is the 85mm worth the money?

Aside from using my 85 on my D300 (it is "only" the 1.8) for portraits and shots of my baby girl I have used it on a totally different type of shoot.

Last September, my wife had to see Rick Springfield perform in Memphis, so naturally I took my gear. I always like to experiment a little and for that reason I used exclusively my 85.

That angle cover perfectly the entire stage, and as Rick always likes to "go out" into the audience, closeups were a breeze for the 85. All shots were handheld, no mono or tripod. A great lens for this occasion.

Hans

Resolution, 85mm f/1.4



Resolution, 85mm f/1.8



CA, 85mm f/1.4



CA, 85mm f/1.8



I know these test results are not the only way to look at the lenses, but also looking at the verdict of both reviews, as well as at the marginal difference in score on Fredmiranda.com, I would go for the 1.8 and use the remaining money wisely on something else.

--
Chris J
D300 - since 16 Dec 2008
Nikon 70-300 VR
Nikon 50mm f/1.8
Nikon 18-70 kit lens
Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro
SB800 flash

Charts are nice to try to make your argument. For many, the 85 f1.8 is sufficient. There is a difference that can be seen in the end result between the two 85mm lenses. For me, the difference is enough to go with the 1.4. I traded my 17-55 for a 85 1.4, as I don't do a lot of landscape or wide pics. The 17-55 is a fine lens, but the 35 f2 and the 85 1.4 work better for me. I used the 85 at Christmas to take pics of our daughters and grandchildren. I took the flash with me, in case, but never took it out of the bag. The creamy bokeh and rendering of skin tones makes the 1.4 the outstanding lens it is.

If the 1.8 meets your needs, then that is great, and you can save some money for something else. For some of us, it wasn't quite what we were looking for. This doesn't make either choice wrong, nor does it mean 1.4 buyers are snobs, as some folks seem to think in some threads I have seen.

You buy what you can afford to take the type pictures you want to take. The equipment is only a tool.

Happy shooting.

Check out this site, I asked the same question.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=30659200

--
Philip

Chris Joubert said:

I know these test results are not the only way to look at the lenses,
but also looking at the verdict of both reviews, as well as at the
marginal difference in score on Fredmiranda.com, I would go for the
1.8 and use the remaining money wisely on something else.

Click to expand...

So, you would take the word of some guy taking pics in his back yard and running them through a purchased PC program instead of the word of actual photographers having experience with the lenses in question? That's just sad.

Phil

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_uRbsC5w7s

Enjoy!!

Ciao, William

PS: conclusion of the movie is that this lens is the artists dream and not a portrait lens!! I must confirm that the tip to use a tripod is a good one... Personnaly I don't think it's worth the money when you still have to buy this lens. But for those who got it, it's more than worth!!!! (like me)

studmuffin1805 said:

Given the extremely narrow angle of view, is the lens worth having?
Especially between the 1.8 and 1.4 versions, is it worth the extra
500 or 600 dollars for the 1.4? To me, outside of portraiture at a
long distance, it doesnt seem worth it to me for a prime, outside of
status. Your thoughts?

Scott
http://www.srphotography.zenfolio.com

--
'Rebellion springs from the relief of oppression'

Click to expand...

One thing you need to do to decide which is right for you f1.8 or f1.4 is to take some photos with both, there is a contrast and a color difference with the two lens, it isn't just the bokeh

I personally like the way the F1.4 renders things much more than the F1.8, the price difference was worth it to me.

And contrary to most people I do use the lens a lot with landscapes, it is not just a portrait lens.

Phil,

This is what they say about the f/1.4:

"Finding a verdict for the Nikkor AF 85mm f/1.4D isn't easy. From f/2.8 and up the performance of the lens is superb and neither distortions, CAs nor vignetting are something to worry about. However, at f/1.4 and to a lesser degree at f/2 the lens shows a couple of flaws - the border resolution is "only" good, the level of contrast is reduced and the results show a pronounced degree of purple fringing at harsh contrast transitions and longitudinal chromatic aberrations.

That all said the AF 85mm f/1.4D is certainly capable to render beautiful large-aperture results with a shallow depth-of-field and an exceptionally smooth bokeh. The mechanical quality of the lens is fantastic and it is a joy to use this lens. Whether the package as a whole is worth the steep price tag is a personal thing."

And the f/1.8:

"The Nikkor AF 85mm f/1.8 D was a very boring lens during the tests simply because it showed a exceptional performance in all tested categories. Besides the lab results the lens shows a beautiful bokeh (out-of-focus blur). If I had to name a weakness it may be flare in contra light but it is a minor issue in the otherwise very harmonic package. So if you´re looking for a portrait lens or a similar application where you would like to isolate an object from its environment this is an ideal lens. Highly recommended!"

Gimpy,

I don't particularly want to get into a discussion with you regarding my ability to afford the f/1.4 or not. Even if I cannot afford the steeper price of the f/1.4, I may be better qualified to comment regarding photographic issues. Your ability as a photographer is not described by the price of your equipment.

But as you say, the proof is in the pudding and if you haven't owned and used both, how can you tell? In the abscence of that experience, scientific test results (with added comments by experienced testers) are a good reference if you can understand it.

Maybe somebody with lots of money, who own both lenses, can show us some side-be-side results (please not taken in the backyard to prove the better results of the f/1.4.

OK, OK - I did want to stir a bit, so feel free to hit back. I have a thick skin
--
Chris J
D300 - since 16 Dec 2008
Nikon 70-300 VR
Nikon 50mm f/1.8
Nikon 18-70 kit lens
Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro
SB800 flash

having looked at some comparative tests, that the f/1.4 produces superior bokeh in specific examples, having a more rounded effect. But there are lots of votes for and against both lenses.

I also do realise that bokeh is a subjective issue which cannot easily be measured through scientific methods...

--
Chris J
D300 - since 16 Dec 2008
Nikon 70-300 VR
Nikon 50mm f/1.8
Nikon 18-70 kit lens
Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro
SB800 flash

If the difference doesn't seem worth it for you, I'm sure you'll be very happy with the f/1.8 version. Both are excellent lenses.

But the f/1.4 is worth the extra dough to the many thousands of buyers who paid the premium. We're not idiots. I've never bought a lens yet for "status." Every lens I own was originally purchased because I needed it. I have an 85mm f/1.8 Nikkor and bought the 85mm f/1.4 anyway, even though it doesn't seem to do an exceptional job shooting photozone.de test charts. Fortunately, I almost never take pictures of photozone.de test charts. And, oddly enough, they don't have a test chart for bokeh, color rendition, and other attributes I prize in this lens.

I suppose the 85mm f/1.4 does have limited uses, as it is a prime lens, and not a zoom, and provides only a fixed magnification at any given distance. So, I use it only when I want exquisite portraits with wonderful bokeh, concerts under demanding lighting conditions, indoor sports, some outdoor sports, and a few other applications. For other types of shots, I have other lenses that can do the job.

As far as whether it's "worth it", I would say that it probably isn't worth it for you. You can save some money, and perhaps not tell the difference. Those who do need it have been happy to pay the difference. For what I do, it's a bargain, and has paid for itself many times over.

Dave

studmuffin1805 said:

Given the extremely narrow angle of view, is the lens worth having?
Especially between the 1.8 and 1.4 versions, is it worth the extra
500 or 600 dollars for the 1.4? To me, outside of portraiture at a
long distance, it doesnt seem worth it to me for a prime, outside of
status. Your thoughts?

Scott
http://www.srphotography.zenfolio.com

--
'Rebellion springs from the relief of oppression'

Click to expand...

There are not too many must have lenses. For me the 85/1.4 is one of them. From my personal experience with both lenses it is much better than the 85/1.8. A lot of times 17-55/2.8 and 85/1.4 are the only lenses I take together with my D300.

I especially like the 85/1.4 for headshots using a DX-camera.

Here is one from yesterday
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1025&message=30706248

Okay, so why do you "need" the extra .4 in the F Stop and describe for me the difference between 1.8 and 1.4 F Stop. that is the real question I have.
--
'Rebellion springs from the relief of oppression'

Again, why do you "need" the F1.4 as opposed to the 1.8?
--
'Rebellion springs from the relief of oppression'

I use the 85/1.4 a lot of times between f2.0 and f2.8. It is much better (better sharpness, better contrast) at these settings than the sample of the 85/1.8 I used to own a couple of years ago but sold when I got the 85/1.4.

studmuffin1805 said:

Okay, so why do you "need" the extra .4 in the F Stop and describe
for me the difference between 1.8 and 1.4 F Stop. that is the real
question I have.
--
'Rebellion springs from the relief of oppression'

Click to expand...

It's creamy. It's flattering in a way that the 85/1.8 isn't. It's subtle, but subtle works for me in especially in situations where I'm trying to shoot for clean and beautiful. It's something that's better qualified in subjective rather than quantitative terms.

--
Ramen is how I afford my glass
http://www.blindmike.com

studmuffin1805 said:

Given the extremely narrow angle of view, is the lens worth having?
Especially between the 1.8 and 1.4 versions, is it worth the extra
500 or 600 dollars for the 1.4? To me, outside of portraiture at a
long distance, it doesnt seem worth it to me for a prime, outside of
status. Your thoughts?

Scott
http://www.srphotography.zenfolio.com

--
'Rebellion springs from the relief of oppression'

Click to expand...

Considering the IQ for the money you get with the 1.8 version it is a good buy. However, I like the 85 better on a 35 mm (FOV).
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/

Had the 1.8 used both for a while but sold the 1.8. I wish the 1.4 was sharper it's pretty sharp in the centre which is all that matters for a portrait lens but others are sharper.

...It's a much better portrait lens because of it's other qualities, Bokeh contrast colour etc. It's more productive because it handles so much better and is better built.

...I can hold the lens without catching the much more substantial focus ring as it doesn't rotate when in AF and it's quicker to switch to MF but that's the main reason I'd want an AFS since that's better still.

The 1.8 is good and great value but don't let the similarity in the scores on Fredmiranda and SlR gear let you think that means they are almost the same lens. It means that at the prices they cost they are almost equal value with the slight edge going to the 1.4.

I needed a lens for portraits as I found the 70-200 to be a bit cumbersome.
I went with the 85 f1.8 because
It does the job more than adequately and I don't shoot wide open.

A new 85 f1.4 has been expected for some time and I didn't want to lay out over £700 to find it out of date in a few months. I know it would still work but in my head and extra £500 wasn't worth the risk.
I decided against the 105 f2 because I kept reading about focusing issues.

As I said just my cheap opinion. The only thing I don't like about the lens is that the focus ring moves as it focuses.

david

I don't need the extra difference in f/stop. That's not why I bought the lens. The differences between them have nothing to do with the maximum aperture. If both lenses had f/1.8 maximum apertures, I'd still prefer the superior version because of its other qualities, which others have already been explained.

There's a lot more to a lens than its largest f/stop. What counts is how the lens renders an image at the aperture you use it with. The current 85mm f/1.4 provides superior results for the type of photography that I do, making it easily worth the extra money.

Dave

studmuffin1805 said:

Okay, so why do you "need" the extra .4 in the F Stop and describe
for me the difference between 1.8 and 1.4 F Stop. that is the real
question I have.
--
'Rebellion springs from the relief of oppression'

Click to expand...

... seems quite convincing to me. I will surely test both before I buy.

--
Chris J
D300 - since 16 Dec 2008
Nikon 70-300 VR
Nikon 50mm f/1.8
Nikon 18-70 kit lens
Sigma 150mm f/2.8 macro
SB800 flash