Reading mode: Light Dark

Ordered my 85mm f/1.4 tonight...let's see your shots!

Go to last post
quit agonizing; just go for one or the other; after you get one you will want the other (or all 3); I've got a 85 1.4 and I really would like the 105 DC; I've been holding out and I where I once thought the 105 DC would be the ticket along side the 85 I can now see the trifecta (including the 135 DC) might really be solution :) - but I might have to hold off on that until we see something like a D400 FF get introduced :)
arthurking83 said:
Oh Man!! I'm so tempted to get myself one of these too!

But I'm still tossing up between this and a 105(or 135) f/2 DC ????
Click to expand...
 
think you are on the right path -- my 85 1.8 worked in better lit facillities (my 14 year old plays HS varsity and club volleyball) but was marginal at best in a lot of places, forcing the shutter speed to drop so that in combo with limited DOF wide open keepers became harder to come by. my 105 2.8 VR usually is not sufficient except in very modern gyms/facilities.

we'll see about the 1.4 - unfortunately, can't make this weekend's tournament but will have some shots by end of next week which i can share w/ you.

as you know it is hard enough capturing the right moment in volleyball, what with framing, all the action, need to get the ball in the shot, etc.

been told you need 1/500 -- i have been operating at 1/320 and sometimes even lower w/ the 1.8 -- but blur is a problem -- as i try not to dial my D70S to 1600 unless i have to (frequently do).

another poster said the "unity" ISO for D70S is around 1050 and i tried it out - amazing how little noise at that ISO compared to 1600. have D300 on order in hope i will get clean 1600 and hopefully some 3200 w/ PP.

wish i could afford the D3 -maybe if i sold my lenses.........

anyway, you can shoot me an email w/ your results when you pick it up and we can compare notes.
 
Thank you for looking, love the 105 but on DX it was a little long for me, and the speed of 85 1.4 is nice (guess with the new D3 I can shoot at 125,000asa and the speed may not matter as much :) )

That light on the side of her face (low and behind) was about 2-3 stops more than the key, besides I did edit and tint this image so the flaws are me probably not the lens.

When I used 35mm film I never noticed a difference between my 501cm with 150mm sonnar vs. my 85 on my f100 in highlights (film to film but never lens to lens), yes they looked very different due to focal length and shooting distance but the dynamic range issue surprises me.

can you post some samples, maybe I am just misunderstanding (not the first time)

regards
Ray
ddk said:
Raymond Bradlau said:
I dont know if they are my best but I do not get to shoot as much
posed stuff as I like so I'm posting 2 of those :) I Usually use the
50 and 85 1.4's for low/available light work, and to separate
subjects from the ugly and/or distracting backgrounds I get at
sporting events :(
Love the lens, use it even more on my DX sensored cameras (105 f2
more on film) but if money where tight and I had to replace it I
could easily live with the 2.8 version.

regards
Ray
Click to expand...
Beautiful portrait Ray but I see the same problem in your shot that I
have, the 85mm can't hold highlights well, that's one area where the
Zeiss 85 and the 135/DC and probably the 105/DC do much better.
ddk said:
Click to expand...
--
david
http://www.pbase.com/ddk
Click to expand...
--

http://www.pbase.com/ray645
 
I always thought it was MY 85, I remember shooting boxing (high ISO) with the D2h and would error on the side of slight over exposure (1/3rd exposure comp) with the 85 I would usually keep it flat.

regards
Ray
Phil Youngblood said:
mlmusto said:
so camera body is a factor, too.
Click to expand...
IMO, that's the only thing controlling the holding of highlights.
The 85/1.4 does tend to expose a little "brighter" than other lenses
(the overall image -- not just the highlights) but if you expose the
same, the highlights will be held or not depending on the sensor --
NOT the lens, be it Zeiss, Nikkor, or whatever.

Phil
Click to expand...
--

http://www.pbase.com/ray645
 
Phil Youngblood said:
ddk said:
Beautiful portrait Ray but I see the same problem in your shot that I
have, the 85mm can't hold highlights well, that's one area where the
Zeiss 85 and the 135/DC and probably the 105/DC do much better.
Click to expand...
Really? I don't see what you are talking about. How about some
examples of this "much better"?

Phil
Click to expand...
Experience has taught me that arguing with forum bullies is a waste of time. If you don't see the blown highlights then you don't!
--
david
http://www.pbase.com/ddk
 
ddk said:
Experience has taught me that arguing with forum bullies is a waste
of time. If you don't see the blown highlights then you don't!
Click to expand...
I haven't seen any bullies posting in this thread. That said...

If you find that the 85 blows highlights more often than another lens, using the same camera body and correctly exposing the images (e.g., exposing a gray card to the same brightness with images from both lenses), then the only explanation would be that the 85 has more contrast.

So... are you really complaining that a lens has too much contrast??!?!?

--
David
http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=587727
 
David Whysong said:
ddk said:
Experience has taught me that arguing with forum bullies is a waste
of time. If you don't see the blown highlights then you don't!
Click to expand...
I haven't seen any bullies posting in this thread. That said...

If you find that the 85 blows highlights more often than another
lens, using the same camera body and correctly exposing the images
(e.g., exposing a gray card to the same brightness with images from
both lenses), then the only explanation would be that the 85 has more
contrast.

So... are you really complaining that a lens has too much contrast??!?!?

--
Click to expand...
Not a complaint just an observation and it has nothing to do with contrast. Some lenses deal better with highlights than others, that's all.

--
david
http://www.pbase.com/ddk
 
ddk said:
Phil Youngblood said:
ddk said:
Beautiful portrait Ray but I see the same problem in your shot that I
have, the 85mm can't hold highlights well, that's one area where the
Zeiss 85 and the 135/DC and probably the 105/DC do much better.
Click to expand...
Really? I don't see what you are talking about. How about some
examples of this "much better"?

Phil
Click to expand...
Experience has taught me that arguing with forum bullies is a waste
of time. If you don't see the blown highlights then you don't!
Click to expand...
How can someone "bully" with the written word? If you feel "bullied", it's only because I asked you to prove your assertion by posting examples and you know you can't.

Phil
 
You are going to love this lens - luckily, I got a photo of my daughter before she decided that she wanted bangs - she wacked off lots of her hair earlier this week - and she is 10! Now she looks like she has some cheap prison haircut.











--
Bob
 
My 85 f/1.4 lens just arrived. I wasn't expecting it so soon, so it was a pleasant surprise when the UPS truck arrived late this afternoon!

Hopefully, I'll have time to give the lens a good test this weekend. But, I've been walking around the house blasting images at f/1.4 just for fun!

Glenn
--
http://gnagel.zenfolio.com/

 
The fist is a photographic lighting class.

The best thing to improve DPReview's membership's level of enthusiasm about your portraits instead seems to be (from admittedly semi-quantitative observations) the use of young female models showing fair amounts of skin.

--
Best Regards,
Renato
 
does old folks pretty good ...;-)



and scooters, too ...;-)



both @1.4
;-)))
Revision said:
The fist is a photographic lighting class.

The best thing to improve DPReview's membership's level of
enthusiasm about your portraits instead seems to be (from admittedly
semi-quantitative observations) the use of young female models
showing fair amounts of skin.

--
Best Regards,
Renato
Click to expand...
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nute/
 
Phil Youngblood said:
Phil Youngblood said:
Phil Youngblood said:
Really? I don't see what you are talking about. How about some
examples of this "much better"?

Phil
Click to expand...
Experience has taught me that arguing with forum bullies is a waste
of time. If you don't see the blown highlights then you don't!
Click to expand...
How can someone "bully" with the written word? If you feel "bullied",
it's only because I asked you to prove your assertion by posting
examples and you know you can't.

Phil
Click to expand...
That's not it, aside from personal history this forum is filled with threads of people who wasted their time arguing with you.

Like I mentioned above, if you don't see the blown highlights in Raymond's portrait, then you don't. If interested you can investigate the matter yourself there have been samples and discussions of the 85's idiosyncrasies in past here.
--
david
http://www.pbase.com/ddk
 
Hi Ray,
Raymond Bradlau said:
Thank you for looking, love the 105 but on DX it was a little long
for me, and the speed of 85 1.4 is nice (guess with the new D3 I can
shoot at 125,000asa and the speed may not matter as much :) )

That light on the side of her face (low and behind) was about 2-3
stops more than the key, besides I did edit and tint this image so
the flaws are me probably not the lens.

When I used 35mm film I never noticed a difference between my 501cm
with 150mm sonnar vs. my 85 on my f100 in highlights (film to film
but never lens to lens), yes they looked very different due to focal
length and shooting distance but the dynamic range issue surprises me.

can you post some samples, maybe I am just misunderstanding (not the
first time)

regards
Ray
Click to expand...
I will post some samples next week in a new thread.

I found the 105 and the 85 are very similar in their rendering and often indistinguishable. I don't remember the film days but with digital I've noticed more blown outs in high key situations with the 85/1.4 AFD than with my other portrait teles. I'll try to look for some samples of this but you know that it becomes hard to find bad archived samples once you get past 20k-30k images but I have samples of the 85mm ZF in a tough situation from a recent shoot that I will post next week.

Blown out or not I still like the portrait very much.

--
david
http://www.pbase.com/ddk
 
Another fine portrait by nuteshack.

The first image is an example of what I was talking about, its a mildly contrasty scene, certainly nowhere near your extreme lighting and yet the highlight on the forehead is blown out even with seemingly perfect exposure. I noticed this in a number of my images when I first got the 85/1.4 afd. Initially I thought it was my exposures but then I noticed a trend. I never encountered the same problem with the 135/2 or the 85/1.4 ZF under the same conditions.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1030&message=25378778
--
david
http://www.pbase.com/ddk
 
ddk said:
Like I mentioned above, if you don't see the blown highlights in
Raymond's portrait, then you don't. If interested you can investigate
the matter yourself there have been samples and discussions of the
85's idiosyncrasies in past here.
Click to expand...
I own the 85/1.4 and have for over two years and thousands of images. I have no need to read those discussions because they are mostly Zeiss owners trying to denigrate the Nikkor 85/1.4 to justify their purchase. As a matter of fact, most of those "discussions" are from you.

It is impossible for a LENS to blow highlights quicker than other lenses. The handling of highlights/dynamic range is the purview of the CAMERA and SENSOR -- not the lens. The 85/1.4 does have a tendency to expose brighter on digital for whatever reason but the ENTIRE frame is brighter including the shadows. You simply adjust when you have a scene with wide dynamic range. THE DYNAMIC RANGE IN STOPS FROM 0 TO 255 IS THE SAME AS ANY OTHER LENS. Your statement is nothing more than another weak attempt to trash a great lens and I don't understand the purpose. If you think calling a spade a spade is being a "bully", so be it.

Phil
 
I leaf through the first 32 of your Club photos and saw several shots, in my opinion, better than the three you selected to post. Would be nice if you provided thumb nails and EXIF for each.

--
ecube
 
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