Nikkor 84 1.4 D

[dan_k6]

I was looking into this lens for portraits because I hear that It is the (or at

least one of the) sharpest lenses Nikon makes. I have a D80, the 50mm 1.8D, the

18-200VR, the 70-200VR, and a 17-55 (I returned a 17-35 for this lens). The

70-200 at 70 or 85mm takes excellent portraits IMO. It's just that it is so big

and heavy that the 85mm prime seems more convenient.

 

The lens goes for about $1050 so it is by no means something I will buy on

impulse. I know this has been discussed before but I wanted your opinions on

whether or not the lens is that much better than the 70-200 VR at 70 or 85mm. I

don't know how much of the time I would be shooting at 1.4 but I hear that the

lens is amazing even at F2. Would you recommend buying the 85 1.4 or just

sticking with the 70-200VR for portrait work?

 

Thanks,

Dan

[juanjo_viagran]

If I had the money I'd buy it..

 

plus if you are planing on shooting at 1.4 is going to be hard to do that with the 70-200mm ;)

I had for a shot time a 85mm 1.4 AIS (manual focus) and is an AMAZING lens.

I went for the 85mm 1.8 AFD because I cant afford the 1.4 and need more the AF than 1.4.

BUT again, if you have the money for the 85mm 1.4 AFD.. GO FOR IT.

[juanjo_viagran]

If I had the money I'd buy it..

 

plus if you are planing on shooting at 1.4 is going to be hard to do that with the 70-200mm ;)

I had for a shot time a 85mm 1.4 AIS (manual focus) and is an AMAZING lens.

I went for the 85mm 1.8 AFD because I cant afford the 1.4 AF and need more the AF than 1.4.

BUT again, if you have the money for the 85mm 1.4 AFD.. GO FOR IT.

[aaron l]

You have trade-offs: the 70-200 is more versatile. The 85 f1.4 is lighter, has shallower DOF options below f2.8, is faster and sharper. I love my 85 f1.4. Attached is a shallow DOF portrait of a tiny little cactus in the California desert, shot with an 85mm f1.4.

[aaron l]

Attached is the shot this time...<div></div>

[bambang indrayoto]

I never regret buying this wonderful lens. It's either my 17-35 or my 85 1.4 that stays in my DSLR.<div></div>

[dan_k6]

I'm sorry I just noticed I posted the 84 1.4 when I meant 85 1.4

[albertdarmali]

If what you after is SHARP lens, you don't really have to go for that expensive 85mm 1.4

 

Something like a macro lens will give you plenty of sharpness it might offend your less-than-perfect portrait subject.

 

But if what you after is very smooth bokeh, and that special feel that you can only get from an 85mm 1.4 portrait, then you need 85mm 1.4.

[simon_harris]

I've been going though the decision making process for a sharp medium telephoto as a

smaller/lighter option to carrying my 70-200 VR. On my list were the 85 1.4, the 105 f2 DC

and the 105 f2.8 Micro VR. Phoned the guys at Nikon Professional in the UK and they said go

for the 105 f2.8 VR if you want similar quality to the 70-200. Is arriving today so will let you

know!

 

Simon

[anthony_bez]

"Phoned the guys at Nikon Professional in the UK and they said go for the 105 f2.8 VR if you want similar quality to the 70-200"

 

I purchased the fabulous 85mm 1.4AFD because I wanted better quality than the 70-200, it is in a class of its own. I would buy the 105VR for macro photography, but as a dedicated portrait lens no chance.

[rffffffff]

I shoot with the 85 1.4, 70-200 and 105 f/2 dc often. The 105 seems a little too long for some things, although I like it better for events, it doesnt focus nearly as well as the 85 on my cameras. It hunts a bit.

 

The 70-200 is my favorite outdoor lens, but if you are shooting indoors, I rarely take it out of the bag anymore...

 

I take about 75% of my pictures with the 85, and a much higher percentage when doing individual portraits... On the other hand, if you are shooting family portraits, with multiple subjects and studio flashes, the 28-70 (or your 17-55) is hard to beat, and my wife almost always has that lens on her camera...

[simon_harris]

Update on the 105 VR which arrived today.

 

Take into account that I'm reall interested in wide open performance for low light shooting

- it is nowhere near a good as the 70-200. Not as sharp and quite bad purple fringing on

highlights.

 

Can anyone convince me that the 85 1.4 is as good as it is hyped up to be? My 70-200

really is super sharp, even at 2.8. I've looked at a load of wide open shots on Flickr using

the 85 1.4 and have not found any which I would say are that sharp.

 

Simon

[anthony_bez]

"Can anyone convince me that the 85 1.4 is as good as it is hyped up to be?"

 

Simon, Do not ask "Nikon Professional" else they will sell you another Macro lens. Of course the 105 VR does not perform well wide open that is not what it is optimised for.

 

The 85mm f1.4 is better than your 70-200 for wide aperture low light photography. No I can not convince you but it is your loss, I am enjoying using Nikon's premier portrait lens. Also as you point out the 70-200 does not even have a wide aperture .

[simon_harris]

Thanks Anthony. I've just ordered the 85 1.4 after sending back the 105 VR. Hope it's good!

 

Simon

[forum_shopper]

It's the last Nikon lens I would give up and I think you will find it superb. Check Bjorn Rorslett's reviews for reassurance. An f/2.8 lens is not for low light shooting . . . It just isn't.

[anthony_bez]

"Hope it's good!"

 

Simon, It is better than good, I love mine. Congratulations on your wise purchase.