Which lens is Better than 85mm f/1.4?

[tony_kukulich]

<p>I have and the 85 f1.4 and it is a wonderful lens that gets a lot of use. Depending upon your need and budget, I'd suggest you look at the 135 f2 DC and/or the 200 f2. </p>

[mt4x4]

<blockquote>

<p>See <a rel="nofollow" href="00T84X"><strong>this very recent thread</strong> </a> , one of many on this same topic.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wait a second Lex. I thought we were supposed to post our question <em>first</em> , then look in past threads to see if it could be answered.<br /> <br /> Am I getting this backwards?</p>

[rob_malkin]

<p>Keith, the link provided by Lex is not really all the relavant to the question posted.</p>

<p>The OP asked what lenses are better than the 85 f1.4. So suggesting another 85 f1.4 is a little silly.</p>

 

[glenn_c1]

<p>I haven't owned an 85/1.4 yet but have sold my 1.8 in preparation for such a purchase when the right example materializes. Given that, this is only educated speculation, but...</p>

<p>The 85/1.4 seems to be a lens that for certain purposes surpasses its technically measurable qualities, producing a look to its images that a remarkable proportion of its users describe as "magical." Given that, references to specific qualities such as sharpness and maybe even bokeh seem to me to miss the point. Yes, the 1.8 tests sharper in some ways, and Canon's 1.2 and lenses like the 50/1.4 and 35/2 also have some good, even excellent qualities, but somehow I get the impression that the OP is looking for similarly "magical" qualites from other lenses, rather than technically excellent performance.</p>

<p>If that's true, then it is going to be an extremely subjective exercise, maybe even futile - although I'd still personally like to hear opinions from people with experience among the rarified cross section of lenses that might compare.</p>

[mt4x4]

<blockquote>

<p>Keith, the link provided by Lex is not really all the relavant to the question posted.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry...please forgive my poor attempt at humor ;)</p>

<p>The one thing I saw missing in the OP was....what kind of photography the poster will be using their new lens for. If it is portraits, from what I have read, it seems that the 85 f/1.4 is hard to beat.<br /> <br /> A 105 2.8 VR Micro-Nikkor might not go bad w/ the collection the OP has...I haven't seen this one mentioned in the thread.</p>

[ronald_olsen]

<p>The Zeiss 100mm f2 is a very nice lens. Also, another vote for the Nikkor 180 mm f2.8</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>The 105mm f/1.8 AiS Nikkor is pretty much perfect - by my definition, but it depends what you're looking for in a lens doesn't it?</p>

<p>I wouldn't get rid of my Tamron 90mm f/2.8 macro because as far as I can see its resolution is pretty much diffraction limited. The 14-24mm F/2.8 AF-Nikkor GN is optically an almost perfect ultra-wide, but it weighs a ton, won't accept a polarizing filter and takes up all the space in my camera bag, so I'll hang on to my little 20mm f/3.5 and 24mm f/2.8 Nikkors as well thanks. I also have an old Tamron Adaptall 300mm f/5.6 that has excellent optical quality and focuses down to 1.5 metres - again perfect for some situations. Another lens I wouldn't part with is my PC-Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 - ancient but invaluable for architecture.</p>

<p>Perfection is very much in the eye of the beholder!</p>

[bengt_rehn]

<p>The new Sigma 50/1,4 EX HSM below 2,0 have the potential.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Rob, I responded to the general nature of the non-specific original question as it was asked before further clarification. Do you have some other point to make other than suggesting a Canon lens?</p>

[andre_noble5]

<p>I am a lifetime Nikon man. Here's my simple theory on Nikon lens quality. (There will be a few exceptions.)<br>

If the lens <b>does not change length </b>as it is <b>focused or zoomed</b>, it will be a professional quality lens with superior image quality.<br>

After many years of hard earned experience, I will no longer even consider an off brand lens (too much sample variability). I also will not consider a Nikon brand lens that changes length as it it focused or zoomed.</p>

[John Crowe]

<p>The 200/2. </p>

<p>My AI is far sharper than my Zeiss 85/1.4 with both at f2, but the Zeiss beat it by f2.8. Both sharper than Nikon 400/2.8 AIS, Canon FD 400/2.8 L, and Canon FD 300/2.8 L.</p>

[steve_ql]

<p>Which lens is Better than 85mm f/1.4?<br>

85 mm f/2.8 PC Micro-Nikkor or the newer 85 mm f/2.8 PC-E Micro-Nikkor N.<br>

<br /> For 2 stops less, you gain tilt/shift and macro capabilities. Tilt/shift will give you <br>

room for DOF creativity (although not quite like f/1.4) while macro gives you <br>

close focus to 1:2. The optics are equal to the 85 f/1.4, while <br>

the later "N" version has Nano-coating for even better contrast. Even though it <br>

is not AF, it's comparable to the 85 f/1.4 since I would use that lens manually at <br>

f/1.4 anyway (with the DOF being so narrow, AF is too hit and miss). <br /> </p>

[rob_malkin]

<p>Lex, did I step on your toes by saying that your link was not all that relavant to the OP's question?</p>

<p>As for suggestions, sure...</p>

<p>Need faster glass at 85mm, go with Canon. Need sharper lens, go with 85mm f1.8.</p>

[georg_s1]

<p>Ditto on the 200/2. I use the AF-S VR model and it's absolute stunning - in every aspect.<br>

I love fast primes and would be thrilled to see fast-focusing AF-S variants in 85 and 135mm.<br>

The 85/1.4 AF-D is a fabulous lens but for indoor-sports a faster AF-drive wouldn't hurt.<br>

georg</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>leica summicron-r 2/90</p>

[anthony_bez]

<blockquote>

<p>The 85/1.4 AF-D is a fabulous lens but for indoor-sports a faster AF-drive wouldn't hurt.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>AFS does not always increase speed.... I "upgraded" my 50mm f1.4 AFD for a AF-S G version and was disappointed to find it slower.<br />But if they did bring out an improved 85, I would also be thrilled and much poorer.</p>

[matt miller cambridge, ia]

<p>I use the 85/1.4 and love it. It's my favorite and most used lens. I also own the Sigma 50/1.4. It is an amazing lens too, with image quality very close to the 85. The sharpness, bokeh, and color is just fantastic. </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>"Need faster glass at 85mm, go with Canon."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have the Canon 85 1.2, and, after a few trials, I found the DOF at 1.2 to be virtually worthless (too, too shallow) for my applications--and the image quality is not that great wide open.</p>

<p>It is interesting that these very fast portrait lenses often give their very best results when not used at widest apertures. (So, what else is new?) I usually shoot mine at 2.0 or slower.</p>

<p>For other than portrait applications, such as shooting in the street in low light, there might be some limited utility for the widest openings. Even there, I have not had spectacular results when shooting wide open.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[edwin_mendoza]

<p>Gentlemen, thanks to all for you views and help, I greatly appreciate it. <br>

It looks like the top 3 options are 135mm f/2 DC , 200mm f/2 VR and 180mm f/2.8<br>

I would also look at the 105mm f/2.8 vr as I do not own a Macro lens.</p>

[douglasely]

<p>As a user of the Nikkor 85mm f1.4 I love this thread. I am fortunate to have very nice Nikkor glass but none that make feel feel so good as the 85mm f1.4 (Including the 180 f2.8) I have more than enjoyed the recommended lenses that may be better. I will re-read this post and investigate.</p>

<p>I would however like to say this about the Nikkor 85mm f1.4. There is something just different about this lens than any other that I have used and standard decriptions like sharpness, bokeh, contrast do not appy to this difference. There is an inner-eye beauty, a drama, a stunning etheral image that results. </p>

<p>As I edit this narrative, another poster makes similar comments, be sure to read his observations as well.</p>

<p>The images I get with this lens are simply different. They move me and others in ways that are different than my other Nikkor lenses. The results are simply breathtakeing.</p>

<p> </p>

[edwin_mendoza]

<p>Douglas, I love it too.</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>I think the 70-200 is a lens with many amazing qualities, including sharpness, bokeh and color rendition, really a great lens.</p>

[02Pete]

<p>Which lens is better depends on what criteria one applies.</p>

<p>If you have a Nikon, don't mind a large and heavy lens, and want very shallow depth of field in order to make a subject stand out from background, a Nikon 85mm f/1.4 is about as good as you're going to get, and clearly an excellent lens (although Nikon has always made excellent 105mm lenses as well).</p>

<p>If you have a Leica M-series camera, and like small, compact, good-handling, unobtrusive but reasonably fast lenses with exceptional optical quality, then a 75mm f/2 Summicron is a go-to lens for shooting environmental portraits under available light conditions. Similar focal length, but very different (and to my taste preferable) handling qualities, and possibly more unobtrusive.</p>

[borgis_karl_johan1]

<p>The original question was for a sharper lens than the 85mm f1,4 AF .<br>

Used with film -by a hairs breadth- the 105mm F2,0 DC which is hampered by AF problems with digital cameras though. <br>

Also the 180 mm f2,8 AIS once closed down too f4,0- 5,6.<br>

The 105mm f1,8 lens was mentioned above which is excellent once closed down to f2,8 -4,0. Hardly better than the 85 mm though. </p>

[glenn_c1]

<p>Actually, the question was about a better lens, not a sharper lens. The OP was impressed by the overall image quality of the 85/1.4 and didn't mention sharpness. I don't think sharpness or any other one factor explains the attraction of this lens. I'm curious about this lens myself and trying to find a good used one to buy.</p>