Steve Bingham
Forum Pro
Agreed - strongly. The guy is a complete dummy when it comes to understanding lens theory or design.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why the 3d effect on the NIKKOR 85mm 1.4G and not the 85mm 1.8G
- Thread starter Patoloco19
- Start date
i bought both and shot both for a week to decide which i wanted. once you get the focus adjusted on both, it's REALLY hard to see the difference between the two when shooting at 1.8 and smaller. at the same apertures, the 1.4 pictures were little brighter...like 1/3 of a stop brighter.
I kept the 1.4 because of the better flare resistance and being able to shoot at 1.4 versus 1.8. But the 1.8 was 95% of the performance at a much lower cost.
I kept the 1.4 because of the better flare resistance and being able to shoot at 1.4 versus 1.8. But the 1.8 was 95% of the performance at a much lower cost.
From my experience, what makes one lens "pop" more than another is related to the bokeh and the focus transition. It rarely has anything to do with the absolute sharpness, but is created by what I call the focus contrast.
If the OOF is really smooth and the in-focus is crisp (doesn't have to be deadly sharp), it really makes the subject pop in relation to the background. If the bokeh is busy or choppy, it doesn't matter how sharp the subject is as the focus contrast is going to be lower that it would be using a lens with super buttery bokeh and is just "acceptably sharp" at the focus plane. It's why the images in the real world from the 58G have the look they do, even though in the lab shooting 2D test charts it's not that impressive. Same with the 85mm f1.4D and G. Same with the 24mm f1.4G etc.
If the OOF is really smooth and the in-focus is crisp (doesn't have to be deadly sharp), it really makes the subject pop in relation to the background. If the bokeh is busy or choppy, it doesn't matter how sharp the subject is as the focus contrast is going to be lower that it would be using a lens with super buttery bokeh and is just "acceptably sharp" at the focus plane. It's why the images in the real world from the 58G have the look they do, even though in the lab shooting 2D test charts it's not that impressive. Same with the 85mm f1.4D and G. Same with the 24mm f1.4G etc.
Patoloco19
New member
- Messages
- 8
- Reaction score
- 3
Thank you so much for your reply, very informative. This is the second time I hear about the TAMRON 85mm in this thread, should I try it out? I really loved the way my pictures looked when I rented the Nikon 85mm 1.4G, will the TAMRON produce something similar? I know its to the person's preference but since you gave me a very knowledgeable answer I assume you know that "LOOK" from the lens im referring to. You're saying you like the TAMRON better, I'm gonna try it out because I really don't want to spend 1600 on the NIKON. I was also looking into the SIGMA 85mm 1.4, is that any good? Thank you!
Patoloco19
New member
- Messages
- 8
- Reaction score
- 3
Thanks for your reply, I agree with you that its very hard to tell the difference, specially if you have a side by side comparison of the same image, where you can REALLY tell though is when you shoot one person in a crowd of people, the 1.4G just completely isolated the subject from everyone else, its amazing, I loved it, I definitely did not get that with the 1.8. Its the isolation of the subject, specially from far away that struck me the most. I remember having that same feeling when I used to shoot canon and used the 135mm 2.0, pure isolation. Hopefully I can find an 85mm thats cheaper and can give me that look.
Giovanni_1968
Senior Member
I own the 85/1.8G and love it, super sharp lens and my favorite on full frame, has to be carefully handled on women cos it's way too sharp. A friend borrowed me the old 85/1.4D and I have to say that I like the new better cos of sharpness but the old being smoother and as such different, it's not all about focal length and sharpness.
I don't know the 85/1.4G but about 3D effect it's not just Nano coating, ED elements etc etc, I attach here two shots, one with an old 135/2.8 Contax and one with the 85/1.8G you tell me if they have or not some 3D
--
Giovanni - 70% GAS affected (thanks to Italian gov and economy I had to fix my illness somehow...)
Nikon D800 - Nikon D2Xs - Fuji X-Pro1 - Fuji S5Pro - Panasonic DMC-L1
JN70CN - 14.14.30E 40.32.40N
I don't know the 85/1.4G but about 3D effect it's not just Nano coating, ED elements etc etc, I attach here two shots, one with an old 135/2.8 Contax and one with the 85/1.8G you tell me if they have or not some 3D
--
Giovanni - 70% GAS affected (thanks to Italian gov and economy I had to fix my illness somehow...)
JN70CN - 14.14.30E 40.32.40N
especially not through shallow depth of field, which is the least present, and most suppressed, depth cue in normal human vision. You just do not see depth of field in normal vision: except at the extremes of near and far focus, you experience pan focus - unlimited depth of field, or IOW, the exact opposite of shallow depth - a limitation which the human visual system suppresses almost perfectly.
Assuming/interpreting 3D quality from such a single or dual lens system requires a computer or brain with experience of light/shadow, their transitions and dispersions, and geometry (and parallax) phenomena which are present in the scene not the optical system. They are predictable, and the reason why most optical illusions work, by confounding certain built-in or learned expectations, think of forced perspectives. Two eyes help, but can also be fooled, sometimes in ways that one eye can't, like Hidden image stereograms.
Why is this important? Because it isn't just pedantry. It exposes the lie and futility of arguing that any lens is more or less 3D. People interested in creating more realistic 3-D impression/suggestion within their 2D photos need to think about composition and light, not lenses.
The contemporary equation of shallow depth with some 3D quality is a technical/artistic interpretation based on one's understanding of how a lens works, it has no basis in human visual perception, and is neither natural nor 3D dimensional. If anything, it is a painterly and/or photographic affectation, that's all.
Assuming/interpreting 3D quality from such a single or dual lens system requires a computer or brain with experience of light/shadow, their transitions and dispersions, and geometry (and parallax) phenomena which are present in the scene not the optical system. They are predictable, and the reason why most optical illusions work, by confounding certain built-in or learned expectations, think of forced perspectives. Two eyes help, but can also be fooled, sometimes in ways that one eye can't, like Hidden image stereograms.
Why is this important? Because it isn't just pedantry. It exposes the lie and futility of arguing that any lens is more or less 3D. People interested in creating more realistic 3-D impression/suggestion within their 2D photos need to think about composition and light, not lenses.
The contemporary equation of shallow depth with some 3D quality is a technical/artistic interpretation based on one's understanding of how a lens works, it has no basis in human visual perception, and is neither natural nor 3D dimensional. If anything, it is a painterly and/or photographic affectation, that's all.
Nikon Chose Me
Active member
- Messages
- 53
- Reaction score
- 14
Don't make me go out and buy the 85 1.4 now! I already have the 1.8 - good enough!!!
A real Nikon clunker is the 58mm 1.4. Nikon really fanned on that one. 15 or 1600 bones for a glorified 50. I'll bet they say it gives the "3D look!"
A real Nikon clunker is the 58mm 1.4. Nikon really fanned on that one. 15 or 1600 bones for a glorified 50. I'll bet they say it gives the "3D look!"
Patoloco19
New member
- Messages
- 8
- Reaction score
- 3
It's not a just a 3d look, and its not about sharpness, cause apparently the 1.8 is sharper than the 1.4 from what I've read, its about the overall look the 1.4 gives you, I was super happy with the 1.8 also.......until I tried the 1.4, it just isolated the subject differently. try it out and watch, or maybe don't try it because its gonna make you dislike your 1.8 hahaha
Leonard Migliore
Forum Pro
I have one lens that does that: the 105mm f/2.5 AI-S. And it's by far my best portrait lens.
Mark K
Veteran Member
Great thread...I can't explain to myself. My buddy shooters started from 85f1.4d..and they bought 85f1.8d for its lighter way. Apparently no one liked that lens and left in cabinet for years. So I got myself 85f1.4G right from the beginning.
This is also true for other lenses, say 70-200f4VR vs 70-200f2.8. In one way or the other, it must be the effect of shallow DOF which gives us more islation from the background creating more 3 dimensional feelings.
This is also true for other lenses, say 70-200f4VR vs 70-200f2.8. In one way or the other, it must be the effect of shallow DOF which gives us more islation from the background creating more 3 dimensional feelings.
anotherMike
Forum Pro
If you like the look of the Nikon 85/1.4G, that may have to be your next lens, right?
A key thing is to understand what each of us photographs: For me, an 85mm lens ideally has to be both a portrait/studio lens and a landscape lens. The Tamron and the 85/1.4G are both very nice portrait/studio lenses. I have a slight preference for the Tamron in that role, but it's not a great preference. In landscape role, I feel the Tamron is stronger to the 1.4G Nikkor, and the magnitude of that difference is a bit more. I also think, for landscape, I prefer the 1.8G to the 1.4G, and the 1.8G is nowhere as good as the Tamron in that role. The Milvus sits in another category of landscape lens entirely - world class, nothing better, only an equal in the Otus 85. Both of the modern Zeiss 85's are flat out staggeringly good landscape lenses. I require AF for portraiture/studio, so while it is very, very nice as a portrait lens, I prefer the Tamron for usability and honestly, there is something very "right" about the Tamrons rendering with people that makes me keep both. The older Sigma 85 isn't really my cup of tea. I'd be interested if they ever do a 85/1.4 art however, although given how they've done the art lenses, I'd expect it would be more about sharpness and resolution as opposed to bokeh, and perhaps more of a studio/landscape lens and less of a portrait one, but that's all speculation and guessing games.
Ultimately you have to rent the candidates, spend some time with them, and pick what works subjectively for you.
-m
A key thing is to understand what each of us photographs: For me, an 85mm lens ideally has to be both a portrait/studio lens and a landscape lens. The Tamron and the 85/1.4G are both very nice portrait/studio lenses. I have a slight preference for the Tamron in that role, but it's not a great preference. In landscape role, I feel the Tamron is stronger to the 1.4G Nikkor, and the magnitude of that difference is a bit more. I also think, for landscape, I prefer the 1.8G to the 1.4G, and the 1.8G is nowhere as good as the Tamron in that role. The Milvus sits in another category of landscape lens entirely - world class, nothing better, only an equal in the Otus 85. Both of the modern Zeiss 85's are flat out staggeringly good landscape lenses. I require AF for portraiture/studio, so while it is very, very nice as a portrait lens, I prefer the Tamron for usability and honestly, there is something very "right" about the Tamrons rendering with people that makes me keep both. The older Sigma 85 isn't really my cup of tea. I'd be interested if they ever do a 85/1.4 art however, although given how they've done the art lenses, I'd expect it would be more about sharpness and resolution as opposed to bokeh, and perhaps more of a studio/landscape lens and less of a portrait one, but that's all speculation and guessing games.
Ultimately you have to rent the candidates, spend some time with them, and pick what works subjectively for you.
-m
Steve Bingham
Forum Pro
I too prefer my Tamron 85/1.8 VC to both Nikons for landscape. As I do little portrait work I have no idea in this arena! The Tamron does have vibration control, something neither Nikon has. It's heavy - much heavier than the Nikon f1.8 but it is scary sharp!
The 58 mm 1.4 is a Excellent lens and only makes sense to buy if you do a lot of fashion and need full length stuff and is the main reason I have it. Better lens than the Sigma Art 50 mm 1.4 that I did try first and returned. It was just not a sharp lens vs Nikon. I was not interested in the Nikon 50 mm 1.4 as a first choice.
It was a tough call, but I need great IQ. Most times you can be a good photographer but you have to spend the money on good gear. I personally don't need the D5 or D810, the D750 with these lenses are phenomenal
the only reason you call it a clunker is because you don't have a need for it.
If you said you actually tested the lens that would be different and even then you would have to show your photos because whatever you did was not correct it is a good lens if you need it, not a lens for a hobby user but your assessment is not based on 1st hand experience.
For my fashion shoots the 58 mm 1.4 and 85 mm 1.4 are my two main lenses with the 70-200 mm 2.8 as needed if the location is outside and not against a backdrop. If I need wider I am using a 35 mm prime or maybe the 24-70 and I always work with two bodies anyway.
I did test first hand the Nikon 85 mm 1.8, 1.4 and 105 mm macro and the 85 mm 1.4 is just the better lens, you have to see it first hand for a side by side comparison
SO far as the 58 mm Nikon and 50 mm 1.4 I did a test shoot with a model before the actual shoot and Nikon 58 mm is just the better lens.
Unfortunately ya got to pay for it. I did find a used one classified as Open Box, and paid about $400 less than retail about $1300 give or take $50 bucks. I typically never buy used gear but this turned out ok and i tested it. I have bought other used lenses only to return it cause of a issue I knew after using many Nikon lenses something was off and just got said lens new.
Also, Nikon USA will not warrantee any used lens unless it is refurbished by them, they will fix it, just not under warrantee that 5 yr warrantee I think it has.
Last edited:
Total nonsense. The human eye behaves EXACTLY like a fast camera lens does, especially at lower light levels when our iris is opened up. In bright sunlight, there is more DOF just like when you stop down a lens.
The reason is appears to us to be infinite DOF is or eyes/brain are constantly scanning/refocusing plus only our central vision has any real resolving power. So for us to look at lets say a landscape scene, our eyes are moving all over the area in front of us and our brain remembers what was just scanned so to us, it all looks in focus.
If you don't see DOF with your eyes, you just aren't paying attention.
Nikon Chose Me
Active member
- Messages
- 53
- Reaction score
- 14
The 50 1.8 is $1400 cheaper, and it'll do the same thing as the 58 1.4. I call it a clunker because it's extremely expensive, yet does nothing better than the other 50s. Does it focus closer? No it doesn't. To me it's a money pit lens. Costs a ton of money but can't do very much. Id get the 60 micro if anything, which actually is versatile.
I'm not sold on Nikons 1.4s in general. They are heavy and expensive and not noticeably different than the 1.8s, except they are better built. There isn't a magical photo you're gonna get just because it's a 1.4, even with waving that nano wand around. It's just a lens. It's the lighting and everything else that makes the photo.
I'm not sold on Nikons 1.4s in general. They are heavy and expensive and not noticeably different than the 1.8s, except they are better built. There isn't a magical photo you're gonna get just because it's a 1.4, even with waving that nano wand around. It's just a lens. It's the lighting and everything else that makes the photo.
Marianne Oelund
Veteran Member
There are certainly situations where it could be hard to tell the difference, but there are others where it definitely matters which of those two lenses you are using.
The 58G isn't for everyone. It's for those who have good use for its unique optical characteristics: Dreamy SA veiling wide open, or very smooth bokeh (especially background), or low coma for night scenes. It also has focus-transition characteristics which seem to make DOF shallower, enhancing its ability to isolate your subject.
Although its properties have long been enticing to me, I could never bring myself to spring for one at full price new. Recently, though, I found a used one at a very good price and decided I couldn't pass it up. It quickly became my favorite lens for portraits and group photos, used at f/2 or f/2.8, even though I also own the Nikon 50/1.8, 50/1.4 and Sigma 50/1.4 Art.
It is special - but in ways that many would overlook.
I need to find more precise wording, sometimes it's like English is not my first language ;-) but how would we best say this? They eye does exactly what you describe, yes, it has the same limitations as any fast lens, but our brain rarely ever let's us see it that way. Not only does it automatically adjust focus to where we're looking, aiding the perception of pan focus, the eye also makes rapid quasi-involuntary scanning motions from which we assemble the visual field and track motions.
How can depth of field be representative of our normal experience of depth when our brain masks it almost completely? We don't see the world as a set of frames with blown out backgrounds, so it's funny to me how often we associate this quality with 3D when evaluating photographs. But, we also don't see reality as frozen slices of time, so I get how certain affects can be interpreted as better representations of either real world experiences or physical qualities.
However, if I were making a list of considerations/qualities to strive for in making my photographs appear to have more or less dimensionality, I would look at light/shadow & composition first, and probably default to deeper depth of field for most compositions.
Similar threads
- Question
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum