Nikon 85mm f1.4 dud copy or rubbish lens?

[Fish323]

I had the chance to buy a Nikon 85mm f1.4 for £450. The lens is in mint condition but when I compared it to my f1.8 I was shocked by how poor it was in comparison. Both shots 100% crops, top left hand corner at max aperatures.
Needless to say I will stick with my 1.8.
Intersting the camera chose the same exposure for both shots.

 

[LensLineup]

How did they compare when you shot some test portraits?
--
I shoot with prime lenses
http://twitter.com/LensLineup

 

[Marcin 3M]

I often use an algorithm, that provides good results:

if ( pro_lens_in_mint_condition == true )
then expect_problems()
else enjoy_great_lens();



--
Marcin_3M

 

[Ilkka Nissilä]

The 85/1.4 isn't meant to give good corner sharpness in the best of cases at wide apertures. What's more you're comparing f/1.4 lens at f/1.4 with an f/1.8 lens at f/1.8. You should be comparing both lenses at the same aperture, i.e, both lenses at f/1.8, both at f/2.8 and so on, to be fair. No f/1.4 lens at f/1.4 is going to be remotely as good as any lens at a smaller aperture, be it its maximum or not. (Even then the f/1.8 is likely to be better in the corners at wide apertures ... but for portraits and background rendition the f/1.4 is vastly superior. And also most of the frame is super sharp at shooting apertures (f1.8 to f/8).

For better quality in the corners wide open, you pay 1500 EUR for the 85/1.4 AF-S G.

If you're interested in using the lens for actual real-world photography, you will find the 85/1.4D gives superb results, among the finest (real-world) performances of the brand.

For shooting boxes at f/1.4 ... well, that's a mockery of this (very fine) lens.

 

[zentenk]

are you talking about the D or G?

I assume the D, the corners are really soft on this lens wide open, try taking more pictures or download full size jpegs online and compare

if it's a G then heres my code

if (price of mint condition backordered everywhere pro lens =
{
expect problems;
}
else
{
expect more problems;
}

 

[Frank68740]

Not trying to flame, but I would like to know why you bought it when you already had a 85mm ? Is there suppose to be something special abut the 1.4?

40 years ago I saved my money to buy a top of the line Schneider enlarging lens.

When I enlarged my 35mm negs to 8" X 10" with it , they were no better than with my old $17.00 lens. No one could tell the difference between the 8X10 prints..

 

[Fish323]

Good question. I tend to shoot in very low light usually 6400-10000 iso so every stop I can get is important. There is no point me paying for a lens that cannot be used at 1.4 if it is too soft.

Not trying to flame, but I would like to know why you bought it when you already had a 85mm ? Is there suppose to be something special abut the 1.4?

40 years ago I saved my money to buy a top of the line Schneider enlarging lens.

When I enlarged my 35mm negs to 8" X 10" with it , they were no better than with my old $17.00 lens. No one could tell the difference between the 8X10 prints..

 

[Jon Rty]

For said shooting are your subjects regularly in the corners of the frame? Shooting at F/1.4 you'll only have the subject in focus, and if the subject isn't in the corner of the frame, the lack of sharpness there won't be problem. In fact, it should be a assent in helping with the OOF rendering, which is the strong point of the F/1.4.

Good question. I tend to shoot in very low light usually 6400-10000 iso so every stop I can get is important. There is no point me paying for a lens that cannot be used at 1.4 if it is too soft.

 

[Fish323]

I'm afraid the lens mocks itself by being very soft. I would mostly use it at 1.4, thus the need to test it at 1.4. If I have to close it down to 1.8 to get similar quality then there is no point in upgrading, or downgrading as it would be. In the 'real world' as you put it I would expect it to work under much tougher conditions with much worse lighting, and out perform a lens that costs 1/3 as much.

The 85/1.4 isn't meant to give good corner sharpness in the best of cases at wide apertures. What's more you're comparing f/1.4 lens at f/1.4 with an f/1.8 lens at f/1.8. You should be comparing both lenses at the same aperture, i.e, both lenses at f/1.8, both at f/2.8 and so on, to be fair. No f/1.4 lens at f/1.4 is going to be remotely as good as any lens at a smaller aperture, be it its maximum or not. (Even then the f/1.8 is likely to be better in the corners at wide apertures ... but for portraits and background rendition the f/1.4 is vastly superior. And also most of the frame is super sharp at shooting apertures (f1.8 to f/8).

For better quality in the corners wide open, you pay 1500 EUR for the 85/1.4 AF-S G.

If you're interested in using the lens for actual real-world photography, you will find the 85/1.4D gives superb results, among the finest (real-world) performances of the brand.

For shooting boxes at f/1.4 ... well, that's a mockery of this (very fine) lens.

 

[Art Jacks]

Did you get a focus confirmation in the viewfinder ? I was just wondering if you were right at the limit of the closest focus distance the lens can achieve, for consistency I am assuming you had the camera tripod mounted when making the two test images ?
--

A selection of my images can be found at http://www.photo-genesis.net follow the galleries link then select the Jacks gallery

 

[Marcin 3M]

No, my algorithm doesn't work properly for newest lenses.
I'll include Your code as an upgrade
--
Marcin_3M

 

[glo]

Something's wrong with your 1.4, you should return it or send it away for analysis. Mine would get much better results than that photo.
good luck,
glo

 

[Jon Rty]

Would it really on a full-frame camera in the corners? I thought corner sharpness wide open isn't really the strength of the 85mm F/1.4D.

Something's wrong with your 1.4, you should return it or send it away for analysis. Mine would get much better results than that photo.
good luck,
glo

 

[Fish323]

Hi, yes I did get confirmation in the viewfinder. I am pretty certain the camera would not take an out of focus shot anyway. Not only that I switched from multi to single point, took several shots, and even moved the shutter to 160 to ensure blur was not apparent. I will post the full images later so you can do a comparison. It really blows out of the water this idea you should buy more expensive lenses rather than the camera first. It also reinforces my point that quality fx lenses are cheap. I only paid £170 for my 1.8d. and £45 for my 1.8d 50mm.

Anyone with a 1.4D wants to give a comparison with their's please do. Before I went I checked ken rockwell's site but he was shooting a tree which does not give as good an idea as print.

I didn't use a tripod but the results are consistant as the 1.8d always gave sharp shots and the 1.4d did not.

Did you get a focus confirmation in the viewfinder ? I was just wondering if you were right at the limit of the closest focus distance the lens can achieve, for consistency I am assuming you had the camera tripod mounted when making the two test images ?
--

A selection of my images can be found at http://www.photo-genesis.net follow the galleries link then select the Jacks gallery

 

[Jon Rty]

http://www.nikonjin.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=272

Hi, yes I did get confirmation in the viewfinder. I am pretty certain the camera would not take an out of focus shot anyway. Not only that I switched from multi to single point, took several shots, and even moved the shutter to 160 to ensure blur was not apparent. I will post the full images later so you can do a comparison. It really blows out of the water this idea you should buy more expensive lenses rather than the camera first. It also reinforces my point that quality fx lenses are cheap. I only paid £170 for my 1.8d. and £45 for my 1.8d 50mm.

Anyone with a 1.4D wants to give a comparison with their's please do. Before I went I checked ken rockwell's site but he was shooting a tree which does not give as good an idea as print.

I didn't use a tripod but the results are consistant as the 1.8d always gave sharp shots and the 1.4d did not.

Did you get a focus confirmation in the viewfinder ? I was just wondering if you were right at the limit of the closest focus distance the lens can achieve, for consistency I am assuming you had the camera tripod mounted when making the two test images ?
--

A selection of my images can be found at http://www.photo-genesis.net follow the galleries link then select the Jacks gallery

 

[ron_9]

Now come on---it's well known what you are talking about and I do agree that trees aren't the best test subjects--still nothing new here. the 1.4 D is what it is here's photozone site and he has compared the 85mm F1.8 and the 85mm F1.4 D on both DX and FX---all with exactly the same results you are giving. here's the link http://www.photozone.de/

I myself have been looking for a 85mm 1.4 street lens but the 1.4 D has such a fault to veiling light and purple fringing as to make it almost unuseable in some conditions--but when you hit it and the light is right nothing beats it.

I'm excited about the G version(except the price) most test there show good sharpness wide open and less fringing--Let's see if i sell that other lens, and don't eat for two weeks, and use my bicycle, I'll still have to find more bucks .
The 85mm F1.4 is what it is--"a bad great lens" ---ron s.

--
Keeping it sane in an insane world is an inconvenience at an inconvenient time!!
http://www.pbase.com/ron9ron

 

[apaflo]

It really blows out of the water this idea you should buy more expensive lenses rather than the camera first. It also reinforces my point that quality fx lenses are cheap. I only paid £170 for my 1.8d. and £45 for my 1.8d 50mm.

What it really blows out of the water is the simplistic concept that all things are equal except for one specific parameter such as maximum aperture. Or stated otherwise, "What were you thinking?"

Good fixed focal length lenses are "specialty" items. They each have "character", and you choose them for that character.

If you've purchased an 85mm f/1.4D thinking the character it would have is that of a tack sharp from edge to edge low light lens... you failed to do any research at all and have misled yourself. That lens is a fabulous portrait lens, and if you shoot people shots with it at any aperture you'll discover why it is ranked (with about 3 other lenses) as good as it gets.

The more common mistake is in the opposite direction where people buy the 85mm f/1.8 and expect to get the portrait character of the f/1.4. Instead they have a decent lens that is mediocre except when shot wide open at f/1.8. For portraits, it really doesn't compare to the f/1.4 version.

So basically you've bought a really great screwdriver and are annoyed that it doesn't drive nails very well. Others typically buy a great hammer and pound screws with it.

I've got several screwdrivers and several hammers in my tool box. Not only can I avoid using screwdrivers on nails, I can even choose the right sized hammer for any given nail (and the right size screwdriver for screws)!

Use the 85mm f/1.4 for when you want to shoot portraits at f/2.8. Use the 85mm f/1.8 when you want sharp low light images that require a large aperture. For those applications, those are the two most cost effective tools you'll find, but neither of them are good for both jobs.

 

[pavi1]

until you read this

http://imaging.nikon.com/history/nikkor/41/index.htm

It sounds like you purchased the wrong lens as you do not like the design characteristis of the 85 f1.4d lens
--
Everything happens for a reason. #1 reason: poor planning
WSSA #44

 

[Fish323]

Err perhaps you should learn to read!!
I DIDN'T buy the lens.
Unfortunately the lens wasn't labeled:

'for single portrait use only, not for use in any other way, no group shots, do not use when you expect corner to corner sharpness' .

But, I guess using that as a marketing strategy, while honest, would not be a good selling strategy.

You describe the 1.8D, a lens that is sharp through out its range, as being mediocre, it will take me a while to work on that conept. But, now I realise that being soft in the corners was a design feature for people who only want to shoot portraits.

Does the 1.4G benefit from this design feature too? I'm guessing that it does. Woops accordning to another poster it doesn't share this 'design feature'. Why oh why not?? Who will want to buy it when it is sharp in the corners?

Having a 'symplistic concept' that a 'pro' lens should be sharp, fair enough, perhaps that is me being naive. I live and learn.

It really blows out of the water this idea you should buy more expensive lenses rather than the camera first. It also reinforces my point that quality fx lenses are cheap. I only paid £170 for my 1.8d. and £45 for my 1.8d 50mm.

What it really blows out of the water is the simplistic concept that all things are equal except for one specific parameter such as maximum aperture. Or stated otherwise, "What were you thinking?"

Good fixed focal length lenses are "specialty" items. They each have "character", and you choose them for that character.

If you've purchased an 85mm f/1.4D thinking the character it would have is that of a tack sharp from edge to edge low light lens... you failed to do any research at all and have misled yourself. That lens is a fabulous portrait lens, and if you shoot people shots with it at any aperture you'll discover why it is ranked (with about 3 other lenses) as good as it gets.

The more common mistake is in the opposite direction where people buy the 85mm f/1.8 and expect to get the portrait character of the f/1.4. Instead they have a decent lens that is mediocre except when shot wide open at f/1.8. For portraits, it really doesn't compare to the f/1.4 version.

So basically you've bought a really great screwdriver and are annoyed that it doesn't drive nails very well. Others typically buy a great hammer and pound screws with it.

I've got several screwdrivers and several hammers in my tool box. Not only can I avoid using screwdrivers on nails, I can even choose the right sized hammer for any given nail (and the right size screwdriver for screws)!

Use the 85mm f/1.4 for when you want to shoot portraits at f/2.8. Use the 85mm f/1.8 when you want sharp low light images that require a large aperture. For those applications, those are the two most cost effective tools you'll find, but neither of them are good for both jobs.

 

[apaflo]

Err perhaps you should learn to read!!

Actually it's fairly obvious that I can read. I am also able to research lenses
without post absurd articles such as yours...