Would you replace a Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G with a f/1.8G?

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>No matter if acquired in a heat of NAS or with a wish of images to come, one thing is certain, this is a fine lens. And expensive, but you bought it. You own it. I say keep it. With a growing family, you may never be a position again to buy another. Bodies will change, but in 15 years this lens will still be working magic for you. </p>

<p>Felling pangs of guilt? Lost some motivation? Not shooting enough to justify? There are ways to combat that by focused effort. Instead of selling the lens, use it's high value as a excuse to motivate yourself lest you waste those precious dollars invested. Insist on using it several times a month. You'll feel better about an asset being used and your photography will improve. Once you move to full frame (as is your stated objective), this high quality lens becomes even a more important tool in your kit.</p>

<p>Years ago I did the exact same thing with my Canon FD outfit and sold the fine FD 85mm f/1.2 L lens and got the FD 85mm f/1.8. The reasons were similar to yours. I used that outfit for over 25 years but was never able to go back and afford the faster lens again. Although the slower lens worked OK, I kicked myself for years for selling it.</p>

<p> </p>

[cjk]

<p>Thanks to all, lots of food for thought. <strong>A few clarifications: </strong></p>

<p>- I do have a nifty fifty (2 actually, the f/1.8D and the f/1.8G) and use it extensively for candid portraits in low-lit events. Love it. </p>

<p>- I do not think the 85 is too long on DX. I actually really like it for portraits (which I still do a lot of, just not in the way I envisioned initially).</p>

<p>@Kent: Yes, I have a home studio setup, with lights, lightboxes, umbrellas, light stands, backdrops, various other light modifiers, etc. But it's exactly in that tightly controlled environment that I feel I do NOT need the 1.4G aperture. In studio I generally tend to shoot at around f/8. I've played a bit with very shallow DOF portraits but, while they can look cool from time to time, it's not something I do a lot of. As for selling portraits, we'll see how that goes. I've been focusing on selling my sports photos (swimming and soccer) with some success (well, enough to pay for the gear!). </p>

<p>@Ariel: >> And last, I definitely agree about buying what you need rather than the fanciest thing available. <<</p>

<p>That's probably the difference between a pro and an enthusiast. The pro buys the tools she/he needs to get the job done. The enthusiast buys what she/he wants to enjoy themselves! Nobody *needs* a Ferrari but you can still want and buy one (if you can afford it) even if you're a crappy driver, right? ;)</p>

<p>@Zack & Louis: thanks for sharing your experience. Very helpful. </p>

<p>@KJ: Absolutely agree! It's all about the pleasure you derive from your hobby. When I got my first D-SLR in 2007 (D80) I hesitated because of the (then perceived) high cost. Since then, I have made some photos of loved ones that I would have never gotten with a P&S and that today I would give a kidney for (just barely exaggerating).</p>

<p>- Regarding $: it's just a rational investment decision (my field of work). If I put $1500 in an asset, I expect either to 1) use it (to produce self-fulfilling pleasure or revenues) or 2) have its value appreciate (stock, land, some real estate, interest on money in the bank). If it's neither, then that money is better used invested elsewhere (inflation loss + opportunity cost). </p>

<p><strong>My takeaways: </strong></p>

<p>- One of the advantages of the f/1.8 would be its smaller size. I realize that the bulkiness of the f/1.4 and its cost have probably refrained me from using it more for candids in low-lit situations. I tend to rely on my 50 f/1.8 and even there I prefer the 1.8D rather than the bulkier 1.8G (I have both). I've avoided taking the 85 f/1.4 with me to events because of its size and because I am always worried about someone bumping into it and damaging it. </p>

<p>- Using the 70-200 in place of the 85 might work for posed portraits but it would be just too bulky and intimidating for candids (and very heavy!). And as Shun mentioned, the extra stop provided by the 85 is definitely a big big plus both for indoor low-light and for background separation.</p>

<p>- @Eric: In Shun's photos, I have to admit that I do like the rendition of the 1.4 more but then again it might be other factors (light) than just the change of lenses. </p>

<p>So it seems to me that the 1.8G wins on flexibility (smaller and lighter so will be used more) while the 1.4G wins on performance and (maybe) rendition. Also, performance seems to differ on FX from DX. If indeed I do move to FX in a few months, it might make more sense to wait until I have tried it on FX before deciding. </p>

<p>I guess the logical next step would be to go with Louis and Joel's advice and try and take the 1.4G "out" more. I'll see then if my concerns about it size are warranted. If not, then I might as well keep it. Otherwise, I will then look at what selling it would fetch me. If the loss is not too great, it might make sense to sell it and get the smaller 1.8G ... </p>

<p>Many thanks to all. That has been very very helpful, </p>

<p>Cheers </p>

<p>Cesar in KSA (for now)</p>

 

[Uhooru]

<p>Shun's point about speed makes sense if you are really shooting low light, but is that going to happen in a studio that often? Just as important to me, is that both the 85 1.4 and the 70-200 have the sweetest <gasp that word> bokeh of all the Nikon lenses and both make fine portrait lenses. Yes, the 70-200 is big and heavy.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>I wouldn't compare the two earlier images because the settings were quite different. While it was the same girl, I (and therefore the camera) was much closer to her for the f1.4 image, and the settings were quite different.</p>

<p>But last night I was having dinner with her again at a restaurant, and this time I brought the D800E with both 85mm lenses. As usual, I sat across the table from her. The two images below is a much closer comparison. I don't think the difference is huge. Do you know which one was captured with the f1.4 and which one f1.8? Both lenses were wide open, and the depth of field from the f1.4 is a bit shallower.</p>

<p>Once again, at 1/3 of the cost, I think the 85mm/f1.8 AF-S is the far better deal. And I totally agree that inside a studio where you have full control of the lighting, I would typically shoot portraits around f5.6. However, I rarely use a studio.</p><div></div>

[kj_thomas]

<p>The one on the right. DOF shallower and the exposure is a touch lighter (although her position may have effected the look of the exposure). If I'm wrong then I'm selling my f/1.4 and I'll buy the f/1.8!</p>

<p>I've owned the f/1.8D, and one thing I will say is that the color fringing from f/1.8 to about f/2.8 was horrible...downright unacceptable. If I was outdoors, I would not shoot any wider than f/2.8 in most situations. When I bought the f/1.4G, this issue was much more controlled. I used my buddy's f/1.8G once and noticed that the fringing appeared to be a little more controlled, but not as good as my f/1.4G. One day I'm going to borrow his lens and put it through the extreme test with the f/1.4G and an f/1.8D. The point I make is that the differences in the two lenses is about more than bokeh and sharpness, which is obviously an issue of splitting hairs in the images above. There are some other factors that go into the price difference. Again, 3X the cost is a personal decision that will vary from person to person.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>I've owned the f/1.8D, and one thing I will say is that the color fringing from f/1.8 to about f/2.8 was horrible...downright unacceptable.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Very interesting - photozone tests show more CA for the f/1.8G than for the f/1.8D and also less bokeh fringing (LoCA) for the D version; they do mention the tendency of the D version to emphasize purple fringing (which from your description is likely what you are referring to). I am still debating whether or not to exchange my f/1.8D for the f/1.8G - not sure if losing about $200 on that deal is worth it. <br /> Shun, I can't tell which one of your two images is shot with the f/1.4. I expect that you were at most 6 feet away - so the difference in DOF between f/1.4 and f/1.8 is a mere quarter of an inch. To me, the images look identical - maybe differences would be more clear if the images were larger. I am guessing that 4309 (on the right) is shot with the f/1.4 - but I really can't tell a significant difference to the one on the left. At least I don't seem to have any reason to include a $1500 lens over a $500 one in my purchase considerations.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>the exposure is a touch lighter</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Confused here - why would that be a distinguishing feature between the f/1.4 and the f/1.8? The camera should just select a 2/3 stop faster shutter speed to achieve the same overall exposure.</p>

<p>Made a mistake regarding the DOF in my post above - it's not a 1/4 inch difference, it's a 1/3 inch - should be evenly split at 1/6" before and after the focal plane. Still can't tell the difference though.</p>

[kj_thomas]

Dieter,

 

That nasty purple fringing is exactly

what I'm referring to. That really

frustrated me with that lens, because

otherwise it's excellent. The size was

perfect, the weight was fairly negligible

compared to other lenses I own, and it's sharp enough for me by f/2.2.

 

When I said the exposure looked

lighter with the shot I'm assuming is the

f/1.4, I'm really splitting hairs. Not sure

how Shun shot those frames, but if he

shot in manual and just switched

lenses and changed the (only)

aperture, then that would account for

any perceived exposure variance. But I

would image he made a more apples

to apples comparison and made an

exposure adjustment when he changed

lenses. As I mentioned, this is splitting

hairs...what I may see others may not

see or see it differently. Also, a litany of

things could cause any perceived

exposure difference (subject position,

precise camera position, any slight

change in the ambient lighting). The

specific dynamics of the lens wouldn't

be the first thing that comes to mind, I

just threw it out there.

[ShunCheung]

<p>The settings of the last three images were similar. We were having dinner at different restaurants at a table that sits two on each side. In both cases I was sitting diagonally across the table from her so that I could take pictures. Last night, she was wearing that green sweater and my wife was sitting directly across the table from her, and I was next to my wife. The girl was I would say 5, 6 feet from me. She is a very active 9 year old and does not sit still.</p>

<p>Since now I have both the 85mm/f1.4 and 1.8 AF-S, I'll do more side-by-side comparisons. Unfortunately, I have no access to the Sigma version. But I'll say this again, Nikon's 85mm/f1.8 AF-S is a bargain. For most people, there is no need to spend 3 times the cost for the f1.4. But since the OP already has the f1.4 and doesn't really need the money, he might as well hang onto it. When his kids get a bit older, he may have some subjects that are similar to what I have here.</p>

[joseph_smith3]

<p>Cesar, for what it is worth, one of my favorite portrait lenses for a DX body is the Nikon 35mm f 1.8G lens. I like it much better than my 50mm f 1.8 AF lens. Like Elliott, I have taken excellent portraits of my three year old grandchild and my wife with my 70-200mm f 2.8 on both FX and DX bodies. I am a great believer in selling what you do not use. Or stated another way, if you were buying all over again, what would you buy today, nothing, the f1.4 of the f1.8 85mm? <br>

Joe Smith</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I would guess the one on the left is the 1.4 lens.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Stuart, <strong><em>GUESS?</em> </strong> a 50:50 bet is surely avoiding the issue!</p>

<p>It's definitely the left one for f1.4..... definitely.....for sure....without doubt.....isn't it??</p>

<p>1/3 the price, hummmmm, well that's just interesting! Looks like my 1.4D might be for sale soon....;-)</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Yep the left one is the f1.4. At least I want the left one to be the f1.4.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Ok, I am the first one to admit that I myself have a hard time telling images by the two lenses apart, as long as the shooting conditions are similar. That was why I marked down the image numbers earlier so that I wouldn't get confused myself. However, LightRoom is not going to lie.</p>

<p>I captured over 90 images over dinner last night. So I can easily put up two more for people to guess. :-) But seriously, the f1.8 version is very good.</p><div></div>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>KJ: If I'm wrong then I'm selling my f/1.4 and I'll buy the f/1.8!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Saved - care for another try?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Mike: Looks like my 1.4D might be for sale soon....;-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Start looking for a buyer ;-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Stuart: At least I want the left one to be the f1.4.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can get what you seem to be after at 1/3 the price ;-)</p>

<p>Shun, how about two that are shot at the same ISO?</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I felt the shot on the left is more 3 dimensional. It seems to have a bit more pop too. I don't want the new 1.8 or the new 1.4 as I can't use them on my FM2. I got the Samyang 85mm 1.4 to try on my FM2 not sure how it is going to turn out yet. Still have to develop the roll. I gave it a quick try on my D300 but I can't tell when it is in focus. It's too hit and miss without a decent focusing screen.</p>

[kj_thomas]

<p>@Dieter - I'll take another stab at it for sure!</p>

<p>Off topic, but that D800E looks pretty nice at ISO 1600. I love my D800!!!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Since one lens is f1.4 and one is f1.8, it is never going to be exactly the same. With the advantage of f1.4, I can get away with a lower ISO in some situations.</p>

<p>Again, I myself have a hard time telling which image is captured by which lens. But since I have both lenses now, I am going to try them out side by side under different conditions. I'll be happy to share my observations with everybody in the future. Maybe I'll demonstrate that I have wasting a bunch of money getting the f1.4 AF-S, which I have wanted for years and that was why I was avoiding the 85mm/f1.4 AF-D for a long time, on top of the 85mm/f1.8 AF-S, which I bought early this year after testing a Nikon sample.</p>

<p>Here is another example from last night.</p>

<p>P.S. The D800 and D800E are 98%, 99% the same camera. They are quite good at ISO 1600. Check out the pixel-level crop below.</p><div></div>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Pixel level crop</p><div></div>

[ariel_s1]

<p>I think it's ridiculous to buy gear that you're afraid to take out and use. If you're unwilling to take the 85mm lens out as it is, what is going to happen when you're throwing it onto a full frame $2,000-$3,000 camera instead of onto a $500-$900 camera that you have today? Going back to our car analogy that we have fallen into, I'd rather have a Nissan that I am not afraid to take to the track on weekends, and drive hard and enjoy when I feel like, than a Ferrari that I am afraid to put any miles on or rev above 3,000 RPM. If you invest heavily enough that you are becoming a slave to your gear, however nice it is, consider unburdening yourself. Someone recently got on me in another thread about not having newer gear, but that's one thing I love about my D200: today it is a $400 camera, and the Tamron 17-50mm and Nikon 35mm that I use for 90% of shooting are respectively $400 and $200 lenses. Because of that, I'm willing to go out there and take photos that I otherwise might think twice about. The image quality of a camera or lens that is in your hand is infinitely greater than that of one that is safely locked away at home.</p>

<p>Stuart, the shot on the left probably seems more 3 dimensional to you largely because of the plane of focus, with her zipper and writing on her sweatshirt being out of focus, which is what tricked people into guessing that one into being the f/1.4 shot. Kudos to you guys that decisively chose correctly, as I am looking at the two photos, and can't really distinguish anything myself. I suppose I could put it into Photoshop and work some wizardry on it like upping the contrast and such to try and see something, but Shun, you've got me sold. If I didn't have free reign to my friend's K-5 with 77mm Pentax lens, I'd definitely have the f/1.8G lens.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>have to admit, i couldnt really tell the difference between shun's shots. if i didnt have an 85 already, i'd probably go for the 85/1.8g. and if i had an 85/1.8d, i'd definitely upgrade to the g, just for the smoother bokeh. but the devil is in the details; there is no way nikon would intentionally cripple the sales of a $1500 lens for a $500 one. the 85g has the nano crystal coating, and reviews say, the flare resistance on the 85/1.8g isn't quite up to the level of the 1.4g--an area the sigma excels in, btw--and there isn't really enough distance between subject and background to expose the differences in the 1.8's OoF rendering compared to the 1.4. i can trick my 50/1.8's bokeh into appearing less nervous than it actually is by keeping the backgrounds close, so that's likely what happened here.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>there is no way nikon would intentionally cripple the sales of a $1500 lens for a $500 one.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Eric, that was exactly what Nikon did, and the reason is very simple. If Nikon only provides a $1500 f1.4 option for a modern 85mm AF-S, people would find other alternatives such as the Sigma, etc. Nikon is simply not going to sell very many lenses at $1500 each one way or another.</p>

<p>That was why Nikon started with the f1.4 version of the 85mm AF-S first, in the fall of 2010. Back then the price stayed at $1699 for a long time and there was a lot of shortage. (The 2011 Japan earthquake probsably didn't help.) And that was why I intentionally held off my purchase, but those who can afford $1699 must have bought one by now.</p>

<p>Back in January this year, I was delighted that Nikon was introducing the D4 with an f1.8 version of the 85mm AF-S at only $500. I was really happy with my test sample and bought one shortly after. In the mean time, not surprisingly, the price for the f1.4 version gradually dropped as supply finally exceeds demand.</p>

<p>Now that I have both versions, I'll use them side by side for a few weeks under more different conditions. But frankly, I think it is going to be hard to justify the $1500 price tag for the f1.4. And while I can afford to keep both versions, I may consider selling one. Having both is certainly excessive.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Just for fun, here is another comparison from Sunday night over dinner. In this case the D800E stayed at ISO 800. The f1.4 version has a faster shutter speed to compensate for the faster aperture.</p>

<p>Again, my point is that the difference between the f1.4 and f1.8 is small. If you also have a hard time telling them apart, I am sure you have a lot of company.</p>

<p>I'll check the lenses out for flare, etc. later on. Since I have both now, it is easy to make A/B comparisons.</p><div></div>

[cjk]

<p>@Shun: <br>

Thanks for the comparisons you've been posting. I think they're very helpful for all of us. If I had to buy one <strong>now</strong>, I most certainly would have gone with the f/1.8G, which didn't exist when I bought my f/1.4G.</p>

<p>If you indeed end up selling one of yours, I will be very curious to see which one you would let go of (the f/1.8G or the f/1.4G)!!!</p>

 

[ArthurRichardson]

<blockquote>

<p>Which image was captured with the 85mm/f1.4 AF-S and which one f1.8?</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Shun, the picture on the right is with the 1.4. Now what did I win? The 1.8?</p>