Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikkor 85mm 1.4 vs 1.8?

Go to last post
1.4D = fast, better sharpness if used in 1.4-2.8 range

1.8D = almost as fast, less sharp below 2.8 but has less barrel (or was it pincushion) distortion than 1.4D, actually it has almost no distortion at all (1.4D is not usable for architectural photography, and that is weird for a prime). This is even more so with FF cameras.
Kevin Nguyen said:
Question,

Does the .4 differences and the build differences between the two
warrant the price tag differences of approx 700 bucks?

--
http://www.photographybykevin.net , http://www.smilepak.com ,
http://www.knguyentu.com



See My Gear @ http://www.knguyentu.com/main.php?url=Photo%20Equips
Click to expand...
--
Osku
 
personally, i think it is. above guy is right, better sharpness at the widest apertures. the 85 is one of nikon's best. if u do low lite, you'd be surprised how handy that extra ap is.
 
Kevin Nguyen said:
Question,

Does the .4 differences and the build differences between the two
warrant the price tag differences of approx 700 bucks?
Click to expand...
The higher cost is justifiable if you're a portrait specialist. But looking through your gallery leads me to believe that you'd be just as happy with the 85/1.8 and still money in your pocket.

--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank
 
...I don't care how much better the 1.4 is.

It's also not a focal length I use much, but it does take the best people pictures I've ever shot.

--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA
'Trust the 'kon!'

Stuff I own in my profile.
 
Yes, the Nikon AF 85mm f/1.4D is worth the money if you are a low light photographer or do a lot of portraiture outside. If you put a flash onto the camera as soon as the sun has set you probably won't need it. I've owned both and kept the f/1.4 version. It's a very special, magic lens which really is worth the money. You could try to get a used one. But if you cannot spend that much money on a lens the f/1.8D is a good lens too - without being magic though.

Some older comments on my website about the lens:

http://www.utopia-photography.ch/lenses/magiclens01.html

Best wishes,
Markus
 
which no one can answer for you. Only you can answer if the qualitative difference between these two lenses is worth $700 to you.

But to answer that question, you probably want to know the difference (I know most people measure all things in money these days, so even quality of lens in measured in money :)) between these lenses.

Again, people can tell you one way or another, some will praise 1.4 some will say 1.8 is good enough. But only you can decide if you are capable of appreciating the difference. If you aren't 1.4 will be lost on you. If you do, then decide if it's worth it for you.

1.4 is a very subtle lens, and not everyone can appreciate it.

Just some food for thought.
--
Mario
http://digitalphotographyart.blogspot.com/
http://www.pbase.com/mario_grgic/
 
I'm happy with my 85mm 1.8 and don't want to hear or believe there's something better out there.

--
Phil Flash
SF, CA USA
'Trust the 'kon!'

Stuff I own in my profile.
 
People who call a lens magical usually do not see they can improve their shots in many other ways without the help of magic. Who is capable of judging whether a photo was made with the 1.8 or 1.4 (except of course the unsharp christmas tree lights feature :-)? There is a small difference between the lenses, but, as Uncle Frank said, it's only significant for experts.

--
Philip
 
Kevin Nguyen said:
Question,

Does the .4 differences and the build differences between the two
warrant the price tag differences of approx 700 bucks?
Click to expand...
Personally I would say no but the bokeh of the 85 f1.4 AF is beautiful. I've seen a few sample pics of the f1.8 and I wasn't that impressed but I only own the 1.4.
 
If you take portraits very seriously and/or you need the extra speed, then it is worth those extra $$$.

I own the 1.8 and currently testing a 1.4 from a friend. I'm 300% happy with both, my 85 1.8 and 105 DC. But that 1.4 is a GREAT lens too.

On this page from my site (still under work) you'll see some 1.8 shots.

http://www.photosofpuertorico.com/nikon-85mm-lens.htm

These 3 are recents with the 85 1.4.







How big is the 1.4 vs 1.8? Check...



 
The resolution and the bokeh on the 1.4 at max - 2.8 are simply amazing.

It's an incredible lens and although dear has now paid for itself in 3 short months.

That said, it's a specialised lens and if portraiture or food photography on a commercial scale isn't what you do you should either use the money to buy something else or, if you can't live without an 85 for whatever reason, buy the excellent 1.8, pocket the difference and walk round with a smug smile on your face.
 
Murray Bowles said:
Yeah, but also remember, 85mm is a bit long for portraiture on a DX
camera.
Click to expand...
That's a matter of individual taste, Murray. I find it perfect... but I liked 135mm for people pics back in the film days.



--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank
 
I'm amazed by the way you've grown in this sport. Your current work is fantastic, but I'm sure it's going to continue to improve!

--
Warm regards, Uncle Frank
FCAS Founder, Hummingbird Hunter, Egret Stalker
Dilettante Appassionato
Galleries at http://www.pbase.com/unclefrank
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top