85mm F/1.8 or 85mm F/1.4

The 85mm F/1.4 seems to sell for considerably more then the F/1.8.
Normally the faster lens would sell at the highre price. Is there that much

difference between the lenses. Does anyone have any pictures taken with the F/1.8.

Thanks
Ronald
--
Nikon D300

If you do not compare them side by side and look at photos, you will be very happy with the 85mm f/1.8, it is well built and not too big.

However, the 85mm F/1.4 has better bokeh and based on my observations are a tad sharper.

--



http://www.hondurasart.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=2180

Hi Ronald, I have been facing the same problem recently. I have D300 and I´m not that limited by money - I could have afforded 85/1.4 but finally I picked 85mm/1.8... Reasons?

1) In practice, the pic quality (on paper, usually A4, rarely A3) between the two is undistinguishable

2) I usually use 2.0 - 2.8 aperture (don´t like when a person has one eye in focus and the other eye hasn´t) and here, I insist both the lanses are equally superb

3) 85mm is smaller and lighter and for me, this really counts.

4) While the 1.4 version is tad sharper on 1.4 - 2.0 (but to notice this, you only have to pixel peep on monitor at 100% magnification; you absolutely cannot see it on A4/A3 paper, I can guarantee that), the 1.8 version has considerably sharper the whole focus plane up to edges; the 1.4 version goes soft much more towards the edges... Please see the MTF curves of these two on the renowned German lens test site http://www.photozone.de

5) But here is the main reason I picked 85mm 1.8: Both the lenses are rather old. The 85mm 1.4 is even older, I guess about 14 years or so... They are the "D type" and were optimized for 35mm film overall (no aspherical elements, no ED glass, no nano coating etc.). Given the fact that Nikon has already replace their old (but still younger) D versions of 50 and 35mm with AF-S versions, I expect the replacement of 85mm soon as well. Actually I expect the replacement within a year or so at the latest. From this point of view, I don´t feel like spending 1300 EUR on the very old (even it is still good) design.... So I bought 85mm 1.8 in the end.

Of course there were just my steps of thinking, you can see it from a different perspective... which is fine with me ;-).

The 1.8 can also have some harsh bokeh depending on the background.

I went with the 1.8 due to size and cost.

When you say portraits, you have to distinguish between more formal posed shots (where the 85 will be great) vs. ad hoc more dynamic settings, where you might want some zoom flexibility.

I find that often I want the zoom flexibility (in my case 17-55) even though I really like the images from the 85 1.8.

How often will you be using the 85 ? That will be a key part of your decision.
Rob.

--
http://photo.robertokeefe.com

I have used both and find the 85/1.4 much better. Sharpness and bokeh are wonderful. I use mine at f2 - f4 most of the time.

Regards

Markus

Ronald Ran said:

The 85mm F/1.4 seems to sell for considerably more then the F/1.8.

Click to expand...

Yes, it does -- a LOT more. It's also a LOT more lens, as well.

Ronald Ran said:

Normally the faster lens would sell at the highre price.

Click to expand...

Yep. That is also the case with these two.

Ronald Ran said:

Is there that much difference between the lenses.

Click to expand...

Depends on what the intended use of the lens might be. If you are talking natural light portraits in the F2 to F4 range the, yes, there is worlds of difference between the two. If you are talking mid range, short tele work with mid apertures, they are about the same. If you are talking short tele landscape work, the 1.8 version is probably the better choice. If it's for any kind of portrait, the 1.4 has few peers and the 1.8 version is not one of them.

Ronald Ran said:

Does anyone have any pictures taken with the F/1.8.

Click to expand...

There's a few over 7,000 here you can peruse.

http://www.pbase.com/cameras/nikon/85_18d_af

Phil

NIKON 85mm 1.4 VS. 1.8 COMPARISON:
http://www.utopia-photography.ch/lenses/85mm/test03.html

RB

http://www.pbase.com/rbfresno/profile

Martin_MM said:

2) I usually use 2.0 - 2.8 aperture (don´t like when a person has one
eye in focus and the other eye hasn´t) and here, I insist both the
lanses are equally superb

Click to expand...

In my own experience, I have found the 85/1.4 notably better in bokeh than the 85/1.8 at f/2 to f/2.8 and even f/4. That is not to say your conclusions are not valid -- they may simply reflect different backgrounds in our shooting.

But, for the original poster ...

At f/2.8, the 85/1.8 renders point light sources as sharp hexagons and that hurts the quality of the bokeh. At f/2 the 85/1.8 doesn't produce hexagons but the point light sources are distinctly outlined. At f/2 and f/2.8 the 85/1.4 produces softer discs and that greatly improves the bokeh.

This site has some good examples -- one can scroll down to the "Indoors at f/2.8 (with point light sources in the background):" comparison photos to see a good example:

http://www.utopia-photography.ch/lenses/85mm/test03.html

This DPR post also has some examples:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1030&message=14955581&changemode=1

And if you scroll down to the bokeh section, this comparison also has examples:

http://www.rbfotografia.com.br/avaliacoes/85_1.8x1.4en_1.htm

IMHO the advantage of the 85/1.4 is that it is a better portrait lens, with (to my eyes) noticeably better bokeh not just at f/1.4 and f/1.8 -- but at f/2, f/2.8, and f/4. I often shoot portraits at f/2.8 to f/4 when I want more of the subject's face/head in focus, and I've been very pleased with how the shots from the 85/1.4 look.

So for me --

Portrait lens: 85/1.4 > 85/1.8, even with the price difference

General purpose telephoto: 85/1.8 > 85/1.4, especially given the price difference

--

As many people say 1.4 version is for portraits.

And I have add there is a big difference. Especially when you shoot women. I don't understand how it works, but how the lens can make skin look soft and smooth and at the same time hair look detailed at even wide open aperture. That can make only 1.4 version and that's why they call this lens "a king of a portrait lenses". But to reveal the magic that is makes you have to work well with light. If you don't feel it there won't be any good pictures.

The cause is not only in price or size etc.

I have been shooting with the 85 1.4 for a week now and i am sending it back.

Mine is not very sharp even at F8 all my other nikon lens are sharper.

Shot it on both my D700 and D3 and the background blur is nice i will wait till they come out with a new version.

I just ordered the 60mm 2.8 macro i have seen some fantastic super sharp images from it and it has great looking background blur as well cost less and can do macro.

I will also order the 105 2.8 when it is back in stock or jump to a used 180 2.8 can't go wrong with that but its heavy.

You bought defective one? Or it is OK? Maybe expecting sharpness of this lens you wanted something this lens is not made for?

I don't own either (but will probably pick up the 1.8 at some point). You might want to have a look at Thom Hogan's review of the 1.4, as he compares it to the 1.8:
http://www.bythom.com/Nikkor-85mm-lensreview.htm

"The real issue here is value. The f/1.8D is about one-third the cost of the f/1.4D. You obviously lose two-thirds of a stop in light gathering, the question is do you lose anything else? My answer might surprise you. Not nearly as much as the price suggests. Indeed, if anything the f/1.8D is a little sharper wide open than the 1.4D at f/1.8 on my FX bodies. This is especially noticeable in the corners (the f/1.4D may beat the f/1.8D in some apertures in the center, but barely). The f/1.8D vignettes less wide open, too. Chromatic aberration and distortion are very similar to the f/1.4D, too, which is to say very good. Nope, the only other thing you really lose besides that two-thirds of a stop aperture loss is, wait for it, bokeh. Yep, there it is: it just doesn't quite have that "don't see it" bokeh of the f/1.4D. What to attribute that to, I don't know, but it isn't quite the same. That's not to say that I find the bokeh objectionable on the f/1.8D--it's good. But if I look closely, I can tell the two apart. So, it comes down to two-thirds of a stop and bokeh that can't be beat for an extra US$800 or so. If you're buying an 85mm for a general purpose lens that will sometimes be used for portraits I'll surprise you and say no, it isn't worth the extra money. Even if you're on FX and shooting only portraits with it, I think you need to really examine your shooting to see if f/1.4 and better bokeh are really worth the extra money."

--
My gallery of so-so nature photos:
http://martinch.zenfolio.com/

I had various versions of the excellent 1.8 , and then I tried out the 1.4 , other than great bokeh I , to be honest wasnt very happy with it and prefered the 105Vr , for many of its advantages over the 1.4 , great bokeh , great colors , contrast , vr etc.. but one thing that I didnt like abut the 1.4 was its CA at 1.4 to around f2 , where this lens excells , Now as for the 1.8 , I tried one with the D700 and although really excellent lens , again , at least this samle had too much CA at wide open to around f2.8 , the ?,

I decided to wait for an updated version of the 85/1.8 . You see , the Tamron 28-75 does just as good , actually better , at f4 and smaller at 75 mm of course

--
avis
http://www.pbase.com/avistar/avi_s_photographic_world

Nikon D700, Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR motorised version, AFS70-300VR, Gitzo 1228, 1198 and 1226 , sb800dx , sb600dx ,

Well, but CA should be there at 1.4 especially if you shoot high contrast scenes. But this is not the way to shoot wide open at all. The best way of 1.4 shooting is to make photos of statical objects, portraits where people look strait into the camera etc. The light has to be soft and tender, so there won't be any CA. I understand those people who don't like this sort of photos, but it doesn't mean the lens is bad.
The same thing to 14-24/2.8 It is a special purpose lens and 85/1.4 is also.

I had 1.8 for a week and only shot a few tests. Here is the one I learned most of so far. I think bokeh is quite nice but from reading here and there I'd expect 1.4 to be better at that point.

I'd also expect more CA from 1.4 than 1.8 shows here. This scene prone to CA and I think 1.8 does an impressive job.

f3.3 FX



--

http://fragment.smugmug.com

I doubt if I could get such an image with 1.8 version.

You may not like this, but for me it's ok to have this sort of photos.

Bokeh is just the way it has to be at portraits but it's not all just about it. Great detail rendition, look at the hair and soft skin rendition. As I said. I don't know how this works but it does, sharp and soft pictures at the same time.

I have never played with the 1.8, but I can tell you that the 1.4 is just amazing. My wife insists that I only this lens when I photograph her.

The way I see is, if you want the best possible results for your portraits you are going to have to go with the 1.4.

Some samples:

















--
Karl Rottmann

http://www.karlRottmann.com

Nikon D300 / D80 - SB600
Sigma 18-50mm 2.8 HSM Macro, 70-200mm 2.8 Macro, 105mm 2.8
Macro, 30mm 1.4
Nikkor 50mm 1.8, 10.5mm Fisheye, 85mm 1.4

Well if you don't use 1.4 often, you should get the 1.8.

Not only it's cheaper, it's alot lighter and faster in focusing.

The bokeh isn't as good as 1.4, but if you're using it stopped down to say F2 or F2.8, they look almost the same anyway.

But if you shoot 1.4 alot, and want possible night shots hand held.. Go for the 1.4.

I went for the 1.4.

--
Pictures are memories frozen in time~

I've had the 1.8 for a year and a half now. Good lens, solid. Just picked up a used 1.4 today and in the 20 shots I've taken with it I can say it's sharper at 1.4 than the 1.8 is at 1.8. I also have the 70-200 VR and weight and size aside, it is way better at 85mm at 2.8 than the 1.8 is. Aperture is too close. Its a bit soft at 1.8 and stopped down to 2.8 it is quite sharp but lacks the quality contrast the 70-200 VR has. So I sucked it up and bought the 1.4. What a lens! I see what makes it the magic lens. Even if the next generation comes out with Nano coating or even VR, it will by no means make the current 1.4 obsolete or irrelevant. It's a great lens. 14 years old or not!

p.s. I hardly think your wife in a bikini needs the 1.4 to look good! ;-)
--
Ancient Canadian proverb: 'Don't eat yellow snow.'
D300 and assortment from FE to 200mm