Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.4 lens not so hot.

Started May 22, 2013 | Discussions thread
Guidenet
Forum ProPosts: 12,436Gear list
Like?
Re: Same logic with the 50 1.4 (vs 1.8)?
In reply to Chad Gladstone, May 25, 2013

Chad Gladstone wrote:

Guidenet wrote:

RBFresno wrote:

I notice that you have the 50 1.4 and not the 1.8.

Applying some (not all) of the logic you have with the 85's, why did you opt for the 50 1.4G  instead of the 50 1.8G?

RB

Damn RB, I got it backwards. I got the 85 f/1.4G and the 50 f/1.8G. I guess I messed up.

-- hide signature --

Cheers, Craig
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile

Yes, in applying this rigid criteria, I appear to have chosen unwisely at all FL's as well.  The 851.8g (instead of the 1.4), 501.4g (instead of the 1.8), and 70-200 f/2.8 VRII (instead of the f/4 VR), 28g (instead of the 24g) and 24-85 VR (instead of the 24-120 VR) and no pro normal zoom (instead of the 24-70 - waiting for the next update cycle).  I will live with the ridicule and refuse to be persuaded by contrary supporting evidence, even if it is empirically proven that my choices defy logic or reason.

The 85 1.4 is the hardest of the bunch not to justify by performance alone, because of the flare resistance, focus speed and bokeh.  Relative sharpness is a small consolation for the 1.8 (but only because the relative value correlates so well to the nominal performance differential).  My choice in 85 1.8 lens was simply a value based consideration where, for me, the 1.8's value justifies the purchase price even if I would prefer the rendering of the 1.4 for the aforementioned flare resistance, af speed and bokeh (with the price and weight of the 1.8).  Few, if any reviews, seem to highlight this phenomenon with any degree of specificity.

I will not argue the merits of my choices by any other analysis than what lens in its respective FL, offers the best overall value for the price point that I am willing to pay.  Ideally, all my primes would be 1.4 and employ the latest AF-S VR, SIC and Nano coatings (without weight or cost considerations) and all my zooms would be 2.8's and also incorporate the latest AF-S, VR, SIC and Nano coatings (again without weight or cost consideration),  but that is a lot of expensive glass to carry.  Invariably, compromises in size, weight, portability and cost are inevitable.  Irrespective of the how much one is willing to spend, it is an exercise in discretion in choosing the lenses that best exemplify the shooter's vision with the alacrity to reveal the results in earnest, and warrant careful consideration.

-- hide signature --

Chad Gladstone

Chad, my friend, this reasoning for not buying heavy glass could all be ameliorated by the opening of a Rent a Sherpa location in your home town. I believe Bolder has one now.

Good investment, no?

-- hide signature --

Cheers, Craig
Follow me on Twitter @craighardingsr : Equipment in Profile

 Guidenet's gear list:Guidenet's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon D3S Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6G ED-IF +24 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow