Reading mode: Light Dark

Nikon 85 1.8 versus 1.4

Go to last post
This will be interesting. I personally decided on the 135/2DC as I already had the 85/1.4D, but if I didn't have either I'd be thinking about that 105/2DC myself. As I've been asked about this lens many times, it seemed to be a good idea to run a test when I was asked about it this week.

I'll post information when I've processed the images. I'll be shooting each relevant aperture on all three lenses at close-portrait and medium-portrait distances, then testing identically-framed shots (at different distances, chosen to acquire the identical image). The latter test will likely be in the sweet-spot only...

Ron
DF said:
Hi Ron,

I am very interested in your test shoot upcoming on Monday, as I
just recently bought the 105mm f/2 DC for use with my S2. I have
found it nicely sharp from about f/4 through f/8, and acceptable at
f/2.8.......but quite significantly soft at f/2.4 and f/2. In
fact, I am thinking of returning it for the 85/1.4.

Wondering whether you will see similar results.

Best wishes,

David
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
 
Great, Ron.

I'll stayed tuned for your conclusions. Particularly interested whether you'll find similar softness as I have with the 105/2DC wide open.

Best wishes,

David
Ron Reznick said:
I'll post information when I've processed the images. I'll be
shooting each relevant aperture on all three lenses at
close-portrait and medium-portrait distances, then testing
identically-framed shots (at different distances, chosen to acquire
the identical image). The latter test will likely be in the
sweet-spot only...

Ron
DF said:
Hi Ron,

I am very interested in your test shoot upcoming on Monday, as I
just recently bought the 105mm f/2 DC for use with my S2. I have
found it nicely sharp from about f/4 through f/8, and acceptable at
f/2.8.......but quite significantly soft at f/2.4 and f/2. In
fact, I am thinking of returning it for the 85/1.4.

Wondering whether you will see similar results.

Best wishes,

David
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Click to expand...
--
http://www.mongoosephoto.com
 
That is interesting as I have heard the 1.8 isn't as sharp as the 1.4 and according to the tests on that site it is... I kind of agree with the tests of other lenses out of personal experience; like the Nikkor 28-80 G 3.3-5.6, they have it listed as one of the highest rated in the wide angle zooms and it has consistently been extrememly sharp from my experience with the cheapo lens.

--
http://www.pbase.com/elterrible
pieters miel said:
Hi,
Why is the Nikon 85 1.8 higher rated than the 85 1.4 ?
Owners agree that the 1.4 is sharper and better than the 1.8???
http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#F100

Are there somewhere on the net pictures to show the difference?
How much those lenses costs is not a problem, finding a picture
(portraits) or a gallery is difficult.

Thanks very much,
kind regards
--
Miel
http://www.pbase.com/pieters1
Click to expand...
 
Ron,

Just curious if there is any difference between these lenses in focusing speed (on D100) or are they both slow, ok etc. ??
 
Ron,

I am going tonight to a store in Chicago to compare the 105F2 DC , 85F1.8, 85F1.4 which I intend to use for Basketball and Wrestling photos. I am hoping to be able to get some idea of focusing speed with the D100 although for Basketball I think I will most likely use manual focus and for this I need to know which is the better handling lens for manual focus.

I will be very curious to see your results for image quality for the 105F2 DC vs. the 85F1.4.

Please keep us posted.

Bill Grove
http://www.mvpshots.com
 
Bill Grove said:
Ron,

I am going tonight to a store in Chicago to compare the 105F2 DC ,
85F1.8, 85F1.4 which I intend to use for Basketball and Wrestling
photos. I am hoping to be able to get some idea of focusing speed
with the D100 although for Basketball I think I will most likely
use manual focus and for this I need to know which is the better
handling lens for manual focus.

I will be very curious to see your results for image quality for
the 105F2 DC vs. the 85F1.4.

Please keep us posted.

Bill Grove
http://www.mvpshots.com
Click to expand...
Hi Bill,
Good idea, find a store and compare.
Ron's explanation is very instructive.
Now waiting for pictures...
Warm regards
--
Miel
http://www.pbase.com/pieters1
 
Bill Grove said:
Ron,

I am going tonight to a store in Chicago to compare the 105F2 DC ,
85F1.8, 85F1.4 which I intend to use for Basketball and Wrestling
photos. I am hoping to be able to get some idea of focusing speed
with the D100 although for Basketball I think I will most likely
use manual focus and for this I need to know which is the better
handling lens for manual focus.

I will be very curious to see your results for image quality for
the 105F2 DC vs. the 85F1.4.

Please keep us posted.

Bill Grove
http://www.mvpshots.com
Click to expand...
 
Bill Grove said:
Ron,

I am going tonight to a store in Chicago to compare the 105F2 DC ,
85F1.8, 85F1.4 which I intend to use for Basketball and Wrestling
photos. I am hoping to be able to get some idea of focusing speed
with the D100 although for Basketball I think I will most likely
use manual focus and for this I need to know which is the better
handling lens for manual focus.

I will be very curious to see your results for image quality for
the 105F2 DC vs. the 85F1.4.

Please keep us posted.

Bill Grove
http://www.mvpshots.com
Click to expand...
 
I have two related questions, both of which reflect that I don't have very much experience with lens selection.

First, why do you constantly refer to the performance of lenses at, eg, 5.6 or 8.0 when they are "1.4" or " "1.8"? I shoot sports events ( basketball, tennis) and usually use an 80-200 @2.8 to minimize depth of field and to get the fastest shutter speed. Am I wrong, therefore, to be interested in the performance at 2.8?

Related question: which would be better for basketball ( indoors) and tennis ( outdoors): the 85 1.4 or 1.8? If I understand this stuff correctly, I would be using either lens rather than the 80-200 2.8 so can get faster shutter speeds and obtain less depth of field.
Much appreciated.
RPF said:
Bill Grove said:
Ron,

I am going tonight to a store in Chicago to compare the 105F2 DC ,
85F1.8, 85F1.4 which I intend to use for Basketball and Wrestling
photos. I am hoping to be able to get some idea of focusing speed
with the D100 although for Basketball I think I will most likely
use manual focus and for this I need to know which is the better
handling lens for manual focus.

I will be very curious to see your results for image quality for
the 105F2 DC vs. the 85F1.4.

Please keep us posted.

Bill Grove
http://www.mvpshots.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I looked at both lenses last night at Helix camera in Chicago. The 1.4 is a much nicer lens, seems to focus slightly faster on the D100, Nikon Rep that was there said that the 85F1.4, 80-200F2.8AFS and 300F2.8AFS lenses are the most used lenses for basketball by the pros.

The 1.4 had a much better build quality, nice m/a autofocus switch and had a much larger focus grip area and this I think will be very important becuase I believe with the D100 manual focusing will be the norm for indoor low-light basketball. In the store which was not very bright (ISO1600 F2 @ 1/30sec) the 85F1.4 seemed to focus as fast as the 80-200AFS lens, when moving quickly from one distance to another both would hunt a little but nearly as bad as the 85F1.8 or 105F2 DC lens that I tried. I have narrowered my choice down to the 85F1.4 and I will likely sell my 50mm F1.4 because I don't think I will use it much once I have the 85F1.4. I will buy a 70-200AFS VR next spring when it is available.

bill grove
http://www.mvpshots.com
 
Thx for the help.

Am i right that whichever lens is chosen ( ie, 80-200 or 85 1.4), the largest apeture is generally the one to use for indoor basketball in order to achieve the fastest shutter speed and the least depth of field?
Thanks again.
Bill Grove said:
I looked at both lenses last night at Helix camera in Chicago. The
1.4 is a much nicer lens, seems to focus slightly faster on the
D100, Nikon Rep that was there said that the 85F1.4, 80-200F2.8AFS
and 300F2.8AFS lenses are the most used lenses for basketball by
the pros.

The 1.4 had a much better build quality, nice m/a autofocus switch
and had a much larger focus grip area and this I think will be very
important becuase I believe with the D100 manual focusing will be
the norm for indoor low-light basketball. In the store which was
not very bright (ISO1600 F2 @ 1/30sec) the 85F1.4 seemed to focus
as fast as the 80-200AFS lens, when moving quickly from one
distance to another both would hunt a little but nearly as bad as
the 85F1.8 or 105F2 DC lens that I tried. I have narrowered my
choice down to the 85F1.4 and I will likely sell my 50mm F1.4
because I don't think I will use it much once I have the 85F1.4. I
will buy a 70-200AFS VR next spring when it is available.

bill grove
http://www.mvpshots.com
Click to expand...
 
And one more thing, and then I'll stop.

In what respect is the AFS better than the ED. Look at the B&H website: it makes the ED sound better for indoor sports than the AFS.
That's it for this subject for me ( famous last words, I assume).
RPF said:
Am i right that whichever lens is chosen ( ie, 80-200 or 85 1.4),
the largest apeture is generally the one to use for indoor
basketball in order to achieve the fastest shutter speed and the
least depth of field?
Thanks again.
Bill Grove said:
I looked at both lenses last night at Helix camera in Chicago. The
1.4 is a much nicer lens, seems to focus slightly faster on the
D100, Nikon Rep that was there said that the 85F1.4, 80-200F2.8AFS
and 300F2.8AFS lenses are the most used lenses for basketball by
the pros.

The 1.4 had a much better build quality, nice m/a autofocus switch
and had a much larger focus grip area and this I think will be very
important becuase I believe with the D100 manual focusing will be
the norm for indoor low-light basketball. In the store which was
not very bright (ISO1600 F2 @ 1/30sec) the 85F1.4 seemed to focus
as fast as the 80-200AFS lens, when moving quickly from one
distance to another both would hunt a little but nearly as bad as
the 85F1.8 or 105F2 DC lens that I tried. I have narrowered my
choice down to the 85F1.4 and I will likely sell my 50mm F1.4
because I don't think I will use it much once I have the 85F1.4. I
will buy a 70-200AFS VR next spring when it is available.

bill grove
http://www.mvpshots.com
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Ron Reznick said:


Ron
fusionid said:
Ron,
you are very right about the portrait techniques. I don't own a
85mm primer but I have the sigma 105 that is extremetly sharp and
my favorite portrait lens. I usually use f4 and sometimes the 2.8.
I am not used to seeing the ears out of focus so I tend to use f4
and up. Do u have a picture I can see (can u post it?) where you
have used very wide aperture and ears are out of focus. Just
curiosity...

regards
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Click to expand...
Many thanks Ron,
It is a lesson in portrait.. I learned a lot.
With kind regards
Warm regards
--
Miel
http://www.pbase.com/pieters1
 
RPF said:
Am i right that whichever lens is chosen ( ie, 80-200 or 85 1.4),
the largest apeture is generally the one to use for indoor
basketball in order to achieve the fastest shutter speed and the
least depth of field?
Click to expand...
larger aperture will produce fastest shutter speed and least depth of field(because you are letting in more light).

However most lens are better once stopped down a bit. So the 50mm 1.8 is sharper (accros the frame) at 2 rather than 1.8. Seems also due to autofocus acuracy, lens built quality and desired lens performance. The 50mm 1.4f seems to produce better results between 1.4 and 5.6, since it is tailored for low light usage.

As a general rule of thumb zooms are their best at f8, hence the saying for an awesome picture "f8 and be there"

Regarding ED and AFS. ED refers high quality glass. It produces more contrasty picture with better definition and punch. AFS is autofocus silent wave and are lens that use internal motors to focus. That is the little screw coming out of the camera is not use. The autofocus is achivied by the electronic contacts that give 1)electrical power to the lens 2)tell it when to stop and so on and so forth.

Rather lengthy explanation, but I hope it helps.

regards

--
http://www.pbase.com/fusionid
 
This was a somewhat flat (partially-overcast) but bright day. I used an SB-80DX for fill (carefully) and shot hand-held. It was a rather small boat and quite impossible to use lights or reflectors (on several shots I was wrapping my leg around the safety-line to avoid ending up in the water as it was).

The 85/1.4D is really a very good lens for portrait...

Ron
fusionid said:
you are comvincing me to get the 85 1.4f.
what a nice portrait. Any other comments regarding set up and
lighting?

regards--
http://www.pbase.com/fusionid
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
 
Miel, here is the same technique applied with shallower depth of field to sculpture portrait. I took this shot this weekend to illustrate the technique (aside from the fact that it made sense in the situation, of course). Note the character of the defocused areas, both within the subject sculpture and behind the subject...

85mm, 1/180 @ f/2



Ron
pieters miel said:
Ron Reznick said:


Ron
fusionid said:
Ron,
you are very right about the portrait techniques. I don't own a
85mm primer but I have the sigma 105 that is extremetly sharp and
my favorite portrait lens. I usually use f4 and sometimes the 2.8.
I am not used to seeing the ears out of focus so I tend to use f4
and up. Do u have a picture I can see (can u post it?) where you
have used very wide aperture and ears are out of focus. Just
curiosity...

regards
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Click to expand...
Many thanks Ron,
It is a lesson in portrait.. I learned a lot.
With kind regards
Warm regards
--
Miel
http://www.pbase.com/pieters1
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
 
Hi Ron,

After more dissatisfaction with the wide open performance of my 105/2DC, and after re-reading your review of the 135/2DC, I decided to do some more tests with the 105 at f/2, but with the defocus control at varying settings. (I had assumed, stupidly, that the neutral position would result in greatest subject sharpness. D'oh!)

What I discovered was a SIGNIFICANT increase in sharpness at f/2 with the defocus control set to 2 "F". This was also true at f/2.8 with the defocus control at 2.8 "F".

This is a major lesson learned with the DC lens. (I believe you had found something similar with your 135DC, sometimes with defocus in the R position, sometimes in the F position.)

I was on the verge of returning my 105DC, but after achieving these new results, I am now more than happy with its crisp performance at the newly determined defocus settings.

For those reading this who have not shot with a DC lens (either 105mm or 135mm), please note carefully that if you try either of these lenses it will be very important to experiment with the defocus settings. The defocus ring position affects not only the amount of out-of-focus in the foreground or background, it also can have a huge impact on how sharply the lens focuses on the subject.

I believe there will be variations from sample to sample with these lenses, so my advice is to experiment carefully with the settings on your particular lens, to determine the optimal defocus ring setting for each aperture.

Now I am more eager than ever to learn what you find today in your own tests, Ron, of the 105DC/135DC and 85/1.4.

Best wishes,

David
DF said:
I'll stayed tuned for your conclusions. Particularly interested
whether you'll find similar softness as I have with the 105/2DC
wide open.

Best wishes,

David
Ron Reznick said:
I'll post information when I've processed the images. I'll be
shooting each relevant aperture on all three lenses at
close-portrait and medium-portrait distances, then testing
identically-framed shots (at different distances, chosen to acquire
the identical image). The latter test will likely be in the
sweet-spot only...

Ron
DF said:
Hi Ron,

I am very interested in your test shoot upcoming on Monday, as I
just recently bought the 105mm f/2 DC for use with my S2. I have
found it nicely sharp from about f/4 through f/8, and acceptable at
f/2.8.......but quite significantly soft at f/2.4 and f/2. In
fact, I am thinking of returning it for the 85/1.4.

Wondering whether you will see similar results.

Best wishes,

David
Click to expand...
--
Ron Reznick
http://digital-images.net
http://trapagon.com
Click to expand...
--
Click to expand...
 
Ron Reznick said:
The 105 at f/2.8 at a distance to get the same framing as this
would have a shallower depth of field
Click to expand...
I think you do make a mistake. Having the same framing (same enlarging factor) every lens do have the same DOF.
85 mm --> portrait subject distance about 3.70 feet
105 mm --> portrait subject distance about 4.57 feet

--
Leon Obers
 
Ron Reznick said:
Miel, here is the same technique applied with shallower depth of
field to sculpture portrait. I took this shot this weekend to
illustrate the technique (aside from the fact that it made sense in
the situation, of course). Note the character of the defocused
areas, both within the subject sculpture and behind the subject...

85mm, 1/180 @ f/2



Ron

Thanks Ron,
Click to expand...
I shall practice this weekend some portrait shooting based on your lecture here. thanks for posting the pictures.
The 50 1.8 is a good help.

As musician I look at your gallery in Trapagon. I wish you a lot of success with your loudspeakers. The must bring music in perfect condition to the ears.
Ears and eyes.. important for a good life.
Warm regards
 
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