Nikon portrait lenses - Ai-S versus AF-D (135/2,85/1.4)

[jose_angel]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"... AF-D's borders are never sharp but if it has more pleasing bokeh it's thing I can live with"</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>In comparison to what?</p>

<p>From what I have seen bokeh differences are splitting hairs, being the latest version always a bit better than the predecessor.</p>

<p>Check this link; <a href="http://www.nikonjin.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=272">85/1.4AFD vs 85/1.8AFD</a>. If you look at the highlight spots, both are ugly, being the 85/1.8 even more ugly. Look at the defocused areas; the 85/1.4 show more out of focus blurriness but... $500-1000 more blurriness? Is it really worth it? Does this increased blurriness benefit your pics?</p>

<p><em>(BTW, the 85/1.4AiS seem to me pretty close to the 85/1.8AFD in this photos).</em></p>

<p>Check this other link; <a href="http://ishootshows.com/2010/11/30/review-nikon-85mm-f1-4g-af-s/">85/1.4G review</a>. At the end of the lens`description there are some comparison shots with the previous AFD version. Optically, splitting hairs again. After reading the "Overall bokeh analysis" paragraph, I have to smile. Certainly there is a tiny difference, but how much it will affect the quality of my photos? Nothing. And what about price? The same as above.</p>

<p>I think there is -a lot- of hype about lens bokeh; personally, I`d get the most usable lens, and as a second choice, the most pleasant to use (e.g. AiS versions in MF cameras). IMHO, fastest AiS primes are insanely priced, and not justified by its performance.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"... 12mp camera has not enough resolution to show skin artifacts... "</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Huh? With proper illumination and technique my D700, with either the 105VR or 24-70 (both amongst my most used lenses), is terrific with skin imperfections.</p>

[rastislav__virik]

<blockquote>

<p>bokeh differences are splitting hairs</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe you're right Jose. The biggest problem is that Ais(in good shape) and AF-D costs about the same. If MF cost 2/3 of AF there would be no doubt. That's the main reason I can't decide. But back to the bokeh again,there are tiny differences for a huge price difference,yeah,but I want the best possible. I am made that way :)</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>To be honest, all remotely recent lenses are very good, and the skill of the photographer makes far more of a difference than the equipment (at least with me). Some kit lets you take images that others won't - there <i>are</i> reasons to want a very wide aperture, even if it's expensive and makes it hard to maintain optical quality - and sometimes it's really a choice between similar equipment.<br />

<br />

Still, as Rastislav says, if you're spending money to get an effect, you may as well try to get the best option available for your money. The difference between the bokeh of two lenses may be small, but if all else is equal, why not go for the better one? If LoCA bothers you, why not make sure you're not getting more of it than you want? Those of us who lurk here may seem obsessed about equipment; I'm like this about <i>everything</i> - I like to know as much as I can before I hand over my money, and I'm the same when it comes to trying to learn to use it. We each have our own priorities - I got my 200 f/2 mostly for the bokeh, and I'm very happy with it, but there's no way I expect most people to find it a sensible trade-off.<br />

<br />

I do agree that a D700 is perfectly capable of making skin look bad, although to be fair it has a stronger low-pass filter than some other cameras. If you want to count the hairs on a lady's cheek, medium format might be the way, though...</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Well, I have to agree with you.<br /> Another shot taken with the 85AiS... check that bokeh has been slightly improved in later versions:</p><div></div>

[jose_angel]

<p>And...</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"If you want to count the hairs on a lady's cheek... " </em>(taken with a D700 + 70-200VRII, 100% crop)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>... clic below ;)</p><div></div>

[jose_angel]

<p>Rastislav, I`m not sure if I have expressed myself correctly. I wanted to mean that (personally) the AFD option, image quality wise, seem better to me; sharper wide open, better bokeh, --<em>autofocus</em>--... I`d only buy the expensive AiS version for the insane pleasure of using it -sporadically- on a MF camera. Here the "image quality issue" goes behind... I keep it for this reason.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Jose - not quite the image I had in mind, but I guess this isn't the portraits and fashion forum. :-)</p>

[rastislav__virik]

<p>Thank you guys for your time. I'll buy AF versions,I guess 135mm first and then 85mm. I also bought old AiS 80-200/4 recently,focus is a real pleasure on these lenses but i could use a slightly shallower DOF so now I'm pretty sure I want these high speed lenses even more. And again,thank you for your help.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Glad to help, Rastislav. And if you happen to find out that your 135 DC isn't as badly-behaved as mine (when tortured), please send me a message? I hope you're very happy with it.<br />

<br />

For symmetry, I recently got an 80-200 f/2.8 because I wanted the ability to blur the background <i>and</i> have control over focal length. But I'm not about to give up my primes - if there was any chance of that, I'd not have bought the cheapest (autofocus) 80-200 I could find.</p>

[rastislav__virik]

<p>OK Andrew,I'll let you know then. But please have in mind that it will take some time,maybe 2 months. I'm not from USA so I'll try ebay and they don't show up very often here.</p>

[fred_mackintosh]

<p>The comparison of AF-D 1.4 and 1.8 is interesting. I have come to realize that my 1.8 AF-D is really great. I have not owned anything that is more uniform in terms of sharpness across the frame. It does, however, have a bit more color fringing (longitudinal CA?), as in Andrew's posts, than do the AI-S 85/2.0, 105/1.8 and 105/2.5. </p>

<p>I think the 85/2.0 AI or AI-s is perhaps the best bargain of the bunch. It seems to be underapreciated. Also, I love its small size. At least my sample is only a hair behind the 1.8AF-D in corner/border sharpness (not enough to really matter in practice, I expect). It is a little better behaved in terms of color fringing and is a little more pleasing wide open than the 1.8. The latter may be sharper, but when open takes on a hazy, bluish cast. </p>

<p>In the 105 range, I LOVE both the 1.8 and 2.5. The OP asks about the 135/2.0. If you want fast, consider the 105/1.8. It is a bit better than the 2.5 at 2.5-4.0. It is not much heavier or larger, really. Sadly, I just tend to gravitate to the 85mm length more than 105. So, my 85/2.0 still get more use than any other long lens. </p>

<p>I have no experience with the 135/2.0 AIS, but I did have the DC. I stupidly sold it, and it would cost me much more than I got for it now to buy a good used one. I did not like the color fringing near wide open, but I sold it before getting a D700, and it would have been nice to try on FX. </p>

<p>As I think many have, I got a bit too caught-up in the game of searching for THE BEST lens in the 100mm +/- range. (I probably a 35 or 85/90 for 90% of my shooting.) I tend to prefer the AI-S era lenses or their equivalents for build. I have a hard time taking a plastic AF seriously, even if I have come to respect the newer lenses for their optics! Among the lenses I have owned and put through the paces on DX/FX and film, I tried several Leica R-lenses (with leitax mount). In the short tele range, I have tried both the Elmarit-R 90 (last version) and Summilux-R 80. I was actually rather disappointed, and concluded that their legend is mostly due to the name. Nikon 85/1.8 AF-D, 85/2.0 AI-S and the 105s (1.8 and 2.5) outperformed the Elmarit, at least for my purposes. Even the Summilux was not worth the price premium. I tend to do more architecture than portraits. Leicas (also the M-series and wide R-series lenses I have owned) tend to have noticeably more curvature of field. It really shows up with architecture. In such shooting, even the Summilux was not up to the Nikons. (I know, that is heresy.) I ultimately sold all my Leica R lenses (including 35 Elmarit-R, and 35 and 50 Summicron-Rs, all last versions). Ultimately, with the better Nikon AIS and AF offerings, as well as the Zeiss ZF lenses (I have the great 21/2.8 and and 35/2.0!) outperformed the Leicas. </p>

<p>Anyway, after much experimentation, I concluded that the minor differences between the "best" lenses just aren't enough to worry so much about. What counts is what you can actually get with them. There are some great, inexpensive (used) AI-S era lenses, like my 85/2.0 and 105s. I don't think I am missing anything that will really matter in practice. One of the great things about, say, the 85/2.0 and 105/2.5 is size. Sure, there may be a portrait that might be a little different character if I were to take it with the (now gone) Summilux-R 80. But, I'm more likely to actually carry around one of the smaller Nikon's, and both are capable of killer shots (e.g., the famous "Afgan Girl" shot taken with the 105/2.5, right?). </p>

[rastislav__virik]

<p>Thank you Fred,you are right that AiS lenses are greatly built. 105 doesn't feel right for me. About 135mm I'm pretty sure I want AF version for it's defocus ability,I don't expect much from that ring but it's a nice bonus. In 85mm line I'm still not sure,I've also considered zeiss. This may need some time to think it trough. AF is said to be better but Ais looks very nice too. I've also been looking at 85/2 but I think that faster will have a little nicer bokeh.</p>