Sigma 85mm 1.4 - When?

[joseph_brown7]

<p>Hello all, I am wondering if anyone has a idea of when we can expect to see the 85 1.4 in stores? I really am looking forward to picking up one but it seems that they are late on the delivery as Sigma has this lens due in stores by spring 2010. We are now knocking on the door of June and I am getting antsy! Any thoughts?</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>Given the superb quality of the 85mm f/1.4D Nikkor, why bother?</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>He may like the ability to use AF while also being able to grab the focus ring on the fly and fine-tune. Can't do that with the Nikon. He may also just plain like the look of the output from lenses like Sigma's 50/1.4, and is hoping that the 85/1.4 is similar. I'm betting that he's also hoping it will cost a bit less than Nikon's older counterpart. And, of course, he may want to use it on a camera that doesn't have a screw-drive AF motor (or may want to avoid the mechanical noise that comes with having to use it - in settings like a wedding venue, during a ceremony).</p>

[emiliogtz]

<blockquote>

<p>And, of course, he may want to use it on a camera that doesn't have a screw-drive AF motor (or may want to avoid the mechanical noise that comes with having to use it - in settings like a wedding venue, during a ceremony).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That noise is mostly coming from the camera motor, not the lens. There are very noisy cameras like the N90 for example. The 85 1.4 (and some other screw-driven lenses I own) are very quiet when autofocusing on the D2x, and quiet enough on the D80/D90 bodies.</p>

<p>Also, I hope that Sigma 85 hits the market soon, and prompts Nikon to upgrade its great 85s once and for all.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I think the 85/1.4D autofocuses reasonably quietly on the D3 and D700. And its autofocus performance is among the most accurate of the lenses I have used, too; I have no problem autofocusing it on the eye, for example, and not once have I had the desire to fine tune the AF result with this lens (others - yes). The optical quality ... it makes people look very beautiful in images, and is a very sharp lens for other subjects such as architecture stopped down a bit.</p>

[joseph_brown7]

<p>Matt, You have pretty much narrowed down why I want this lens. The IQ from the 50 1.4 and 70-200 2.8 IMO are stellar and I cant justify spending 1200 bucks on a relitivly old Nikkor. I plan to alternate this lens with my 70-200 on my long body in wedding situations. I will shoot the ceremony with the 70-200 and switch out for the 85 during the formal portraits were I have more flexibility to move around. But still any idea when? Thanks to all!</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I know it's the camera's focus motor, Emilio. Though there is audible gearing noise in some screw-focus lenses, too. Point is, when you're using AF-S or HSM, that noise stops. I have a few non AF-S lenses, and I often shoot dogs (or people, with their dogs). Believe me when I say that the screw-driven lenses make the dogs look right at the camera, every time. Better than a squeeky toy! My 60/2.8 Micro seems especially interesting to German Shepherds, for some reason. :-)<br /><br />On the manual over-ride of the AF ... it's not about the lens focusing incorrectly, it's about needing to adjust for other reasons. Say, when the AF catches a blade of grass in the foreground, instead of the subject just behind it. I let AF do all the work, almost all the time, but I really like the AF-S (and HSM) way of letting me take some creative/compositional control as I see fit.<br /><br />Believe me, I'd be very happy with Nikon's current 85/1.4, and I have no idea whether Sigma's new product is going to be any good at all. In the meantime, I'm pretty happy with my 70-200's ability to cover the 85mm range and render quite pleasing results. It will be interesting to see if this new lens stirs things up a bit, or not. The folks with AF-S-only bodies will certainly take notice.</p>

[jannekaakinen]

<p>Seems to be in pre-order in Amazon at $899. So any day now...</p>

[joseph_brown7]

<p>Janne, Thanks I will check that out!</p>

[emiliogtz]

<p>Matt, I'm right there with you, as good as the 85 1.4 Nikkor is, there is room for improvement, and in its particular case, almost two decades worth of technological improvements. I just think it's not that noisy, at least not on churches and weddings, but I sure can see how it could affect dogs and other animals with different hearing capabilities than those of us humans.</p>

<p>Still, I love the 85 1.4, and will probably keep loving it for years to come, but that doesn't mean its perfect, or without limitations.</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Your comment drive me to compare the 85 to the 50 lens update.<br /> The latest 85 version is from 1995 (the AFD mentioned here), the same year of the 50/1.4AFD release.<br /> While the 50 was a new dress on a lens from the eighties (maybe seventies), the 85 was a new design. <br /> If the 85 were on the same way, looking at the slight optical improvements the 50AFS mean, an 85AFS couldn`t be far from the AFD version, which is still recent in comparison.<br /> But, the 50 has a very different position in the Nikkor lineup. Probably 85s can be considered a pro choice lens, while the 50s are... standard lenses. A new 85 should have the best SWM, coatings and exotic glass.<br /> Althought I know they are very different lenses, I wonder how many pros and serious photogs will buy a new version of the 85/1.4 when they already have a 70-200 attached to their cameras...<br /> ... probably the same that are currently using 24AFS. <em>Thick wallet connoisseurs</em>. Just a thought.</p>

[anthony_bez]

<p>The only reason I can see to buy the Sigma is if you can not afford the superlative Nikon 85 f1.4.</p>

<p> </p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>Given the superb quality of the 85mm f/1.4D Nikkor, why bother?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I love my 85mm f1.4 Nikkor. But it (like my 135mm f2.0 DC Nikkor) has uncorrected longitudinal chromatic aberration. Conventional software fixes for chromatic aberration will not touch the sort that the 85mm f1.4 has.</p>

<p>I would look seriously at a third party lens that offered better performance.</p>

<p>And, as others mentioned, full time focus override is a wonderful feature. Especially since the 85mm f1.4 Nikkor has the same sort of M/A selector ring that failed on my 200mm f4 micro-Nikkor, 80-200mm f2.8 AF-D, and 60mm f2.8 micro-Nikkor.</p>

[steve_phillipps]

<p>I wonder just how the prices will compare. Interestingly the Sigma 50 1.4 is significantly MORE expensive than the Nikon 50 1.4, why would the 85 not be?<br />Steve</p>

 

[eloy_cortinez]

<p>Maybe smoother bookeh.... nikon primes have a very harsh out of focus rendition... reason enough to look elsewhere</p>

[scott_pogorelc]

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe smoother bookeh.... nikon primes have a very harsh out of focus rendition... reason enough to look elsewhere</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're kidding, right? Although the design may be older by today's standards and it lacks the SWM, the 'bokeh' is a primary reason why many people choose to pay the extra money for the 85mm Nikkor.</p>

[steve_phillipps]

<p>Yes Eloy, bit of a sweeping statement that one! The 85 1.4 is nothing short of legendary for bokeh, and the 200 f2 is not far behind.<br />Steve</p>

 

[Matt Laur]

<p>Right: Nikon's 85/1.4 is not at all the same as their crunchy-looking 50's, for example. Totally different class of lens.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>I wonder just how the prices will compare. Interestingly the Sigma 50 1.4 is significantly MORE expensive than the Nikon 50 1.4, why would the 85 not be?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Sigma is an insanely more complicated lens than the Nikon. It uses much larger, aspheric elements, and some pretty exotic glasses. That's also the reason it has a 77mm filter.</p>

<p>The new Sigma 85mm f1.4 is closer to the Nikon in complexity. That's why it lines up like this.</p>

<ul>

<li>$1299 - Nikon 85mm f1.4 AF-D</li>

<li>$899 - Sigma 85mm f1.4</li>

<li>$349 - Samyang (Polaris, Bower, etc) 85mm f1.4 manual focus</li>

</ul>

<blockquote>

<p>nikon primes have a very harsh out of focus rendition... reason enough to look elsewhere</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nikon probably has more "legendary bokeh" primes than anyone other than Leica. I ca think of 10 right off the top of my head, and I own 5 of the 10.</p>

<ol>

<li>45mm f2.8 Ai-P</li>

<li>50mm f1.2 Ai-S</li>

<li>58mm f1.2 Ai-S NOCT Aspherical (there's a reason people pay $2500 for one on eBay)</li>

<li>85mm f1.4 AF-D</li>

<li>105mm f2.0 DC AF-D</li>

<li>105mm f2.5 Ai-S</li>

<li>105mm f2.8 AF-S VR micro-Nikkor</li>

<li>135mm f2.0 AF-D</li>

<li>200mm f2</li>

<li>300mm f2.8 AF-I</li>

</ol>

[anthony_bez]

<blockquote>Maybe smoother bookeh.... nikon primes have a very harsh out of focus rendition... reason enough to look elsewhere</blockquote>

<p>I take it you are being sarcastic?</p>

<p>The superlative Nikon 85 f1.4 is a legendary portrait lens that gives dreamy out of focus rendition.</p>

<p> </p>

[matthew_banks1]

<p>How does a revamped Nikon 85 with VR sound?</p>

[anthony_bez]

<blockquote>How does a revamped Nikon 85 with VR sound?</blockquote>

<p>I have no interest in VR for my use with this lens as it has a negative effect on IQ.</p>

<p>AF-S would be useful but then the lens would increase in size. Also a "revamped" version would likely cost around £2,000.</p>

[emiliogtz]

<blockquote>

<p>How does a revamped Nikon 85 with VR sound?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It sounds very good. However, I would expect extensive use of ED glass, nano coatings and the like. I also think a revamped version will surely break the $2k barrier.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>How does a revamped Nikon 85 with VR sound?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It sounds difficult to impossible, given the state of the art.</p>

<p>All existing VR, IS, OS, etc. lenses are f2.8 or slower. A long, f2.8 telephoto has a limited optical path diameter. Look at the rear elements of an 85mm f1.4, the optical path is huge. Nikon's VR patents involve the slewing of a group of elements to steer the ray bundle. That's a light group of slow, long focal length elements in a 70-200mm f2.8 or 300mm f2.8 lens. But it's a shorter, wider group of much thicker, stronger elements in something like an 85mm f1.4.</p>

<p>Although I believe that, for long lenses, lens based image stabilization provides better "custom fitted" results than body based stabilizers, the body based systems are the only viable alternative for short, fast lenses like an 85mm f1.4.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I would expect extensive use of ED glass, nano coatings and the like. I also think a revamped version will surely break the $2k barrier.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And yet, Sigma managed to bring a version with LD and aspheric elements to the market for $899.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I have no interest in VR for my use with this lens as it has a negative effect on IQ.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Do you have any evidence to support this? I've seen several lenses replaced by VR models that substantially increased image quality. My experience with the 70-200mm f2.8 VR and its predecessor, the 80-200mm AF-D two ring shows that the VR lens is optically quite superior to the older lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>AF-S would be useful but then the lens would increase in size.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Typically not so for large, heavy lenses. The AF-S mechanism lets you put the focus motors close to the focusing elements, saving very expensive gearing and complex mechanical A/M clutches. Several of the AF-S lenses are actually slightly smaller and lighter than their "screwdriver" AF predecessors. The 85mm f1.4 has a rather large "empty zone" surrounding the rear 1/3 of the lens. The internal design is more like a truncated cone, about 75mm at the front, 50mm at the camera end. That would make for a very ugly lens (like some large format lenses) so the outer shell holds maintains the 80mm diameter for most of the lens's length. Plenty of room in that empty space for an AF-S motor.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"How does a revamped Nikon 85 with VR sound?</em><br>

<em>It sounds difficult to impossible, given the state of the art.</em><br>

<em>All existing VR, IS, OS, etc. lenses are f2.8 or slower. </em><br>

<em> </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Nikon apparently have a patent on a 85/1.4 with VR (mentioned on the rumor site). Also, the existing 200/2 has VR.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>I have no interest in VR for my use with this lens as it has a negative effect on IQ.</em><br>

<em>Do you have any evidence to support this? I've seen several lenses replaced by VR models that substantially increased image quality.</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Well, the 105 VR is generally considered to be an inferior macro lens to its predecessor, at least as far as sharpness goes. The VR version is superior at portrait distances though, and has much nicer bokeh. But it's not really useable as a primary macro lens - that's why I bought the 100mm Zeiss because the 105 VR did not deliver acceptable results consistently at close-up distances. I use the 105 VR for people images though again it is not as good as a portrait lens as the 105 DC but the VR version does have better autofocus accuracy on current bodies and that's quite important. Optically I think the AF-S VR tries to be everything (both a macro lens and a portrait lens) and fails to be great in both areas. If Nikon makes an AF-S version of the 105DC without VR, my 105 VR flies out of the window without a moment's hesitation.</p>