85mm comparison

Trying to figure out which 85mm lens to get for a D750.

Does anyone happen to know where I could see the same picture taken with with the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G and the 85mm f/1.4G? Would be really interested to see how they both shoot at f/1.8 apples to apples, and how they compare when both are wide open.

Also, any good ideas on how to compare these to other 85mm (Sigma, etc) out there? I see lots of comments but difficult to find two photos taken at the same settings.

Thanks for the help.

JR75 said:

Trying to figure out which 85mm lens to get for a D750.

Does anyone happen to know where I could see the same picture taken with with the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G and the 85mm f/1.4G? Would be really interested to see how they both shoot at f/1.8 apples to apples, and how they compare when both are wide open.

Also, any good ideas on how to compare these to other 85mm (Sigma, etc) out there? I see lots of comments but difficult to find two photos taken at the same settings.

Thanks for the help.

Click to expand...

I own the 85/1,4 and I've tried almost all the lenses of this focal length out there. I even owned the Otus but I sold it because it doesn't make sense to have something so expensive without AF. What I can confidently tell you is that the 85/1,8 is as sharp as the 85/1,4, pixel peepers will tell you otherwise, but there isn't a huge difference in IQ between the two. I think Jared Polin (aka FroKnowsPhoto) did a comparison between these two lenses. I went for the 85/1,4 solely because I needed the DOF, nothing else. As for the Sigma, it is a superb lens, but I have a feeling Sigma would refresh this in the near future.

You likely won't find 2 exact same shots done with identical subjects that really show the differences. Preface what I'm about to say knowing I shoot mainly at f2-f2.2 with this focal length. I've used the 85mm f1.8G, it's VERY sharp and is an amazing value. For portraits, it is really good but not at the "something really special" level. The 85mm f1.4G does have a little smoother bokeh but from looking at samples, didn't have the look I was after either. I ended up with the 85mm f1.4D and am in love with it. Yes the corners aren't sharp etc but the rendering this lens does with portraits is just lovely on FX.

What I do is: look at a volume of work done with each lens by different photographers and you will see a pattern emerge. I will say I am hanging onto the 85 1.8G for landscape/inanimate object shooting where across the frame sharpness is king. But if I know I am going to be shooting people around f2, I'll grab the 85mm f1.4D instead.

The Mansurovs' website has a comparison:

Main page:

Nikon 85mm 1.8


Nikon 85mm 1.4


Sigma 85mm

LCohen777 said:

The Mansurovs' website has a comparison:

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-85mm-f1-8g/5

Click to expand...

TY for making my point, this is your basic high contrast, 2D test chart comparison.

It shows absolutely nothing about the differences in character these lenses have. Same as what you will find out looking at DXO, lenstip etc will give you.

JR75 said:

Trying to figure out which 85mm lens to get for a D750.

Does anyone happen to know where I could see the same picture taken with with the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G and the 85mm f/1.4G? Would be really interested to see how they both shoot at f/1.8 apples to apples, and how they compare when both are wide open.

Click to expand...

I have both lenses, but you will need to be much more specific about type of subject, distance and aperture range of interest.

It sounds like you're mostly interested in performance at the widest apertures, but does edge/corner quality matter? Bokeh? Flare resistance? Focus shift or longitudinal CA?

The f/1.8G tends to be sharper when wider than f/2.8, but the f/1.4G is better corner-to-corner at mid apertures like f/4 to f/5.6 and has a better reputation for background bokeh.

Differences are subtle, though, and most photographers wouldn't be able to justify the cost of the f/1.4G.

I bought both nikons to compare. I wish I kept the comparison pictures

1.4 was barely smoother than the 1.8 to me. You really had to look hard to see any difference. Of course, comparing a picture shot at 1.4 versus 1.8 was obviously different

Biggest thing I noticed was that the 1.4 transmitted more light for me. It was probably 1/3 - 2/3 of a stop more light.

Thank you for all of the advice. I'm using the lens as a parent for babies and young kids in the family. Looking for a great portrait lens for a mix of shots from somewhat staged to candids.

Sharpness in the corners matters less. Mostly care about either creating enough bokeh to really separate the baby from the background or having the kid razor sharp in the image. Would use both indoors and outdoors.

JR75 said:

Thank you for all of the advice. I'm using the lens as a parent for babies and young kids in the family. Looking for a great portrait lens for a mix of shots from somewhat staged to candids.

Sharpness in the corners matters less. Mostly care about either creating enough bokeh to really separate the baby from the background or having the kid razor sharp in the image. Would use both indoors and outdoors.

Click to expand...

For baby shots, it's gonna be hard to beat the 85mm f1.4D.











--
Stacey

Stacey_K said:

JR75 said:

Thank you for all of the advice. I'm using the lens as a parent for babies and young kids in the family. Looking for a great portrait lens for a mix of shots from somewhat staged to candids.

Sharpness in the corners matters less. Mostly care about either creating enough bokeh to really separate the baby from the background or having the kid razor sharp in the image. Would use both indoors and outdoors.

Click to expand...

For baby shots, it's gonna be hard to beat the 85mm f1.4D.





--
Stacey

Click to expand...

You were getting great skin tones with the D700. I think the images would have been better if taken with the 85 1.8g. Sharper, warmer tones, better contrast... And, to my eyes, equivalent bokeh.

Mansurovs compares bokeh and reaches the same conclusion.

Part of the dreamy look people talk about regarding the 85 1.4d is due to its softness- makes it great for portraits- if you can nail the focus. In my experience, the D has to be refocused a lot because it struggles a bit indoors.

The good thing about it is its build. It will last forever.

imac2001 said:

You were getting great skin tones with the D700. I think the images would have been better if taken with the 85 1.8g. Sharper, warmer tones, better contrast... And, to my eyes, equivalent bokeh.

Click to expand...

I don't, the focus roll off of the 85mm f1.8G is much harsher than the 85mm f1.4D. With the 85 1.8G the transition from in focus to OOF is harsher, which just doesn't work as well for portraits. It makes for the "one eye in focus" look that I don't care for. The far background bokeh isn't where the difference is, it's right around the focus plane. I've shot sessions with both and prefer the 1.4D, just my opinion of course.

We do agree the D700 with the D2X picture control rocks skin tones

Hmm, I think I have to agree with imac here on the baby shots. The 85 1.4 D rendering I see in these images reminds me of the 50 1.4 D which I have - very very soft with fairly nice bokeh, but lacking the more saturated colours and contrast to be found in the G lenses. Moreover, when shot at wider apertures in higher contrast situations my 50 1.4 suffers from CA like there's no tomorrow. This pretty much rules it out as an outdoor lens at wider apertures, somewhat subject depending of course. Not sure how the 85 1.4 D behaves in that regard?

I'm currently also pondering whether to get the 1.4 or 1.8 G versions of the 85 (no more D lenses for me, sorry!). Alternatively, there are of course the very special 50s out there, e.g. the Sigma Art (very big and very very heavy though, I tried it out shortly today), or the Nikkor 58 1.4 G. Currently I'm thinking that I may try the 85 1.8 first and see where it gets me. The advantage is that it's very light and nicely balances on the D750 (important to me), and it's a steal at less than one third of the price the 85 1.4 G commands.

Andrea

blakevanderbilt said:

I even owned the Otus but I sold it because it doesn't make sense to have something so expensive without AF.

Click to expand...

May I ask why you bought it in the first place?

Jane79 said:

blakevanderbilt said:

I even owned the Otus but I sold it because it doesn't make sense to have something so expensive without AF.

Click to expand...

May I ask why you bought it in the first place?

Click to expand...

well to put it simply, I'm a professional studio photographer and I thought I need the Otus to get the most out of my pictures. Turns out, AF is still a must for studio work...

I have three 85mm Nikons. 85F1.8AF, 85F1.8g and 85F1.4g.

The g versions will have a clear advantage over the old AF version at F1.8. The old one is soft, lower contrast and has appreciable CA at F1.8.

As for differences between the two G lenses, you're really splitting hairs to see anything. The 1.8 might have some tiny advantage in sharpness (or might not, in my experience), but the 1.4 counters with a kind of more special look (I assume bokeh).

In my mind, the optical difference comes down to the 1.4g having the ability to have a shallower depth of field. That's about it for practical use in the field - you have more capability. I shoot mine a lot at f1.4 to 2.0. The 1.8g sits on a shelf now.