Visibile differences between 85mm 1.4g and 1.8g?

[chuhsi]

I'm testing both the 85mm 1.4g and 1.8g on my D7000. I've only shot a few images so far and will do much more comparison to help me determine which I will keep. That will include testing for flare resistance.

But so far, the images look slightly different where the 1.4g is slightly more exposed / brighter...but otherwise, from 1.8 and up, the images look pretty much the same to me. I know everyone says that the 1.8 is amazing and probably delivers 95% of the performance at 1/3 of the price, but I wasn't fully expecting that to be true.

For those that have shot with both is this what you noticed as well?

Thanks!

 

[gatorowl]

I'm testing both the 85mm 1.4g and 1.8g on my D7000. I've only shot a few images so far and will do much more comparison to help me determine which I will keep. That will include testing for flare resistance.

But so far, the images look slightly different where the 1.4g is slightly more exposed / brighter...but otherwise, from 1.8 and up, the images look pretty much the same to me. I know everyone says that the 1.8 is amazing and probably delivers 95% of the performance at 1/3 of the price, but I wasn't fully expecting that to be true.

For those that have shot with both is this what you noticed as well?

Thanks!

I have both lenses, so that probably makes me a spendthrift (I'd prefer to be a cheapskate). The lenses are very close at 1.8G and smaller apertures. The main differences are wide open.

On very heavy pixel-peeping I do detect differences. But they are not major. My 1.4g has more CA (but not so much to create an issue), but is sharper at most common apertures. I tested 1.8-4.0 before I got tired. The differences are there (in favor of the 1.4)but aren't major. Frankly, I think that estimate of 90-95% the performance at overlapping apertures is probably fair.

Of course the 1.4 gives you 1.4 and 1.6. And being able to shoot at those apertures is worth a huge premium (you have to decide whether it's 3x). At these larger apertures, the 1.4G is stellar and is the best fast 85mm lens I have used. I also owned the storied Canon 85mm 1.2 L lens, and frankly I prefer the Nikon. Yes, it is difficult comparing across camera platforms, but to me the bokeh of the Nikon at 1.4 matches the Canon at 1.2. It may be blasphemy, but the Nikon was better in some instances but never worst. Regardless, they are so close that I laugh and giggle when Nikon shooters lament the absence of a Nikon 1.2 lens. Besides bokeh, the Nikon has better sharpness and contrast wide open.

All in all, I enjoy having both lenses. When I want/need to travel compactly, the 1.8 can do the job. When I want/demand uncompromised IQ, I go for the 1.4.

 

[anotherMike]

I've shot both lenses, love both lenses. Sharpness, which is what many people focus on first, are slight, with the 85/1.4G being a touch better at the wider apertures. By F/4 they are awfully close. The 85/1.8G in particular is a VERY sharp lens that offers a great value - one has to spend a lot of money to do much better, and even then, it won't be very much.

But that's sharpness. If you value bokeh a lot, the 85/1.4G has advantages, and the 85/1.4G has more of what I've termed the modern Nikon G lens rendering; slightly warm, slightly romantic, very bold and strong colors, while the 85/1.8G is a bit more neutral in its rendering. Subtle differences, but they may be important to some folks more than others.

In very subtle terms, I think the 85/1.4G is optimized a bit more towards closer subject distances while the 85/1.8G is for further distances, but it's not a major thing.

So if you're not seeing a lot of difference, you're not alone. I don't shoot 85mm that much now, although I might more in the future, so I opted for the smaller 85/1.8G as a more compact landscape and studio lens for now. I could afford the 1.4G, but I'm a believer in making efficient decisions regarding buying gear (by looking at how important that gear is in the overall scheme of things) and put the money saved into a better wide angle, a range where I shoot more than 85mm. However, if I were an event shooter or did a lot of weddings, I'd be an 85/1.4G buyer in a hurry.

Bottom line though is don't let anyone try and tell you the 85/1.8G is a loser of a lens; it's a very nice lens that does a lot right, so if the price/size fits you better than the 1.4G, you won't be suffering.

-m

 

[paulski66]

and the 85/1.4G has more of what I've termed the modern Nikon G lens rendering; slightly warm, slightly romantic, very bold and strong colors, while the 85/1.8G is a bit more neutral in its rendering. Subtle differences, but they may be important to some folks more than others.

-m

Would this rendering be the result of the Nano-Crystal cating, or do you think something else is at work?

I guess a different way to ask the same question (and I may know your answer): Do you see this rendering present in the 28mm f/1.8g, too? And possibly the 60mm f/2.8g?

 

[anotherMike]

Good question. My best guess is that both the coating technology/types used AND the glass types used in the design contribute to the spectral response of the lens. I haven't seen any breakdowns of the glass types of the 85/1.8G vs 85/1.4G nor do I expect to.

The 28/1.8G definitely has modern G rendering for those who believe in, value, or like such aspects of lens performance.

I sold my 60/2.8G shortly after I got the 800E (just quite didn't cut it for border performance at distance for me), but my memories were that it too had the traditional G rendering. It had REALLY nice rendering actually. While I didn't like it for landscape/long distance work, I actually regret selling it since I liked it's closer in performance quite a bit. Probably made a mistake on that one.

-m

 

[inasir1971]

I'm testing both the 85mm 1.4g and 1.8g on my D7000. I've only shot a few images so far and will do much more comparison to help me determine which I will keep. That will include testing for flare resistance.

But so far, the images look slightly different where the 1.4g is slightly more exposed / brighter...but otherwise, from 1.8 and up, the images look pretty much the same to me. I know everyone says that the 1.8 is amazing and probably delivers 95% of the performance at 1/3 of the price, but I wasn't fully expecting that to be true.

For those that have shot with both is this what you noticed as well?

Thanks!

I had the 1.8G and then traded that in for a Zeiss 100/2, not because the 1.8G is not good by any means but because I like the Zeiss 100/2. I later bought the 1.4G as I realized that I wanted an AF lens around that FL and for the somewhat irrational reason that I did not want to buy the 1.8G again having only recently traded that in (at a loss).

If you want the additional DOF control, I would think that a move to FX would be the more natural first step.

Unlike the other gold ringed 1.4G lenses, the 85 has an alternative 1.8G variant which is so close.

 

[Jane79]

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G

The 953 vs 1000 score could be interpreted as 95.3%

I've never shot the 1.8G, but it certainly appears to be very good value.

 

[vepar]

Allow me to present my bit broader theory...

85mm lenses are mostly used for portraiture so lets stick to that.

Us dx shooters, such as OP, are seriously compromised in choosing portrait lenses, there isn't a single prime lens in nikkor lineup to be optimized exactly for portraiture on dx format, so we are forced to use lenses designed for different purpose,for instance 50mm designed as general walkaround lens on fx is ok for portraiture on dx, but still a big compromise, 85mm on dx goes to the long side of FoV so it is also a compromise for ambiental or waist to head portraiture. Then there is 60mm micro or my 55mm 2.8 micro ais which are perfect for FoV but most female models freak out when they see every pore and wrinkle on their face etc. It seems to new 58mm 1.4 could be excellent in that manner, but it is designed for night photography on fx.

My firm belief is that for portraiture most important thing is how the lens renders women skin, everything else, subtle bokeh differences, crazy sharp vs sharp enough for pro work etc is good to have but only of secondary importance.

I wanted to buy 85mm 1.8g for portraiture and after testing I decided not to buy it. That lens is of course worth every penny, it is crazy sharp but it is not what I was looking for. It is jack of all trades lens. I find it little better but somehow similar to 50mm 1.8g - it simply doesn't render women skin nicely. It is to crispy and to punchy to achieve that beautiful old school look in portraits I get from 35-70 2.8 af-d, 105mm 2.5 ai, 85mm 1.4 ais and based on samples I saw 85mm 1.4 af-d 105mm DC and 135mm DC. Then on other side, 85mm 1.8g lacks additional crispiness and punch of that beautiful new g type nano coated portrait look achievable only by new lenses specially designed for portraiture such as 85mm 1.4g.

For now while I am still on dx, I decided to keep my current portraiture combo 35-70mm 2.8 AF-D +105mm 2.5 AI fo headshots, because I find it produces best results in this current and possibly eternal situation of non existent dx portraiture lenses on the market.

To OP, it all comes down to what inasir1971 suggested in slightly different context, going to fx seems like a good solution. And so what if your 1.4g slightly overexposes fully open, just compensate it and ditch the other lens. Unless you're in financial trouble - than you re forced to sell 1.4.

To those guys thinking 85mm 1.4g is for fools with to much money in their pocket - good luck shooting portraiture with your 85mm 1.8g! if it is good for you I'm fine with that, but there is much more about lens quality than you are aware of. Come on guys, internet is flooded with full res samples of both lenses. You seriously do not see the difference?

 

[paulski66]

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G

The 953 vs 1000 score could be interpreted as 95.3%

I've never shot the 1.8G, but it certainly appears to be very good value.

The 1.4g got a 1000 score in every single category? Something's fishy...

 

[Jane79]

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4G

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G

The 953 vs 1000 score could be interpreted as 95.3%

I've never shot the 1.8G, but it certainly appears to be very good value.

The 1.4g got a 1000 score in every single category? Something's fishy...

It's the reference lens.

 

[Bob GB]

Would this rendering be the result of the Nano-Crystal cating, or do you think something else is at work?

No, coating is used for two purposes.

One is to reduce reflexes on air-to-glass surfaces. The other is to tune the color transmission of the lens.

Nikon has been tuning their lenses so they have nearly the same transmission. Thus the images should show up the same color when you switch between lenses in a shooting session.

High quality coating will improve the contrast though.

Rendering is dependent on so many things. Generally speaking all aberrations will have an impact.

 

[Benjamin Kanarek]

I'm testing both the 85mm 1.4g and 1.8g on my D7000. I've only shot a few images so far and will do much more comparison to help me determine which I will keep. That will include testing for flare resistance.

But so far, the images look slightly different where the 1.4g is slightly more exposed / brighter...but otherwise, from 1.8 and up, the images look pretty much the same to me. I know everyone says that the 1.8 is amazing and probably delivers 95% of the performance at 1/3 of the price, but I wasn't fully expecting that to be true.

For those that have shot with both is this what you noticed as well?

Thanks!

I would go as far as to say 100% of the performance minus not being able to shoot at f1.4 with the f1.8.

 

[lazy lightning]

I purchased both the 85 1.4G and the 85 1.8G at the same time. My goal was to see if I could find a visible upgrade to my 85 1.4D which is a lens/focal length I use the most in my work. Color accuracy, clarity, bokeh and how the lens renders is of utmost importance to me in outdoor portraiture. After extensive testing the clear winner was the 85 1.4G. That is saying a lot since my 85 1.4D was an excellent lens. The 85 1.8G as has been said many times over is a "soulless lens" that lacks any character, has average bokeh, and a cold color cast inherit to it. Sure it's sharp, but in no way sharper then my 85 1.4G. Maybe it's my copy but my 1.4G is incredibly sharp from wide open.

My ranking is the 85 1.4G, followed closely by the 85 1.4D and trailing these two by a wide margin is the 85 1.8G.

 

[gatorowl]

Would this rendering be the result of the Nano-Crystal cating, or do you think something else is at work?

No, coating is used for two purposes.

One is to reduce reflexes on air-to-glass surfaces. The other is to tune the color transmission of the lens.

Nikon has been tuning their lenses so they have nearly the same transmission. Thus the images should show up the same color when you switch between lenses in a shooting session.

High quality coating will improve the contrast though.

Rendering is dependent on so many things. Generally speaking all aberrations will have an impact.

Thanks for that explanation of the purpose of nano-coating. So many on these forums mistakenly attribute better IQ (better colors) to this coating when, as you say, the coating can improve contrast and reduce flare and ghosting but has little actual impact on colors.

Frankly, I have been amazed at how similar the colors are between modern G lenses regardless of coating. Even the frequently maligned 24-85 VR kit lens is able to produces colors similar to more expensive lenses with nano-coating. I see little difference between 24-85 and 24-120 output. I do see differences with the 24-70 but not in colors. The differences I observe are likely due to superior contrast.

As between the two 85mm, any differences are small and likely due the lens design rather than coatings.

 

[YRUNVS]

Would this rendering be the result of the Nano-Crystal cating, or do you think something else is at work?

No, coating is used for two purposes.

One is to reduce reflexes on air-to-glass surfaces. The other is to tune the color transmission of the lens.

Nikon has been tuning their lenses so they have nearly the same transmission. Thus the images should show up the same color when you switch between lenses in a shooting session.

High quality coating will improve the contrast though.

Rendering is dependent on so many things. Generally speaking all aberrations will have an impact.

May depend on how people are using the term rendering. Bold is one of the terms people often use when describing how this lens renders compared to the 1.8G. Increased micro-contrast compared to the 1.8G may be one of the things which contributes to this impression of boldness. If the coatings contribute to this micro contrast then the coatings may be in part responsible for this difference in rendering. I have no background in optical engineering so I may be completely off the mark.

 

[anotherMike]

I think the coatings DO play some part in the overall color aspect of a lens, but a very minor one. And when you have better contrast/flare resistance/less veiling flare, colors will seem bolder. My guess is the glass types might have more to do with it.

One pretty obvious example is to shoot the same scene with the 14-24/2.8 and the 24/1.4G (which I have done back when I owned the 14-24); both N coated lenses, but the 14-24 is distinctly cooler in tone and highlights are imparted with a sort of blue muting that the 24/1.4G does not have by comparison. However, outside of the 14-24, I tend to agree with you in that most of the N coated lenses have a similar color signature.

-m

 

[RBudding]

This was taken with an old manual focus 105mm Nikkor from about 1970. You don't have to spend a lot of money on lenses. I spent less than $200 on it, but I do have to go through the small effort of manually focusing the lens.

 

[Leonard Migliore]

This was taken with an old manual focus 105mm Nikkor from about 1970. You don't have to spend a lot of money on lenses. I spent less than $200 on it, but I do have to go through the small effort of manually focusing the lens.

But that's a 105 f/2.5, which is a deservedly legendary lens. That's what I use for portraits, too. I got the 85mm f/1.8 so I could have an autofocus portrait lens but the 105 is just... better.

 

[wasserball]

Better bekoh? Between the two f1.4 and f1.8 lens, you have no way of telling which lens the photos came from unless you line them up side by side, and to 99.999% of the people they could care less of the differences.

 

[Shotcents]

Better bekoh? Between the two f1.4 and f1.8 lens, you have no way of telling which lens the photos came from unless you line them up side by side, and to 99.999% of the people they could care less of the differences.

I had both lenses to try. I've got just enough snob in me to admit I WANTED the 1.4 to "win" as I previously owned the AF-D version.

The ONLY advantage that truly mattered was the 1.4 bokeh was superior. At 1.8 and above it was so close no one could tell them apart looking at a good print.

Pixel peeping: The 1.8 was a hair sharper in the center. The 1.4 had CA and false color wide open that bugged me at the price point. The 1.8 was insanely sharp wide open with virtually no CA. The 1.4 was also SLIGHTLY slower to focus and weighed more. It was not a tough choice and the 1.4 was sent back.

I think Nikon has gone all the way with the design of the 1.8. It's a professional hunk of glass. But there's still work to be done with the 1.4. If Sigma can create a 85mm 1.4 ART lens on par with the 35mm ART they will do very well with it.

Robert