oskar_ojala

<p>Shun, good demonstration. A side by side comparison is more telling than some speculation about bokeh differences between f1.4 and f1.8.<br>

There are differences between the 85/1.4 and 85/1.8, but there's no major single thing that tells them apart, which makes the comparison difficult. While I would say that the 85/1.4 looks better in some circumstances, the 85/1.8 is clearly better value and I ended up buying the latter and another lens to complement my shooting with short teles.<br>

My answer would then be that if you have to ask, then the 85/1.8 is more likely to be the lens for you.</p>

<p>Between now and Dec. 15 there's about two weeks of time, with a quite reasonable 100 frames per day that's doable even for someone having a day job, one can easily get to about 1500 frames before the date comes. What if several of those 1500 are memorable? And if they're not but one put in the effort? All I'm saying is that one needs to think about the utility value too.</p>

<p>Depends on price, ease of use (i.e. focusing) and the look. I've got very sharp lenses that are slower and maximum sharpness at f1.2 is not a problem that I have. but I sometimes use my 50/1.2 because of the look, so a 58/1.2 might come into question.</p>

<p>M mode, a large aperture, pretty much the largest you got and an exposure time in the seconds. ISO should be fairly low. You obviously need a tripod. Stars are a very challenging subject and certain limitations of your camera will become apparent. If you get a low-contrast picture, often brown, you need to go to an area where there's less light pollution.</p>

<p>$220 is too much, a new 50/1.8G will cost less or the money could go a long way for buying a new 50/1.4G, both which are improved over the previous versions, so I'm recommending you buy either one of the G versions new and get a nice upgrade. Whether to get 1.8 or 1.4 is a personal choice depending on shooting style and finances; f1.4 is obviously faster, while the f1.8 is cheaper.<br>

For the 85 mm it's hard to give a general recommendation, since it depends a lot on what you value and are willing to spend. If you mainly shoot stopped down but occasionally want to use a large aperture, the the new 85/1.8G is a good choice. The 85/1.4G is a very nice lens, but in my opinion comes more into its own when using large apertures. The older 85/1.4D is softer and the AF is not as good as in the AF-S lenses, but for a certain look at large apertures it could be desirable. However, in terms of sharpness it's not as good as the newer lenses and if you mainly shoot stopped down then it's not the best choice.</p>

<p>Why not F3? It's deservedly a classic and the last old school manual top model Nikon made.<br>

As for the lenses, all kinds of things can be gained with newer glass but whether it matters is another thing. The Zuikos are competent lenses, but so are the Nikkors.</p>

<p>28/1.8G is <$700 at B&H, 85/1.8G is <$500, so with $1200 you can get both with a few cents to spare. If trying to keep the money tighter, then the 85/1.8 AF-D sacrifices AF-S and some sharpenss at large apertures, but is readily available used. I don't recommend a lower priced wide angle, since the 28/1.8G is a big step above Nikon's older offerings.<br>

If a zoom is needed, then quality-wise the only thing in any way comparable with these is the 24-70/2.8, costing $1900, 15 mm short on the long end and not being able to do f2, but being able to zoom.</p>

<p>Short version: it works as advertised, image quality is excellent.<br>

Longer version: the image quality holds up well even at the widest aperture and bokeh is quite nice. In terms of image quality, the only real issue is that it can flare it certain situations, but that's not very common. In terms of handling it's fairly good and AF works well, but it's a bit large with the hood attached and the hood is a cheap plastic type. But these are basically specific details for specific uses; for a general evaluation, the lens is excellent.</p>

<p>85/1.4G is really nice, 85/1.8G is almost as nice and a lot cheaper :-)<br>

Both work well at large apertures.<br>

The 85/1.8G has flare problems in very particular circumstances. They are not easy to come by, but when they happen, the problem is obvious. I'm not convinced at all that such problems wouldn't occur with other comparable fast lenses, so I'm using a slower lens when I want total control of flare.</p>

<p>Does the PC-Nikkor need a conversion? To my knowledge, none of the PC Nikkors are aperture coupled. The later ones fit all bodies, but I'm not familiar with the early one you have, maybe it interferes with the aperture coupling...if that's the case, the the conversion probably looks a bit ugly.<br />You could ask around for repairmen that have conversion kits, but I really can't help with that. The conversion is fairly simple, but won't keep the pristine look. One option would be to get a spare aperture ring and convert that, if available, so you would have the original pristine one if you want to reinstall it later.</p>

<p>No; there isn't any use in the large sensor if you are using lenses that use only a part of it. To use FX, at least the primary but preferably all lenses should be FX lenses.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>maybe. but you can always stop down a 2.8 lens; you can't <em>stop up</em> an f/4 or vari-aperture lens to 2.8. btw, the 50-150 is excellent at 5.6.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>True and that's what the 85/1.8 or 1.4 or 105/2 is for. Their only faults is that they can't zoom, otherwise excellent for this kind of work.</p>

<p>The bokeh of the Nikkor 50's tends to vary on aperture. Not sure about the latest G version, but if it's important then worth checking out. I'd put more emphasis on stopped down performance; most portraiture will happen there and getting perfect focus at f1.8 will not happen on every shot.<br>

Andy's comparison is interesting. I think both lenses could be made to work for different looks.</p>

<p>I never liked the 24-120/4, but I was looking at it from a walk-around and landscape angle. For studio portraiture, where apertures are more likely to be in the f5.6-f11 range, AF for focusing and corners don't need to be excellent it could work fairly well. Still, I think it's a bit overpriced considering that the 24-70 is just a few hundred more. But if you need the range and it works for you it might be worth it.</p>

<p>f1.8 is plenty; most portraits are anyway shot stopped down and if you want a thin bokeh look, then make a tight composition at the largest aperture. The main advantage of the newer version is the better autofocus, which comes in handy. Sharpness may be better with the new version, but it's not such a big deal for portraits.<br>

What I chose, when I shot DX, was a 60/2.8G micro. It's a little bit longer and thus more comfortable to use in headshots (longer working distance, less distortion) and the bokeh and overall image rendition is very pleasant at every aperture. It's almost as if portraits had been a design goal of the lens, but I don't think I about it too much, I just use it; it works. It's, however, much more expensive than either of your choices, but in my mind well worth the money.</p>

<p>Depends on the lens; telephotos tend to be pretty good, can't think of an AF-D telephoto that wouldn't be. Funny that the 85/1.8 came up... I'm selling my D version since I switched to AF-S and the only real advantages in the new version are sharpness at large apertures (f2.8 and larger) and AF-S focusing; drawbacks are considerably increased size. For me, the trade was worthwhile since I like to use the larger apertures and like the performance of the new lens using those, but if performance at f4-f8 was the goal, then the old lens would be basically just as good as the new one.</p>

<p>Excellent lens, a classic and still worth using today. Using a tripod and live view will give you the best results in any case, but you can use the lens well without those too.</p>

<p>Finally... if the raw performance of this lens is in oder then it will find a place in my bag. The light weight will come in hand when being out all day and the roughly 800 grams saved in weight compared to the f2.8 will go to carrying all kinds of nice stuff...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the lenses should cost at least a few times the cost of the body (I think 3:1 is a reasonable ratio between investments in lenses and bodies)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Playing the devil's advocate for a moment, one could get a 85/1.8, a 50/1.8G and stich the rest while saving for the most desirable wideangle. Throw in a Zeiss 21/2.8 and the price of the lenses is roughly the same as that of the body.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Those who are dismissive of "30 year old lens technology" might want to take a look at Bjorn Rorslett's website where many of the top-rated lenses are manual focus Nikkors</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lisa, if you refer to naturfotograf.com Bjorn hasn't updated in in a long while, as he is active on Nikongear. Thus, there's no data on the latest bodies there. Furthermore, Bjorn does indeed use all the latest stuff, including some very exotic lenses. There are indeed some excellent manual focus Nikkors, they are just not the wide angles that are the focus here. Since I have personal experience on a number of different wide angles, I don't need to ask Bjorn on his opinion on an old 24 mm Nikkor compared to the modern alternatives, but if Bjorn's opinion is wanted, I suspect he will answer if asked.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It seems to me that zooms are the logical choice for landscape work because they allow fine-tuning one's composition to make the best use of available pixels.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Interesting point. It's true that one may need a very particular focal length for the desired composition. On the other hand, with large pixel counts a few megapixels here and there are not a big deal. Lately, I've been shooting only primes on my D800 and haven't felt limited in landscapes (in sports I have, but that's another matter). This is because often I need to crop anyway, since the desired composition doesn't fit into the 3:2 aspect ratio, small differences in framing are usually not significant, I have a lot of pixels to work with and if needed, I can stitch several frames together. I'm also trying to pursue high quality across the frame and high quality primes are currently better for that than normal zooms. But for someone else the ability for freely choose the focal length might be a stronger criterion than the ones I presented. I have to think about this next time I'm out shooting.</p>

 

<p>Trey, I used the 24/2.8 AF for years before I sold it. It's a compact lens, but not at the level of modern lenses. I have only briefly handled the 24-85 VR and read some tests about it, but I'm pretty sure that the old 24/2.8 would not be better in terms of image quality. Thus, if you want a compact and inexpensive solution at this point, I would recommend to get the 24-85 VR rather than the 24/2.8 and get, perhaps later, a high quality wide angle lens. To be clear, the 24-85 VR is a good lens and I found nothing annoying about it, but naturally a modern dedicated wideangle priced in the four figure range will perform better.<br>

The 50/1.8G and 85/1.8G are great lenses. For landscape use, the older 85/1.8 AF-D is just as good as the G, the G is better really at large apertures and manual focus feel. As I said, I'm now using the Voigtländer 90/3.5 for landscapes when I don't need a large aperture; it's smaller and flares less.<br>

It's good that you got out the number for lens usage; now you could plan to put the money into wides. It just happens that excellent lenses in the range 50-100 mm can be had relatively inexpensively, while wides cost progressively more the wider you go. I've shot with a 25/2, with a small Voigtländer 20/3.5 thrown in, but now I'm thinking that at some point I might want a 14-24/2.8 or a Zeiss 15, so I've run into these issues myself. In your case, a high quality zoom (14-24 is very good, 16-35 should be good when stopped down, haven't tried myself) or two high quality primes (e.g. Zeiss 15/2.8, 21/2.8, 25/2, Nikkor 24/3.5 PC-E) could be an option. It might be a bit too much at once though. You could also have the 24-85 VR and then get a couple of lenses to expand your capabilities, e.g. wide zoom or prime and a dedicated 85 mm lens.<br>

The great options are not cheap, but at least there are many options! OTOH, a D600 with quality lenses and a good tripod will be a big jump in capability over your current system.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I was under the impression the primes I listed were all highly rated (especially stopped down for landscapes,) no? I also read reviews that the 24mm/1.8 is as clear as the 14-24 (at 24) when stopped down to 5.6.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can you be a bit more specific about the exact models of the primes you refer to? The 24/1.4 AF-S is great, but probably what you have in mind. The 28/1.8 G AF-S is excellent when stopped down. The 24/3.5 PC-E is a great lens. The rest of the sub-30 mm primes are older technology; even when stopped down to f8, there are big differences between lenses.<br>

I could add that sticking to DX for a while with the aim of moving to FX and buying lenses accordingly can be worthwhile; it all depends on your budget and priorities. I went from a D300 to a D800, having known for a while that my next camera is FX and bought lenses accordingly. There was no transition; there's not a single thing I miss in the D300 and I haven't shot with it since. The way I see it is that for landscapes, the desirable options are either FX for high quality, or mirrorless for low weight, with DX being just a transition phase to either one. Last month I hiked up mountain with a minimal mirrorless setup and it was very convenient -- not FX quality, but entirely decent stuff and some 28 megapixel images done with stitching.</p>

<p>It's a bit hard to assess how much someone values portability, ease of use, quality and how large the budget is (and also in what timespan are the lenses to be acquired). As background, I shoot with a D800, have upgraded some lenses recently, currently shoot only primes but am planning to get a zoom at some point in the not too distant future. That said, I offer the following opinions;</p>

<ul>

<li>Going for a big print, a bigger sensor and more pixels will be better, provided you have decent glass. The quality of the D800 is silky smooth and DX doesn't compete. Based on reports, the D600 seems to be able to produce excellent images. So with the goal of producing large prints, the D600 is a solid choice.</li>

<li>Nikon currently offers their series of f1.8 primes, namely the 28/1.8G, the 50/1.8G and the 85/1.8G. I haven't used the 50, but the other too are excellent and the 50 should be too. Currently, I see those as the budget option for the highest quality level. Don't let the large apertures fool you; these lenses are excellent when stopped down.</li>

<li>Many older Nikkors, especially the wideangles, are not at the level of more modern lenses. Just yesterday I was reviewing some pictures taken 10 years with a 24/2.8 AF-D and the quality was a far cry from what I get now with a Zeiss 25/2. If you need a small lens for occassional use or are really budget constrained then the AF-D primes are an option, but if you want something to use on a constant basis, look for more modern options.</li>

<li>I've only briefly handled the new 24-85 VR, but it left me with a positive impression. One option might be to get it (or seriously look into it) and then complement it with a couple of other lenses.</li>

<li>In terms of top class wide angles wider than 28 mm, the interesting ones are the Nikkor 14-24 and 16-35 and what Zeiss makes. Tokina probably has something good, I used to shoot a 11-16 like you, I don't anymore and I'm not interested in their offers until their warranty service and QC improves. YMMV.</li>

<li>To give some sort of guideline, I would recommend that you focus your resources on the lens you're going to use most, or then splurge and buy all the focal lengths to be top class. Sometimes we need to make unexpected compromises; as an example, I ended up buying a Voigtländer 90 mm to complement my Nikkor 85/1.8G, since the latter is so fat with hood on that it doesn't fit comfortably in one of my bags and it can get a very nasty flare in certain situations. The Voigtländer 90 has comparable high image quality, is tiny, but is obviously limited in terms of aperture and has no autofocus. However, for landscapes it works great. So think out of the box too, it may help.</li>

</ul>

<p>To throw around some crazy ideas, how about a 16-35 (disclaimer: I haven't handled it, but reportedly it's good when stopped down), 50/1.8 and Voigtländer 90/3.5? Or save money and get a slightly used 85/1.8 AF-D (it's just as good in practice as the new G version when stopped down). Or splurge and get a Zeiss 21/2.8 for the wide end. Or start out with the 24-85 VR and expand later when you know what focal length you use a lot. Or if you get tired of the weight and cost, consider mirrorless: quality wouldn't be as high, but a clear upgrade over the D200 and a lot lighter to carry around. These are just some ideas to make you think about the options.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>ah, surely that explains why the nikon 85/1.4 AF-D focuses slower than the Sigma 85, lol. also, why the sigma 50 is just as fast-focusing as the nikkor 24-70 AF-S. Oskar, have you handled the sigma 85? build quality is top-notch. also, not sure why AF would be a concern if you shoot Zeiss and Voigtlander, neither of which makes AF lenses for Nikon mount.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>AF-D is the 90's and anyone having AF as a priority for a new lens should be looking at AF-S. The Zeiss and Voigtländer were mentioned for quality; naturally one doesn't buy them if AF is a concern. My AF lenses are all Nikon. As for the Sigma 85/1.4, I haven't handled it and given Nikon's current lineup of 85's, I'm not likely to. Looking at photozone, the Nikkor 85/1.8G seems to beat the Sigma at every aperture, so the case to buy the Sigma would really be to get the look it gives. Nothing wrong with that, but going for a given look is always a bit specialist and depends on each one's style. Bottom line is that my default recommendation is any of Nikon's modern 85's (AF-S, PC), unless some specific constraints or priorities come up that would make other lenses viable.</p>