85mm 1.4 vs 85mm1.8

[dan st. germain]

I've reads dozen of posts about these two lenses and thought I had figured out

what I would do until I read one that said the 1.4 was less than one stop

difference from the 1.8. Being surprised, I obviously don't understand optics

as well as I thought.

 

So I guess I want to confirm that 1.4 is in fact less than one stop less than

1.8? ...and if so how much less?

 

I was considering getting a new lens to help me take pictures of my daughters

ballet shows. I've been doing it for about 4 years, only shooting at

rehursals with no flash. I use a D70 with the 80-200 2.8 typically wide open

with the ASA set to 800-1600 (I get worried with the ASA at its max because of

the noise). I typically shoot with it set at 80mm, and shoot when the girls

are at or close to a static point. The shutter speeds are usually around 1/80

but sometimes faster in hot spots on the stage. I shoot in bursts and bracket

the exposure. I also typically spot meter though I do use some center weight

metering too. Sometimes I adjust the metering up or down based on the color

of the tutu, which are often white/dark. Its evolved into a far more dynamic

process than I ever thought.

 

So the thought was to considering getting a faster lens to help get better

pictures and also to get more action shots like during a jete or pirouette. I

was considering the 85mm 1.8 and 1.4. I thought the 1.8 would get me one stop

and the 1.4 would get me two. So if I was typically shooting at 1/80 at 2.8,

I might now be shooting at 1/160 at 1.8 and 1/320 at 1.4. Shooting at 1/320

or so would be great...and I think 1/160 will be too slow to stop action

during a jette or pirouette!

 

So how much less than one stop is the 1.4? Any thoughts that could improve my

process?

 

BTW I am also the lighting designer for the production company and do my best

to flood the stage with light during the rehursals and even out the "wash".

[ShunCheung]

One stop faster than f2.8 is f2, and another stop faster is f1.4.

f1.8 is more like 1.3 stops faster than f2.8.

 

In other words, if you can shoot at 1/80 sec f2.8, an equivalent exposure would be 1/320 f1.4. With an f1.8 max lens, you can probably use 1/200 sec.

[leicaglow]

Dan, Like a lamb out for slaughter, here's my take on it!<g> I know there is a bit of rounding involved in how f-stops are labeled. The short answer: Logically, one stop smaller than f/1.4 is f/2, not f/1.8. The number of f-stops is not the same for every lens, but varies according to lens design. You'd have to do a calculation to know exactly how many stops difference there is, and one reference is: http://tangentsoft.net/fcalc/help/FNumber.htm

 

There is also the issue of rounding: http://tangentsoft.net/fcalc/help/Settings.htm#rounding

 

Therefore, your scenario of shooting at 1/80th at f/2.8 and 1/160th at f/1.8 is very slightly off. It would be 1/160th at f/2.

 

All I can tell you is that I'm thrilled with my 85mm f/1.8 Nikon lens.

[mark_sirota1]

To be absurdly precise, 1.4 is 0.72514 (rounded) stops faster than 1.8.

Of course, those lenses are probably not exactly 1.4 and 1.8 wide open; those are probably rounded figures too. Call it 2/3rds.

[Ed_Ingold]

The Nikkor 85/1.4 has a superior design to the f/1.8 lens. It is sharper and has better bokeh, making it one of Nikon's premiere lenses. The extra 2/3 stop is almost incidental.

 

Nikon has a history of pulling out the stops for their premiere lenses - the top of the line for that focal length. Performance, and often build-quality, is implemented with little regard to the price point. The same is true for the fast, long lenses and the constant f/2.8 zooms.

[lou korell]

The 1.4 may well be the best lens ever. Nikon has always made a good 85 and their 1.4 is one of the most preferred lenses for professionals.

 

It is way more money than the 1.8 but it is in a league of its own.

 

Lou

[watts1]

Here's a page with a simple chart: http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/fstops.html

[frank uhlig]

And of course, the 1.4 weights much more than the 1.8.

 

But you are strong from carrying that 80-200/2.8 lens already.

 

How about using a monopod for these heavy lenses?

 

Incidentally, the Degas pictures of jettes and pirouettes are all deliberately painted unsharp and swirled!

[leicaglow]

I think, unless you've used a newer AF version of the f/1.8 lens, you would be quite surprised at the quality of the images from it. At one time I would agree that the f/1.4 smoked the f/1.8 version, but from a performance point of view, I don't think it's that clearcut anymore.

[Peter_in_PA]

BUT...

 

Keep in mind that at 1.4 or 1.8, with an 85mm lens wide open... your focusing better be

dead-on accurate, or it will be very noticeable, as very little can be in focus with these lenses

at those wide apertures... How far away are you from the dancers? I'm guessing a katzeye

would be a great purchase here, too...

[juan_parm_nides]

I have the 85 f1.8 and very happy with it. Nice bokeh, very sharp.An example

[leicaglow]

Juan, it is a little difficult to tell how the bokeh is on such a tight shot, but I've experienced very smooth backgrounds, especially with specular highlights, using the newest version of the f/1.8 model. The older versions seem to be harsher to me, and tended to render sharper rings instead of soft round backgrounds.

[robert_finkelman]

With all due respect to Micheal Axel, I completely disagree with his post when he states: "I think, unless you've used a newer AF version of the f/1.8 lens, you would be quite surprised at the quality of the images from it. At one time I would agree that the f/1.4 smoked the f/1.8 version, but from a performance point of view, I don't think it's that clearcut anymore."

 

I am a pro headshot photographer and my main weapon of choice has always been an 85mm. When I started out in the field, I could only afford the 85 1.8 AF and got quite nice results from it. Having made my bones (and quite a bit more money) after a few years, I tried out the 85 1.4 AF-D and bought it immediately. The reults from this lens are considerably better than the 1.8, especially in the out of focus areas, where the 1.4's rounded aperture opening produces perhaps the best bokeh of any Nikon lens I own (the only lenses on par, IMHO, are the 300 2.8 AF-S ED-IF II, and to a slightly lesser extent, the 105 2 DC). It is a vastly superior lens in build quality as well - it is built like an Abrams tank.

 

In my opinion as a pro in the field, the difference between the two is CLEARCUT. The only question is, do you really need the lens enough to pay more than double the cost of the 1.8? Only you can answer that one...

 

Rob

[pje]

I like Rob first owned the 1.8 and enjoyed it, but always lusted after the 1.4. I monitored

KEH.com for some time and one day a 1.4 in EX+ (I'd call it LN) condition popped up. It

wasn't cheap but not full price either. It's my favorite lens in the studio. Go for a used 1.8

and see how you like it.

[ShunCheung]

The topic of the 85mm/f1.8 vs. f1.4 has been discussed a number of times, starting from perhaps 3 years ago or so. I own neither lens myself so that it doesn't matter to me which one is "better," but I would really like to see some A/B comparisons that can demonstrate exactly how the f1.4 version "smokes" the f1.8 one.

[dj_soroka]

Bravo Robert Finkleman.

 

To translate it in simple terms, while the f/1.8 is capable of taking a beautiful picture under certain circumstances, it can absolutely destroy a photo (RUIN) under others.

 

I don't think you have to be a magazine photographer trying to make a full page spread. There are enough photos of friends and family with "bad bokeh" that I eventually sold the lens, despite it's ability to take sharp pictures and also being light and easy to operate.

[brian_miles3]

I've owned both the 85 1.4 AF and the 85 1.4 AIS. Both deliver exceptional results and this focal length is my favorite for 35mm photography. I prefer the 72mm filter size and solid build of the AIS version, but believe the image quality (the "look") of the AF version is 1/2 notch above. I have not used the 1.8 version so cannot offer any input on that lens.

[ilkka_nissila]

These Nikon lenses definitely are made with budget in mind. If they were not, why do they have screwdriver autofocus?

 

Similarly the f/2.8 zooms are made to be compact (for the range and speed), affordable (compare with Leica versions to see what a no-compromise lens costs), are heavily optimized for the center of the image and in some cases do not perform all that well wide open. These are very practical lenses and I own two myself, but they definitely were designed to be affordable. If they were not, nobody would talk about sample variations, stuck diaphragms etc.

 

Things that are made with no regard to price tend to be so expensive that individuals can not buy them, only companies with certain needs. That said, what Nikon is good at is producing lenses and cameras which have very high practical value. Not necessarily the very best optics or mechanics, but very price competitive.

[ted turner]

Bjorns' lens reviews are great and he rates the 1.8 AF a little lower than the 1.4 AF. Now we all know about lens sample variations; not every lens from the same model and batch will perform exactly the same.

 

But here are a couple of reviews that may just help to cloud the distinction between the 1.8 AF and the 1.4 AF.

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_85_18/index.htm

 

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/nikkor_85_14/index.htm

 

The 85mm f/1.4 Ais is attractive if you want to use it has a short range macro with a tube because it stays sharper than the AF version (supposedly) as you stop down beyond 5.6 or so. But for macro you could also just get the 85mm PC.

 

Of course, I'm now way off topic...

 

Ted

 

www.pbase.com/turnert

[robert_finkelman]

Ilkka -

 

You are incorrect in stating that the 1.4 was made with a budget in mind because it has screwdriver focus. Both the 1.8 and 1.4 were developed before AF-S technology was developed by nikon.

 

Rob

[bobmichaels]

Just don't get so hung up in the lens specs and technology that you forget you are photographing art and sometimes need a bit of an artistic approach. Specifically when it comes to stopping motion vs. some motion blur to add to the photo.

 

I already have visions of a dancer with the face and some body parts being frozen while the feet or hands show some motion blur.

[joel_hammers]

Hi Dan

I'd go with the 85 f/1.8. Here's why. 1. It's less than a stop slower than the 1.4. 2. it's far less expensive. 3. it's way more compact. 4. it's just as sharp as the 1.4 if not more so and it's a lot sharper than any 80-200mm f/whatever. Let's just say that the the 1.4 is "a cut above". Well, given the conditions that you are describing you will never know because the shooting conditions are not favorable to seeing the full potential of any lens. I'm sure the 1.4 is great and all but I think a lot of the almost fanatical raving about it come from people that have payed a massive premium for something that is not that much better and are just trying to justify it to themselves. Unless you have $1 bills laying around to blow your nose with, I would reccomend the 1.8.

[david-m]

OK, the 1.4 is the far better lens, especially wide and near wide-open. BUT, the DOF at 1.4

and even 1.8 is barely a couple of centimetres (ish) and with a moving person (even near

static) will be incredibly difficult to reliably keep in sharp focus. I would stick with the 80

-200 and use a monopod/tripod, or if you wanted to try it, buy the 1.8 (which is pretty

good wide-open anyway).

 

Enjoy

[ilkka_nissila]

Really? The 300mm AF-S was released in 1996, and the 85/1.4 in 1995. Lens development takes a lot longer than 1 year ...

[ShunCheung]

Ilkka, AF-S was indeed introduced in 1996 with AF-I preceding it in 1992, but in the early to mid 1990's, AF-I/AF-S was "exotic" technology and was only available on super-teles from 300mm/f2.8 and up.

 

The first lens that is below $4000 and has AF-S was the 80-200mm/f2.8 AF-S introduced in 1998, and it is still expensive at $1400 or so. AF-S continued as a symbol for expensive lenses until around 2002 or so when the $300 24-85 AF-S was introduced.

 

Things certainly have changed a lot since 10 years or so ago.