50 mm 1.4G or 85 1.8G?

[anil_m]

<p>Hi<br>

I am Anil from India. I am looking for portrait lens to compliment my 35 1.8 G on D7000. Shall I go for 50mm 1.4G or 85mm 1.8 G. Price is almost same here in India. Please suggest. Thanks in advance.</p>

 

[Matt Laur]

<p>Do you have one of the kit zoom lenses, or access to one so that you can see whether you like the working distance (and thus the perspective, etc) that comes along with the 50mm and 85mm focal lengths? "Portraits" come in many flavors, and some may find even 85mm to short, or 50mm too wide. It really does come down to the look you're after, and the way you work. A cheap zoom lens is a great way to examine what works for you, composition-wise, before you spend money on a prime lens at a particular FL.<br /><br />For example: If you're looking for head-to-toe standing full-length portraits, at 50mm lens would have you shooting (with the camera in a vertical orientation) at over 5 meters (15 feet) or more to have some cropping/framing room with an average adult subject. You'd been even farther away with an 85mm lens. But if you're after head-and-shoulders, that's a different matter.</p>

[anil_m]

<p>Thanks Mat.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Hi Anil. My gut feeling would be to go with the 85mm, on the basis that it's less similar to what you already have; however, there are arguments for the extra aperture of the 50mm. Is the 35mm your only lens, or do you have a kit zoom as well? If you have another way to try out the focal length, I'd experiment with that and see which you prefer - otherwise, perhaps you could try cropping the images you take with your 35mm and see how you like the look?</p>

[kgavin]

<p>I would go with the 85mm. It's a little long on DX, but since you have the 35mm, then this is the best compliment. And the bokeh will be better with the 85mm due to the longer focal length.</p>

[jenkins]

<p>I find 50mm a little to wide on DX, I am going to head to 85mm land and cut out the unnecessary!</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Do what Matt and Andrew suggested.</p>

<p>While I agree with the last 2 posters, what works for them or me does not necessarily work for you. The choice of focal length need to fit your style. So, if you have existing lenses covering 50mm and 85mm, do use them to determine what you prefer. You can also check your existing photos to see which focal lengths you use most. If you only have, for example, the 18-55mm, then still you can make the assessment: either 50mm works for you, or it's too short - in which case the 85mm is a smart choice.</p>

<p>If you currently only have the 35mm and no other lens, and no option to test which focal length will suit you best..... I'd lean towards the 85mm too, because it is really substantially different from 35mm.</p>

[anil_m]

<p>Thanks all. I found 35mm is the only lens I have right now. Which one, 85 1.8G or 50 1.4G, has better bokeh? I read gud reviews about 85mm1.4 but too expensive for me. I do like 35mm but not great for portraits.</p>

 

[mark_stephan2]

<p>Have you considered the 35-70 f/2.8 lens? It's cheap ($300 - $350 USD) and on the D7000 it'll give you a 50-105 zoom which covers the classic portrait lengths. I use this lens alot for animal portraits. I also have the 50 f/1.4G and the 85 f/1.4D and prefer the 85 and the longer working distance. With the 50 you get in close and that's bothersome to those being photographed.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>for bokeh, it's likely a draw between those two lenses. the 50/1.4 almost certainly renders OOF backgrounds better than the 85/1.8 G, but you get more compression from the longer length. if i were you, i would get the 85. i find the 50 on DX just a little short for portraits. the 85 makes more sense when paired with the 35.</p>

<p>another option for a DX portrait lens is the tamron 28-75. it's just as good if not better optically as the 35-70, which is a push-pull design -- which may or may not be ergonomically pleasing to you. the 35-70 has better build, but that extra 7mm on the wide end can be important on a DX camera.</p>

 

[anil_m]

<p>Just checked Nikon Web site, they mentioned “beautiful blur effect” only 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.4J</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>The wider the aperture the shallower depth of field... faster lenses like the f1.4 versions offer this advantage.</p>

<p>An aperture of f1.8 is also considered fast, not as fast as f1.4 but still capable of a very shallow DoF. In fact, the difference is small.</p>

<p>Nikon have to differentiate their product line, and obviously the main difference is about the blur effect, simply because they offer the shallowest available DoF with a reasonable image quality (bokeh). If you want to sell two perfectly identical muffins in your shop, one with one cherry on top, and another with two cherries on top, you´ll advertise the second one as the <em>"sweetest wonder on earth"</em>... does it mean that the muffin with "only" one cherry on top is not sweet? :D</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>(And may be interesting to consider that the price of the muffin is doubled in the "two cherries" version... :)</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>the 50/1.4 almost certainly renders OOF backgrounds better than the 85/1.8 G, ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not too sure on that. In my view, none of the 50mm lenses has particularly great bokeh, while the new 85 f/1.8G looks really quite good (see <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00bIna">this recent thread</a> for some nice samples).<br>

As José says, the difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8 in terms of the shallowness of depth of field is not that large. If money is a concern, and 50mm is the right length, I would strongly consider the 50 f/1.8G - it's a quite a lot cheaper, and only slightly worse than the 50 f/1.4G at the widest apertures. Its bokeh is about as good as the f/1.4G too - which means: not bad, but certainly not great. It represents much better value for money, in my view. If you want good bokeh and 50mm, then the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is the better bet, but it's more expensive.</p>

<p>But, Anil, bokeh is a marginal aspect of a lens. Your primary choice should be whether you need 50mm or 85mm, not which of the two renders the out of focus areas just that bit nicer. A lot of photographers love talking bokeh (and I'm guilty as charged), but if the focal length doesn't work for you (and I can tell that 50mm on DX did not work for me at all), the whole point whether a lens has good bokeh becomes terribly academic.</p>

 

[Andrew Garrard]

<blockquote>But, Anil, bokeh is a marginal aspect of a lens.</blockquote>

 

<p>Now that's the kind of argument that wouldn't have made me buy a 135 f/2 DC followed by a 200 f/2! I do agree that the focal length is the priority, though.<br />

<br />

Faster apertures tend to be more prone to optical aberrations. The f/1.4 AF-S lens - like the 85mm f/1.4 AF-S - has more visible LoCA than the 85mm; this is a big reason I've not bothered to buy it (though I did get the 50mm f/1.8 AF-S, as Wouter suggests; I concur that the Sigma 50mm probably has better bokeh, though it's not my choice on full frame). The old 85mm f/1.8 AF-D was a bit iffy in bokeh, but the new one seems much better. If you just want to lose the background, I'd go 85mm, but whether it's as effective as the faster 50mm will depend on the geometry of your scene.<br />

<br />

Any chance you can try them out in a shop?</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>For the same magnification and distance from subject to background, the 85mm lens will give a greater amount of background blur at f/1.8 than the 50mm lens at f/1.4. So if it's an OOF background you want, the 85mm lens will deliver better than the 50mm lens. Both lenses will give a razor thin depth-of-field on the subject wide open, of 4 to 5 centimetres at a head and shoulders distance. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Strictly speaking, how much each lens blurs the background depends on how far you are from the subject and how far the subject is from the background. If the background is infinitely far away, the 85mm f/1.8 will blur more (clue: it's non-relative aperture is larger - 85/1.8 > 50 f/1.4). If the background is close to the subject, the 50mm will blur it more at f/1.4 (depth of field is approximately unaffected by focal length and depends mostly on aperture). This assumes that you're moving the camera to get the subject the same size in both lenses - the nearest you can do to "the same picture" with two different focal lengths. For example, the 50mm at f/1.4 will probably blur the subject's ears more if you want to focus on the eyes, but the 85mm at f/1.8 will hide the office block in the distance better.<br />

<br />

I once tried to do the maths to determine the subject and background distances at which a longer, slower lens overtakes a shorter, faster one. I decided I had better things to do with my weekend. It'll probably bug me until I get around to it. (Please don't point me at a web site, I have to do these things myself or I don't trust the assumptions that the site designer made.)</p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>I'd say : 85mm 1.8 + 50mm <strong>1.8</strong>, since the latter one is dead cheap, and gives you both options when you need them...</p>

[anil_m]

<p>Thanks all for valuable suggestions. What about 85mm 1.4 D? Is it still available? Is it work with DX like d7000? </p>

[jose_angel]

<p>The lens you mention will work on a D7000 and is still available new. Think that it is a "screwdriver" type lens, so it`ll not work with non built-in motor cameras. It `s not the case of your D7000, which is designed to drive this lenses.<br /> <br /> The 85.1.4AFD is a nice lens, top of the line for portrait photography in its range (up to the arrival of the "G" version), another option to consider. But if you ask me, the 1.8 "G" is half the price, use SWM technology (will work on<em> any</em> current camera), has an improved bokeh over the previous versions... and from what I have read here, is a "no-brain" option for most users or tasks.<br /> <br /> Prime cons/ zoom pros aside, I find the 35&85 combo to be perfectly realistic; I use a 35&90 combination for most of my Leica shots.</p>

[CvhKaar]

<blockquote>

<p>What about 85mm 1.4 D?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now that's another beast all together !<br />I love this lens for :<br />- OOF rendering ( creamier than creamy... :-) )<br />- But more important to me , it renders skin in a specific way, making it one of my most loved lenses.. :-) , and for this i like it better than a 85mm AF-S , but this is totally personal taste..</p>

<p>Don't buy this one for sharpness ( although it can deliver this too when focussed properly ), but for portraiture...<br />My beloved portrait trio :<br />- 50mm 1.2 (AI-S)<br />- 85mm AF-D 1.4<br />- 135mm F2.0 AF DC<br>

Spare player : 100mm f2.8 Ai-s series E...<br>

<br />( manual focussing obligatory.... :-) )</p>

<p> </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>A little belatedly, every image I've seen showing the 85 f/1.4 AF-D's performance wide open suggests that it has quite nice bokeh, but nothing you'd describe as "resolution" in the corners. It's probably somewhat better on a crop sensor. There are those that argue that softer corners help isolate the subject, which is something which which I'd sympathise more if I didn't find the blurred corners to be blurred in an ugly and unnatural way - but your opinion may vary. There are those who argue that the corners of a portrait shouldn't be in focus anyway, which is fine for a certain style of portrait, but not the candids that I shoot. Personally, I don't like the corners of the 85mm f/1.4 AF-D and the LoCA of the 85mm f/1.4 AF-S, which is why I went with the 85mm f/1.4 Samyang (which may or may not be much better, but it's not much worse and at least it's cheap). That was before the new f/1.8 came out, though, with vastly improved bokeh over the AF-D; buying again, I might give up half a stop in return for autofocus.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>In my view, none of the 50mm lenses has particularly great bokeh</p>

</blockquote>

<p>nothwithstanding the fact that nikon specifically recommends their 50/1.4 for blurred effects, you are referring to nikon 50mm lenses, yes? you did mention the sigma 50 later on in your comments, which i own and is widely acknowledged as one of the best at that FL for bokeh. you also missed some of the context of my post you quoted, which said that the 50/1.4 probably has better OOF rendering, but that the 85/1.8g is aided by compression, so it's probably a draw between those two.</p>

<p>since we're now talking about 85/1.4s,i should probably mention i own the sigma version and find not only the bokeh outstanding, though perhaps slightly less so than the sigma 50, but also the sharpness quite good, especially at wide apertures. it also has fast AF, which was important for me. i'm planning on getting the sigma 35/1.4, at which point, i may find i dont need the 50/1.4 any more. 50/85 doesnt quite work as a two lens combo (on FX); so 35/85 should be better.</p>

[roland_vink]

<blockquote>

<p>for bokeh, it's likely a draw between those two lenses. the 50/1.4 almost certainly renders OOF backgrounds better than the 85/1.8 G, but you get more compression from the longer length.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The amount of background blur depends mainly on the size of the entrance pupil, which is given by the focal length divided by the max aperture:<br>

50mm/1.4 = 35mm<br />85mm/1.8 = 47mm<br>

Even though the 85/1.8 is a slower lens, the longer focal length more than makes up the difference. The narrower angle of view means there is less background in the scene, which further improves things. But good bokeh also depends on how smoothly the background is blurred as well as by how much. In that respect the 50/1.4G is reasonably good, and the 85/1.8G is even better.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Eric: Nikon specifically recommends the lens that they'd like you to buy for blurred effects (i.e. the one with the big aperture), in the case of the 50 f/1.4 - they're trying to persuade people to upgrade from the 50 f/1.8 or a kit lens. They're not going to tell you to buy the Sigma. My feeling in the 85mm bracket is that you buy the f/1.8 for sharpness (but not the AF-D if you care about bokeh) and don't really need f/1.4, the Sigma if you need decent performance and autofocus, the Samyang if you need equally decent performance and no autofocus (I already had a 90mm Tamron if manual focus wasn't good enough), the 85 f/1.4 AF-D if you value bokeh over sharpness away from the centre, and the 85 f/1.4 AF-S if you want the absolute best sharpness and don't care about LoCA (or the cost). That's just my take on things, of course.<br />

<br />

In response to Roland's comment: For the same subject size (moving the camera to reframe), depth of field depends mostly on relative aperture - the angle of the cone of confusion is shallower at f/1.8 than at f/1.4, and an 85mm f/1.8 looks smaller to the subject than a 50mm f/1.4 because it's farther away. However, because the 85mm lens enlarges the background more than the 50mm lens (the angle of view is smaller), this effect cancels out as the background moves farther from the subject. You're quite correct that an 85mm f/1.8 will blur a distant background (office block on the horizon) more than a 50mm f/1.4; however, a 50mm f/1.4 with blur a nearby background (wall that the subject is leaning against) more than an 85mm f/1.8, because the magnification of the nearby background isn't as great.<br />

<br />

A longer lens will always blur the background more (and the foreground less) than a shorter lens of the same relative aperture. A faster lens can always blur the foreground and background more than a slower lens at the same focal length. The absolute aperture size (35mm or 47mm in this case) determines which lens will "win" with an infinite gap between foreground and background. Between the two, it depends on the geometry of your scene. You can test that by trying to blur the background with a kit 18-55 and reframing to keep the subject the same size - 18mm at f/3.5 is faster than 55mm at f/5.6, but the effective aperture is about 5mm instead of about 10mm.<br />

<br />

(Curio that I like to bring up when discussing this: the amount of light gathered from a point light at infinity is determined by the absolute aperture, unless the object you're looking at is large enough to be spread out by a longer lens. Hence stars look brighter through a longer, slower lens than a shorter, faster one if the latter has a smaller absolute aperture. This is why most reflector telescopes can be around f//4-f/5 and still be useful. If you're trying to shoot the stars with your camera, use your long zoom, not your short prime.)</p>