Nikon 85mm 1.4 D vs 1.4 G Test

[sasvata__shash__chatterjee]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=7150947">Francisco Salaquanda</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/1roll.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jul 05, 2013; 04:18 a.m.<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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Speaking not so much about the AF-S versions, but more to the difference between the f/1.8 and f/1.4 versions of the Nikkor 85mm, I'd say absolutely yes. I have the AF-D f/1.8 version for use with my D300, since I couldn't justify the f/1.4 based on the amount of portraiture I do. I have taken wonderful portraits with the f/1.8, as I have with the 70-200 f/2.8 and the long end of the 24-70 f/2.8. My brother on the other hand, only does portraiture (commercially), and he uses the AF-D f/1.4, and recently the AF-S f/1.4 G, on his D300, and he also used to do wonderful portraits with the 105mm f/2.8. With all this as background, my belief is that for the type of portraiture that one does with an 85mm, there is no other lens that even comes close to the 85mm f/1.4, it is not called the "cream machine" for nothing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't know anyone doing portraits who does not fine tune focus manually.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am the other way. I don't know of anyone who tweaks focus manually for portraiture with AF lenses :-) (not talking about macro and live-view here). In the old days, with split-image focusing and lenses with long throw, it was the only way for us to focus manually. Now there is no such optical aid, and with AF the "idiot light" turns on any way when it is in focus, what would you use for confirmation for the extra manual tweak?</p>

[dave_wilson1]

Personally, I use an older 1990 85mm f1.8 AF. I can't tell you how many places it's been and how many shots I've made with

it. I really don't think I would buy one of these bigger heavier ones. If mine broke I would get another 1.8

[sasvata__shash__chatterjee]

<p>Dave, that'd likely be my choice as well. That preference is based on convenience, but would you go so far as to say that the f/1.4 does not produce different images than the f/1.8?</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p> 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>

</blockquote>

<p>At least I don't feel that way at all. I am not interested in the AF-D version because it has no AF-S motor. Its optics have always been very good but most comparisons have shown that it is now superseded by the AF-S version, which is what you would expect as optical design has improved quite a bit in the last 10, 20 years due to computer-aided design, wide-spread usage of plastic aspherical elements (which the 1.4g does not have) and nano coating. Therefore, the OP's observation of the opposite seems to be unexpected.</p>

<p>Personally, I would highly recommend the 85mm/f1.8 AF-S. There is hardly any difference between that and the f1.4 version but costs about 1/3 as much. I own both and that is my observation from real-life photography. I don't put much weight on lab test results.</p>

[pge]

<blockquote>

<p>Personally, I would highly recommend the 85mm/f1.8 AF-S.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you, that makes me feel good about my purchase decision. I have had no regrets with it. But, I personally would have no problem buying a lens without a focus motor. I don't forsee a day when Nikon will not have a focus motor in their D200/300/700/800 level of camera.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Concerning the AF motor, I like the ability to manually override AF, without having to switch off AF every time.</p>

<p>And while I am not interested in getting like a D3200, I can see that in a few years, there will be low-end FX bodies without an AF motor. And we may need to adapt these lenses onto some future mirrorless cameras. For example, you can only AF with AF-S lenses if you adapt F mount lenses onto the Nikon 1. Most of us probably wouldn't do that at this point, but in a few years, we may have that need with some future camera that we use. As I said, I would much rather be more future proof. I would try not to add more AF/AF-D lenses at this point unless you absolutely cannot afford AF-S versions.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>Its funny the reaction your test has received, it almost feels like the purchasers of the G are defending themselves</em></p>

<p>Would you prefer that claims made based on casual and incompetent lens testing which are in wild contradiction with the experience of several photographers who have used these lenses on a daily basis (as well as those of well respected formal lens test sites and reviewers), be unchallenged? If you want anarchy of misinformation to rule the world, it is easy enough to achieve. Just make everyone who knows what they're talking about shut up and you'll achieve that.</p>

[pge]

<p>Sorry to offend Ilkka, I certainly do not want anarchy of misinformation.</p>

[nathan_wong2]

<p>Like Dave Wilson, I too own the 85 f/1.8AF (non-D). It wasn't my most used lens, but when I needed the focal length the lens worked very well, except at f/1.8 and f/2. I wasn't happy with the performance at those apertures one bit. In fact I used the lens as a f/2.8 instead of f/1.8. There's a little halo at f/1.8 when magnified and reflections are a problem, especially with dark scenes and bright lights. When Nikon had their sale earlier this year I decided I wanted something a little different and went with the f/1.4G. The 85 f/1.8G had stellar reviews and recommendations but the 7 blade aperture vs. the 9 that came in my 85 f/1.8 AF was a bit disheartening. Also the plastic filter thread on the f/1.8G as opposed to a metal one on the f/1.4G was a factor in my decision.</p>

<p>I've written this before but when I received the 85 f/1.4G I was a bit disappointed because the focus wasn't spot on. I even thought about returning it a few times. After a LOT of trial and error I finally found the sweet spot in the AF Fine Tuning and now I like the lens. I like how the background blurs at f/1.4. However, I did find that there's not a whole lot of difference between f/1.8 and f/1.4 in the blurring aspect. The 2/3 stop in aperture, though, is nice in that it's the difference in shutter speed between 1/60 (blurring subjects) and 1/125 (not as blurred).</p>

 

[francisco_salaquanda]

<p>Some people are so touchy.</p>

<p>BTW in our country, the 85/1.8 AFS is $499 and the 1.4 is $2199. Thats actually 440% difference.<br>

Please do remember that professional photography does exist outside the USA.</p>

<p>I for one, could never afford a lens costing $2000+ when there are so many acceptable alternatives, such as I explained. I would never be good enough to take advantage of the slight superiority of the 85/1.4.</p>

<p>Its the same with the 50/1.4AFS. This lens is $550 here and the 1.8 AFS is $250. My partner has both. However I have shots taken with the 50/1.8 series E which can be had for less than $100, and I can't see any difference at 100%.</p>

<p>The point I am making is that you can achieve almost equal IQ results with lenses that were outstanding in their heyday and still are. My advice to people who are ready to drop $6000 on a body and two AFS lenses is to reflect on what more affordable alternatives there may be without much compromise. This does not apply to pro's so much as to the vast majority of photographers out there who are not.<br>

One only has to look at the galleries here on PN and where the photographers has been kind enough to nominate the gear they used, to demonstrate without doubt that you don't need to spend up big to get awesome results. I see PN members writing posts asking if its a good idea to take say a D800 and a 17-35 2.8 and a 70-210 2.8, on the their holidays! Such an outfit would do justice to an award winning photographer no less. But the images so produced by Frank and the wife and kids will not be any better than those shot with a modest outfit. But this is a little off topic, and I feel strongly about this.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

"Its the same with the 50/1.4AFS. This lens is $550 here and the 1.8 AFS is $250. My partner has both. However I have

shots taken with the 50/1.8 series E which can be had for less than $100, and I can't see any difference at 100%."

 

Exactly Francisco. So if you drop and break it, you get another and still didn't get near the price of the 1.4 if you're OK

with the Series E.

[francisco_salaquanda]

<p>Yes, Dave. It had an impact on me. Without labouring the point, a so-so photographer (like me) is better served with the second tier of lenses. If my some miracle I end up producing images worthy of exhibition, then I might consider the expensive, fast version.</p>

<p>Two years ago I flew over and went on a workshop to Yosemite. All these pro-sumers were there with their bags of expensive kit. But one guy showed us all up and its the basis for my previous comments. All his shots were hand held with a G9 and he only used the Canon software for post processing. Have a guess who's images were better than most of the rest of us. It was a valuable lesson and a good demonstration that great images come out of the brain of the photographer, than from the camera and lenses.</p>

[chanh_nguyen1]

<p>"It was a valuable lesson and a good demonstration that great images come out of the brain of the photographer, than from the camera and lenses."<br /> Very true and often said. But I must admit I try to get the "best" lenses I can afford if I can see the difference in color, contrast, and sharpness. It's part of the fun. The only down side for me, besides the obvious financial one, is that I feel embarrassed using nice gear as an absolute rank amateur, knowing others have made far better images with lesser gear. I love my 85 mm f1.4 D.</p>

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

<p><em><strong>OK, OK....yeesh, I wasn't expecting such anarchy.</strong></em></p>

<p>Anarchy? With lens testing it can become a mob with pitchforks and torches in the middle of the night if you're not careful. Good luck.</p>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>Almost hate to jump in, but here I go. From time to time, I have had multiple copies of the same lens. Most of the time, the lens to lens variation is small, but on at least two occasions, I have found significant differences between two samples of the same (expensive) lens. I sort of now have a try before I buy policy, if possible.</p>

[miguel_martinez4]

<p>@Francisco:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>BTW in our country, the 85/1.8 AFS is $499 and the 1.4 is $2199. Thats actually 440% difference.<br /> Please do remember that professional photography does exist outside the USA.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It actually isn't. The difference would be 100*(P-p)/p, which in this case is 341%. But that's just nitpicking. Whether 2/3 eV are worth it depends on what an extra $1600 buys you. If $1600 is your monthly salary, you have a mortgage to pay, and you won't get paid for small DoF portraitures then... well... maybe the 1.4G is not the best purchase you could do.</p>