chulster

I'm leaning in that direction. I won't be able to repeat the $120 deal for the copy that I had to return, but ~$150 should be doable.

It is.

Seems like there was a slight majority favoring the AF 85mm f/1.4 over the AF 85mm f/1.8 in that thread. It's interesting that nobody has championed the AF 85mm f/1.8(D) in this thread, despite its being readily available under $250.

Huh. 50mm would make sense if I was on DX and looking to approximate the angle of view 85mm has on FX. But on FX, I don't see how 50mm is a viable substitute for 85mm. Also, I already have 50mm f/1.4 and f/2 lenses.

You see the "nervous" bokeh in the blurred highlights in these photos. Also in the closer OOF elements. Not so much in the treeline in the first photo. If you had to pick one to keep, which would it be? Nikkor f/1.8 or f/2? Kudos on giving away your user copy!

Speaking of which, I do have an opportunity to buy an AF 85mm f/1.4D in good user condition for $325. That's more than I want to spend, but if the deal is an outstanding one, I can persuade myself. Should I jump on it?

Your results from the 85/2 and the 105/2.5 are both very nice. So you're saying that the 85/2 was generally known for having better bokeh than the 85/1.8? I hadn't heard that. If true, that could sway me to get an 85/2.

What is your opinion of the 85/2's bokeh? Yes, the 85/1.4 costs more than i'm willing to spend at this moment in life, though it makes me salivate (as do its AF successors).

Digital, full-frame.

Apologies for the plebeian subject matter in yet another thread like the one I started about Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 alternatives. This time the focus is on the 85mm focal length. My current 85mm lens is a Nikkor-H f/1.8 with the factory Ai conversion, which I've been using for a few weeks. It's sharp enough for the uses I put the lens to. Being single-coated, it doesn't have good flare resistance. But what I find most wanting in this lens is the fairly busy bokeh. So, as in the other thread, I'm back to ask for alternative recommendations based on your experiences. To seed the conversation, I'll add that I recently tried a Samyang/Rokinon 85mm f/1.4. It had smoother bokeh than the Nikkor-H, even while being a bit sharper at f/2. I had to return it because of a defect. Should I go for another one of those? Or perhaps the best alternative isn't even an 85mm? I'm strongly considering the Tokina 90mm f/2.5 macro, which is supposed to have great bokeh—but does it blur backgrounds to the same degree as an 85mm f/1.8? I used to have a 105mm f/2.5 Ai-S as well, which I sold for reasons that are a mystery to me. Is it better than any sub-$250 85mm lens? Although I do prefer the slightly more accommodating field of view of an 85mm. As always, thanks for your insights!

Given it's not a bread-and-butter lens for me (not that any other is, as i'm not a pro), i guess it's really not that bad.

If and when you get a new lens, i hope you will consider selling your 20-35mm to me. Fat chance, i know.

That seems to be another option, one that i'll consider. The only drawback to the old Tamrons is the backwards focus rotation.

If anybody cares, here are some test shots from my Nikkor N.C 24mm f/2.8, exported at 8 MP with no sharpening. (Click a thumbnail for the full-size photo.) The first four are of my standard flat-field test target, taken from f/2.8 to f/8, distance about 1 meter. And the last was taken at f/4 at 40cm:

By gum, you're right, Brian. The comprehensive Nikkor pages at Photography in Malaysia back you up on this. I'm sorry to have posted under false pretenses. Perhaps I'll just trade my N.C version in for an Ai/Ai-S.

@conrad_hoffman Can you please tell me the serial number of your Vivitar 24mm? It seems that they sold 24mm f/2.8 lenses from more than one maker, and the serial number would help me know which maker made yours.

Conrad, that does look quite a bit better than the results from my Nikkor. I will look for this Vivitar. Thanks!

Thanks for the suggestion! I'll keep an eye open for one.

Definitely above! But thanks.

I can go either way. I enjoy manual focus more, but i do have a few AF lenses for practicality. I try not to buy screw-drive AF lenses in case i ever move to a Z camera.

I'm embarrassed to confess i have tried two copies of the Sigma 24mm Super-Wide II. I think you may be right about its possibly having slightly better peripheral acuity. I believe it was what i perceived as muddy colors that turned me off of this lens. This one is certainly intriguing but, alas, outside of my budgetary comfort zone for a lens of this focal length. Me too. I may look for an Adaptall 24mm—but the reviews of this lens at Pentax Forums aren't as glowing as the ones for other old Tamrons. I'm thinking likewise. I may just sell the 24mm to help pay for a Nikkor 28mm f/2, finally. $200 seems to be the going price for that.

I'm not thrilled with the image quality of my Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 (I have the N.C version, same optics as the Ai and AF versions). Edge sharpness is my main beef; i have to stop down to at least f/8 for decent results there. I know that the 24mm f/1.8G is a much better lens, but i'm a cheapskate and don't want to spend the $400 or so for a used one. The f/2.8 only cost me $75 plus shipping. Is there an alternative that is intermediate in both quality and cost? It doesn't have to be a Nikon. I do not have a zoom that goes wider than 35mm, nor do i really want one.

I don't see why not. To implement pixel shift all you need is a sensor that can be translated about half a pixel's width along each of the x and y axes, and software to blend two images into one. The same actuators that make IBIS possible do the job for pixel shift.

That's a good idea. I assume such converter cables are much cheaper than video input boards (although i haven't priced those lately either, or even know if they're still made).

It's worth noting that the maximum resolution most Nikon DSLRs support through the Webcam Utility, including the D7200, is 640 x 480. So, if you use a very large Zoom window, the picture will not look very sharp no matter how well the camera is focused.