll be buying a whole new range of filters to use with the 85mm."

 

If one buys 77mm filters, and step down rings, then they don't need more than one

filter size. That strategy covers most Nikon lenses, except for the very large

telephotos.

[Carl Stone]

Let's make that step UP rings.

[ilkka_nissila]

I have 11 primes and haven't noticed any difficulty in using them on the D70 in terms of the crop factor. I just use 35 instead of 50, 50 instead of 85, 20 instead of 28, and so on. I think this is absolutely not an issue unless you only use primes for particular shots, instead of standard equipment. A focal length is just a focal length, there is no magic to it.

[ilkka_nissila]

As to the 85/1.8 AF in the question, it is a very nice optic, delivering sharp results even at wide apertures and close distances. It has a delicious colour rendition. However, I consider its rear element focusing mechanically somewhat suspect. Mine is 10 years old and delivers still excellent image quality so maybe my concern is unjustified. The contrast is indeed a bit lower than with the 50/1.8, however, the images have a special quality and I wouldn't change a thing in the optical design. However, I would like Nikon to update the design so that it would be more "closed" on the rear.

[ShunCheung]

Ilkka, the 85mm is a very nice portrait lens for 35mm film. The 50mm on the D70 is too short to produce the same effect. Unfortunately, Nikon currently has no prime lens for portrait work for their DSLRs. I am talking about the equivalent of a 85mm/f1.4 or 1.8 to a 105mm/f2.5 for film. What is missing is something like a 60mm or 70mm/f1.4 or 1.8, perhaps DX.

 

Moreover, how do replace your 20mm super-wide for film?

[charles_miller]

I agree with what Scott McLoughlin said above. Or to put it another way, the 85mm f1.8 AF is excellent in every way but superb in no way.

[lachaine]

Lovely lens. I had one before I had to start selling off all my stuff. On a 35mm film camera, the 85mm focal length can easily be used as a standard walking around lens (if you're not into wide angle shots), it has a nice perspective at most distances, it's great for portraits (they don't call it the lens of natural perspective for nothing), and, it's fast for a telephoto (albeit, a short telephoto). I would buy another one in a minute if I could. BTW, I also had an AIS 85mm f/2, and honestly, I couldn't tell any difference in the pictures.

[ilkka_nissila]

Shun, portraits are taken with lots of lenses, from 28 mm to 300 mm. There is nothing special about "85 mm". In fact, I often use the 50 mm on film for informal portraits of children. Jim Tardio and Jeff Spirer have shown excellent portraits taken with 35 mm and 45 mm lenses. Since the next shortest FL in the normal line of Nikkor primes is 50 mm, and the next longest is a 105 mm, I would bet that the 85 was just chosen by the manufacturer as a convenient FL, without being "optimized" for portraits as you seem to assume. Why is it evenly divisible by 5 mm? Why not 87.483 mm? Pentax made a 75/1.8 (or 1.7?) compact portrait lens for 35 mm cameras which I think makes for excellent images, as often exhibited by one member in the photo.net top rated list

<p>

I bought my 20 mm to act as a 30 mm equivalent on the D70 in the first place. I do admit that I <i>like</i> to use it on film but I don't have an immediate <i>need</i> to find a wider angle for digital. If the need arises, I will probably buy the 14 mm.

[ilkka_nissila]

Shun, portraits are taken with lots of lenses, from 28 mm to 300 mm. There is nothing special about "85 mm". In fact, I often use the 50 mm on film for informal portraits of children. Jim Tardio and Jeff Spirer have shown excellent portraits taken with 35 mm and 45 mm lenses. Since the next shortest FL in the normal line of Nikkor primes is 50 mm, and the next longest is a 105 mm, I would bet that the 85 was just chosen by the manufacturer as a convenient FL, without being somehow "optimal" for portraits as you seem to assume. Why is it evenly divisible by 5 mm? Why not 87.483 mm? Pentax made a 75/1.8 (or 1.7?) compact portrait lens for 35 mm cameras which I think makes for excellent images, as often exhibited by one member in the photo.net top rated list

<p>

I bought my 20 mm to act as a 30 mm equivalent on the D70 in the first place. I do admit that I <i>like</i> to use it on film but I don't have an immediate <i>need</i> to find a wider angle for digital. If the need arises, I will probably buy the 14 mm.

[alex_lofquist]

"Diamonds are forever."

 

I thought it was "Herpes are forever"?

[ShunCheung]

Ilkka, the 105mm/f2.5 and 85mm/f1.4,1.8 are legendary Nikkor portrait lenses because a lot of people prefer those focal lengths and their bokeh for portrait work. If you and a few others don't share that opinion, that is fine. You are entitled to your opinions. However, that doesn't change the fact that once one switches to a Nikon DSLR, the 85mm cannot work the same way any more. You can simulate it with a 50mm, but for one thing IMO it is too short and in my case, I don't even have a 50mm to begin with.

 

My point is that once you switch to a DSLR, you need to replace or add some lenses. You having to buy a new 20mm precisely demonstrates my point, and yet you'll need something wider to have the equivalent of a 24mm, which is very common for landscape and building interior shooters.

 

That is why lenses are not forever.

[ilkka_nissila]

Yes, it's certainly possible that the 50 is not ideal for portrait work but it doesn't seem to be very high on Nikon's list to produce new portrait lenses for digital. Perhaps they think bokeh on DSLRs is irrelevant as you can blur the background in Photoshop. For me, the 85 is just another general purpose lens, although I do use it for portraits sometimes.

 

I doubt that I will buy a new wide angle any time soon; I only have a 24 because at the time the Nikon AF 28/2.8 was a really poor lens and I was forced to get the 24 although I like the 28 mm FOV better. The 20 is a nice "28" replacement on digital and I'm happy with it. Since it's difficult to use a small-format DSLR effectively, I will just wait until they make a full-frame DSLR and then my 20 is a 20 again, which indeed is nice to have for some architecture shots.

 

I spent today shooting people and architecture on the streets with the D70. I had to abandon very many of the shots because of inadequate focus accuracy. I used AF most of the time. In one case, I was shooting a building and tried to focus on the facade but the camera focused on the power lines in front of it, and I couldn't see this in the VF at the time of shooting or viewing the image on the LCD. To the bin. In addition to difficulties in evaluating exactly where the in-focus plane is, I find it very difficult to see facial expressions in the small viewfinder image. The whole focusing business is also so tedious that my timing suffers. I also got a bunch of shots which weren't level (I was hand-holding) but fortunately I could just reshoot them after reviewing the image. I don't have these problems with my film cameras - shots are almost always in focus where they need to be, the buildings are straight, and my timing on people shots is much better.

 

Even though there may be color fringing problems with a full-frame DSLR, I expect that these other issues will force Nikon to produce one eventually, and then my 20 and 85 will work as originally intended. I will of course test the D2X when it comes out but this issue is severe enough that I will also consider selling my stuff for a Canon with a larger sensor - never thought Nikon would make such a viewfinder it would force me to consider Canon. Other issues are that my 105 micro and 50/1.4 are excellent on film but don't quite seem to have the bite with a DX sensor. OTOH, the 20, 35, and 60 are very good on digital.

[andre_noble3]

No, student loans are forever.

[Jim_Tardio]

Ilkka...I'm really surprised you're having so much trouble focusing the D70. If you don't mind me asking, what focus settings do you typically use?

<p>

I've found that this camera (and the N80) work best with the AF area mode set to "single area". I avoid the the "closest subject" and "dynamic area" modes...those just let the camera decide what to focus on. I also use only my central focusing frame in the viewfinder...I have it locked there. I've always preferred the lock-focus-recompose shooting method instead of the multiple senor approach.

<p>

I'm just curious. Perhaps your body has a focusing problem, or a misaligned finder.

[Carl Stone]

" I've always preferred the lock-focus-recompose shooting method instead of the

multiple senor approach."

 

And I thought that I was the only one that found jumping between sensors daunting.

Now, with the D2H there are 11 sensors, that would make me crazy and slow my my

photogrpahy down

to a snail's pace in many situations. With what Ilkka was shooting multiple sensors

would almost guarantee the camera was going to focus on the wrong thing. Being

able to select a particular sensor, for me the center, is a great advantage with AF.

[casimir_artmann]

Will I see any difference in my pictures if I switch from Nikkor 85/1.8 Non-AI to Nikon AF 85/1.8. I love the old lens and it's wonderful to use together with FE2/FM2.

[walterh]

@Casimir - you will most likely not see any difference (the newer 85mm 1.8AFD design has a slightly better reputation than the older versions, but on a very high level, that is only significantly and noticeably improved by the 85mm 1.4 lens), but you will "feel" the mechanical difference. still this 85mm is one of the better AF lenses for manual focussing compared to many other AF lenses with a tiny focus ring. AF is relatively fast due to the rear element focussing.

cheers walter

[perry_cas]

I have a related question from another thread, but as lots of people seem to be involved here i thought i might double up, if i may.

MF 85mm. Is there a big difference between the 1.8 and the 1.4 apart from the speed and the price?

Perry

[ilkka_nissila]

Jim, I only use the central sensor, on single shot mode, focus, and recompose. I've done some focusing tests and there is no obvious bias either way as far as I can see, but the results are erratic in the field. I may try Bob's focusing tests for the 10D just to be sure. If I use AF on a flat surface, the results are spot on, but if the subject only partially covers the sensitive area of the sensor, the system sometimes focuses way back, behind the main subject. I think the focusing area of the sensor is my biggest issue, I should try to find out exactly which area is included in the focusing. Apparently the markers in the viewfinder are not perfectly accurate.

 

I should add that I use fairly fast lenses (f/1.4 to f/2.8) and only one of my lenses is AF-S. It's possible I may take the exposure before the system has entirely stabilized the focus. Again, my AF habits have developed using the F5 with which I get very good and consistent results. Before I bought the F5 I used to use only manual focus, but with the D70 I can't do that either except by taking 20 s to find the optimal focs.

[terry_rory]

After I read a few reviews of the 85mm AF-D f1.8 and f1.4 versions (including Ken Rockwell) the consensus was... "Nice lens, bokeh sucks"

 

Well it cant be that bad. Grant, your shot of the Gent with his newspapers is superb and the background is'nt full of bokeh horror!

 

So I can buy an 85mm AF-D lens sooner than I thought and save a small pile of money (compared to the f1.4) and take wide aperture shots of people without a background full of bright sharply defined circles as many people seem to imply in reviews.

 

Thankyou Grant. Good shot.

[Carl Stone]

"Well it cant be that bad. Grant, your shot of the Gent with his newspapers is superb

and the background is'nt full of bokeh horror! "

 

In oder to comapre the 1.4 and the 1.8, you'd need to see the same pic shot from

both lenses. I'm not bad mouthing that pic either, but it has no light sources, and

IMO, the bokeh is not all that smooth. To be fair they're both great lenses, but the 1.4

is clearly the better of the two, IMO.

[terry_rory]

Yes, but we are talking about ﾣ460 difference (here in the UK) for 1/2 stop of light and slightly 'smoother' OOF!

 

ﾣ460 buys me well over half a D70 body at UK prices (It will probably buy me 80 percent of a D70 by late this year) and if Grant is getting results like that with his 85mm then I have some real fun to look forward to.

 

Especially fun when it gets mounted on a D70 and becomes a 120mm (effective f/length) f1.8 AF-D!

 

I can almost read the small typeface on that newspaper and the image is only 531 pixels wide.

[terry_rory]

What is happening to � signs on PN nowadays? This never used to happen.