Nikon 85mm 1.4 D vs 1.4 G Test

[glen_sansone1]

I did some straightforward tests between these two lenses and the results were not what I was expecting.

 

Compared the lenses and images as they look straight out of the camera. Even left on identical B+W F-Pro filters on both because that's

the way I use the lenses. Took pictures in a well lit room, on a tripod, 200 ISO, and compared shots at 1.4, 2.8, 5.6 and 8, shooting at

each aperture using AF AND Manual focus. I wasn't trying to be scientific, just wanted to know if the discussions were true about bokeh

and how different/the same they are in overall look and quality.

 

Much to my surprise, the D was not only noticeably sharper, especially at 1.4, but had better color, contrast and far less CA. Wide open

the G had very noticeable green and red CA in the spatial highlights/reflection caused by the lighting. Once I got around f4 the gap

closed, but the G's overall look was a little more dreamy, colors were more neutral, and the bokeh on the G was definitely creamier. I

don't know if I'd say it's that much better than the D...just a little different. They're both awesome.

 

At first I thought the G's AF was just off, but even manually focusing it didn't get too much better. Then I got to thinking perhaps the filter

was affecting the quality, but then thought, the same exact filter is on the D and its not suffering much at all. I also considered the shutter

speed and how slow it was when shooting at f 8 or higher. Not sure. Feel like there must be an explanation.

 

Tomorrow I am going to remove the filters and take them outside using natural sunlight and do some more amateur testing, because I

just couldn't believe how impressive the D was over the G indoor. Feel like the results should be much closer to one another.

 

I did the tests because I own both lenses and was considering keeping only one. I have always loved the D, and the G is big and chunky

and beautiful, but I just can't let go of the original D and its heavy crinkley metal, glass and unique, legendary character. The G is all

scientific, clinical and perfect, while the D is a down and dirty beautiful workhorse.

[dave_wilson1]

Do you have a few shots to show? Just curious.... Thanks!

[jose_angel]

<p>Out of curiosity... Have you tested the lenses on your D800/D800E?</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I tested these two lenses before I bought my G and I found that the AF on the AF-S lens is much more precise than the AF D and the results at f/1.4 at close range highly reproducible, which they were not on the D; very few shots were in focus at f/1.4 with the D (maybe 1/7). This is the main reason I switched to the G, as its AF is so precise I can even focus on the eye in head shots through eyeglasses whereas with the D the focus would jitter around so much that it was harder to keep it from focusing on the glasses. The image at f/1.4 was also much sharper on the G version (in my testing) and there was less color fringing. Perhaps you have different test conditions, or testing technique. Did you use a tripod and live view to focus?</p>

<p>I don't use filters on my lenses unless there is a specific reason to.</p>

<p>As for the color, it's individual preference, but I find the color of the images from the G version is more consistent with other recent nano-coated Nikkors so I appreciate this homogeneity in the lineup. In any case the color is in the end subject to how you post-process your images and you don't have to accept what comes straight out of the camera.</p>

<p>Anyway, I agree that they're both great lenses, just that the G version is much better for precise focusing for head shots, in my experience, due to the different mechanism for focus. At long distances I tend to use manual focus as Nikon AF doesn't work all that well there with fast lenses.</p>

<p>In making photos of people walking on the streets, in indoor church events etc. I've found the 85/1.4'G's focus precision absolutely remarkable. With the D version I would stop down at least to f/1.8 to get a useable image; with the new G version I routinely shoot at f/1.4 with excellent results. I wish the wide angle f/1.4 Nikkors were as good as the 85mm.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>Even left on identical B+W F-Pro filters on both because that's the way I use the lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry, as soon as I see that sentence, I wouldn't even bother with the rest of this test and its results.</p>

<p>First of all, unless I am testing the effect of certain filters, e.g. polarizers, adding filters in lens tests is a major no no.</p>

<p>Furthermore, if we are comparing two lenses, and somehow you choose to include filters, you must at least use exactly the same filter on both lenses. Once you use different filters, even though they may seem to be identical, you could easily be observing differences between the filters.</p>

<p>Back to the drawing board.</p>

[glen_sansone1]

Sorry. I was using a D800. Will use a D800e today for round 2.

[glen_sansone1]

Shun, I stated that I had identical filters on. I understand it sorta throws a wrench into the results, and I accepted the

results based on typical shooting setup. I usually have a B+W filter on, and if I do see a visible difference I will remove

them. Again, it was just one phase of my comparison. We will see what happens when I change things up a bit.

[ShunCheung]

<p>Glen, I hope you don't mind that I am being very direct: your original test procedure, as you stated, is completely invalid. Therefore, so is whatever test result you may have from it.</p>

[User_4754088]

<p>Hi Glen,</p>

<p>If you were writing for a photography magazine, I would take Shun's criticism to heart. But you're not. You're testing two lenses in the real world and the way you actually use them. </p>

<p>My all time favorite 85mm lens is the Canon FD 1.2L from thirty years ago. Have used one for over twenty years and I find no equal. Have had the 85 1.4D for about five years now and when shooting film, always reached for the old Canon set up. Just recently I needed to shoot something and the Nikon was the only set up available, so I used it. I was blown away by how good the 85 1.4D is. Especially wide open. Wish it hadn't been sitting on the shelf so much.</p>

<p>I would think twice about selling it.</p>

<p>Best,<br>

-Tim</p>

[glen_sansone1]

Thank you, Tim. I think I was pretty clear that it was in no way a scientific test. It was simply pulling two lenses out of the

bag and shooting the same thing with the same setup. I wish we could get past the F-Pro filter. It was on both lenses.

Next round I will take them off. I don't presume too much from what I've done so far and you don't hear me making

absolute claims that the D blows away the G. All I said was how surprised I was based on the very unscientific, yet similar

setup. I still believe the G is better and fully expect a comeback when I get away from artificial light and remove the filter. I

tried really hard to nail the focus and eliminate any possibility of shake. Wide open i just couldnt get the G as sharp as the

D. Maybe we can look back and say that B+W filters are very inconsistent and actually sacrifice sharpness. That would be

good to know and I will then toss all of my filters except for only extreme conditions, which is rare.

 

Tim, I was actually considering keeping the D and selling the G even before comparing them. :)

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>..pretty clear that it was in no way a scientific test</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sure it was clear. But then comes the inevitable question: why test at all, if not methodogical? What do you want the test to prove?<br /> Finding out which of the two to sell....? I'm going to assume you use this lens professionally, and you have both for long enough. Hence, you already have the real-life photos in your real-life use. If you encounter AF issues such as Ilkka describes, you would have noticed - and clear case which one to choose. If you vastly prefer the look/rendering of one versus the other (as you could see from all the photos already made), clear case again - no need to test any more. If they perform pretty much equal in your day-to-day money making shots.... then sell the one that's the most likely to fail on you soon, so you won't have to get a replacement too soon. Practical business reasoning.</p>

<p>OK, I know I simplify the decision maybe a bit too much, but I'm just cautious with tests like these. What if the G turns out to be sharper, with less CA and what's more.... and you still prefer the rendering of the AF-D way more? Do you care about the MTF chart, or the final photo that the lens pulls out? That's why I ask: what do you want these tests to show you what you do not yet already know from using these lenses in real life? From all I've read, both lenses are so good you cannot go wrong either way ;-)<br /> But then, I do not have enough patience for formal lens testing (nor any version 85mm f/1.4), but to others it might be a great way to kill some spare hours. Can't argue if that's the case!</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Glen, as long you you are sharing your test results in public, I think you should at least follow proper test procedure, and you need to post some images for A/B comparison. And I, for one, don't evaluse lenses with tiny JPEG images. I have seen defective Nikon lenses, so I am sure there are defective filters, from any brand. It could be as simple as an unclean filter affecting your test results. That was why I said if you must use filters, it has to be exactly the same physical filter on each lens.</p>

<p>For a long time I was interested in the 85mm/f1.4, but I decided to wait until an AF-S version was available. That is why I never bought the AF-D, which was highly praised in its days. However, I would suggest that you check out the its issues as specified by <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=587835">Joseph Wisniewski</a>, one of the more knowledgeable photo.net members but like me, he is also highly opinionated such that not everybody is happy with people like us.<br />Joseph posted his comments on the AF-D version on August 12, 2010: <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00X3Xi">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00X3Xi</a><br />Seven days later, on August 19, 2010, Nikon officially announced he 85mm/f1.4 AF-S: <a href="/nikon-camera-forum/00X6PA">http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00X6PA</a></p>

<p>I have both the 85mm/f1.4 and f1.8 AF-S. If there are actual test images, I'll be more than happy to compare notes. But I don't have either AF-D version.</p>

[stephen_doldric]

<p>I'm with Glen on this one. If I were trying to decide between two lenses I would test them the way I was planning on using them. For Glen personally, whats the point of testing them without filters, unless he plans on shooting without filters? I do agree that the filters make the test less useful due to potential filter issues, but its good to share results like this.</p>

<p>Its also especially nice that he plans on testing them without filters, which will round out the test and give us more data. Of course this is a sample of "one" lens each, so the results could entirely be skewed by the copy of the lens that he has.</p>

<p> </p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>If Glenn was using a crap filter I could see where it might be a problem but he is not. When I used to shoot Cine we would go to the camera rental house pull out the gear and assemble it in the way we where going to use it. If we where going to use protective filters then that was how we tested with filters on. Every lens and camera body was tested for functionality. Film was run through every camera lens combo and then sent off to be processed and transferred. When it came back everything was looked at critically. So in my experience I see absolutely nothing wrong with Glens testing two different lenses with two different filters made by the same quality company. And just a little trivia...A lot of the filters used in MoPix photography are made by...Tiffen</p>

<p>As for the difference in image quality you may have a excellent copy of the D and a not so good copy of the G</p>

[kgavin]

<p>Aside from the filters (which I never use when I'm shooting), I think you should make sure both lenses are aligned properly. I didn't read anything about that.</p>

<p>Personally, I used the D and G versions (not in a scientific test), but I find the G better (in terms of handling, focusing, color, etc.) in every way.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

Hi Glen, can you just post like two similar shots wide open and two stopped down some 5.6? just so we can see too?

Otherwise, just reading your opinion and talking about the hyotheticals of filters, artificial light etc. is just semantics.

Scientific or not, if there is a specific consistancy in the test, at least we can see and be equally amazed ;-)))

[glen_sansone1]

<p>OK, OK....yeesh, I wasn't expecting such anarchy. Here is a link to test shots I did with both lenses. <br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/28334151@N02/sets/72157634487266426/<br>

Shot at 100 ISO on a D800E, Aperture priority, 1.4, 4.0 and 5.6, Manfrotto tripod, auto focus. <br>

Tell me that the G is better than the D. </p>

 

[glen_sansone1]

<p>Oh, and NO FILTER!! </p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>I cant really say one is better then the other. Personally I like the way the 1.4D draws as opposed to the 1.4G. It also looks like there is slight exposure variations between the two lenses. The G seeming to have a brighter image.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Glen, don't mean to keep picking on you; I know this involves a lot of work. But I think you need to provide some pixel-level crop to compare sharpness. And to evaluate chromatic aberration, you need some drastic light-to-dark transitions.</p>

<p>On a separate note, I waited for the AF-S version because I think it is a lot more future proof. Who is to say Nikon will not introduce a DSLR that you are interested in another 3, 5 or 10 years from now but it will have no AF motor. It has been almost a decade since Nikon introduced their last AF-D lens. I am afraid that eventually, compatibility with that will go away, at least on cameras other than the D3, D4 series.</p>

<p>Again, I'll be happy to take some pictures with both my 85mm/f1.4 AF-S and f1.8 AF-S for comparison in case people feel that Glen's lens "is a bad copy."</p>

[glen_sansone1]

Fair enough. I will post some crops later. Was it just me of does the D just look a little more contrast-y than the G?

[dave_wilson1]

It's not anything, the exposures are all different. You have to shoot the same exposure in manual. One is deeper in the

shadows, the other is more washed out in the flowers. That's what you're seeing. OK, carry on ;-))))

[francisco_salaquanda]

<p>I have some comments:<br>

Is the 1.4 AFS at $2000 worth 400% more than the 1.8 AFS at $500?<br>

Given that the 85mm focal length lenses are most often used for portraiture, surely AF is incidental. I don't know anyone doing portraits who does not fine tune focus manually.</p>

<p>One of Nikon's edges in the marketplace is its lens forward and backwards compatibility. The day they skewer those who value their AF-D lenses by not providing a focus motor in their better bodies, or not providing matrix metering for AI/AIs manual lenses, will be the day they lose my loyalty....and about a gazillion others too. I still use my F4s when I shoot film, and using it is such a sweet experience. </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Is the 1.4 AFS at $2000 worth 400% more than the 1.8 AFS at $500?</em></p>

<p>At B&H Photo-Video, the prices are $1649 and $496.95, so the 1.4 is 230% more expensive than the 1.8. I often shoot in dark places, e.g. at restaurants in various events (weddings, phd defences, concerts etc.) where I have to go to ISO 6400 to be able to stop subject movement. Also, I find the ability to blur backgrounds also at distance is greater with the 1.4 lens. At close distances such as head shots, usually even f/4 gives quite a bit of background blur, but for full body shots the faster lens is nice. However, if I could not afford the 1.4 or wanted specifically a lighter weight, smaller lens, I wouldn't think for a second that I'd miss something by buying the 1.8 instead. Either are great choices.</p>

<p><em>Given that the 85mm focal length lenses are most often used for portraiture, surely AF is incidental.</em></p>

<p>I wouldn't put lenses in boxes like that. I find that in dark indoor locations it is impossible for me to focus manually at the kind of precision required for shooting at f/2 or f/1.4 if I want the focus exactly on the eye. Modern focusing screen and too fast manual focus action of AF lenses make this the case. If the situation is at an event and not a formal one, then the subjects are usually doing something, walking, singing, expressing themselves, and that makes it even harder to keep the main subject in focus manually. I have manual focus lenses that make it a bit easier but I still get far greater percentages of in focus shots at wide apertures with the 85/1.4 AF-S. It can even track walking subjects with focus maintained on the face during a sequence and produce a high percentage of keepers (about 70%) at f/1.4. I don't think I could do that even with 10% keeper rate focusing manually with the D800. For a stationary subject I can do better than that of course, given enough time, but then it's pointless to talk about catching the moment if the photographer has to make an effort to capture an in focus frame. Perhaps your eyes are better? Try f/1.4 1/100s ISO 3200-6400 light and focusing manually. Also, the noise from the body motor focused D version in quiet church situations and some classical concerts can be distracting and embarrassing.</p>

<p><em>The day they skewer those who value their AF-D lenses by not providing a focus motor in their better bodies, or not providing matrix metering for AI/AIs manual lenses, will be the day they lose my loyalty.</em><br>

<br />I agree they should maintain compatibility in the mid and upper level bodies for a minimum of 10 to 20 years, but there are a lot of people who don't have and will not buy body motor focused lenses (they may have AF-S and manual focus lenses) so for them a significantly lighter weight body without AF motor may be attractive. I have three AF D lenses still and one of them is one of my all time favourite Nikkors (105 DC), and I do use it with AF. However, I would much rather see them replace the remaining AF D lenses with AF-S and solve some optical issues in the process.</p>

[pge]

<p>Interesting test Glen, thanks for posting. The 85mm 1.4D was on my wish list for years but eventually I compromised and went for the 85mm 1.8G. Its funny the reaction your test has received, it almost feels like the purchasers of the G are defending themselves. No need for anyone to be defensive, different strokes for different folks.</p>