The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

85/1.4...the debate.

D&A

Well-known member
It's hard to define which of all these lenses is best, unless you charaterize a well defined set of parameters for an intended use. I've shot as many have here with each one of these lenses under a wide variety of circumstances and I can make a case for each as being the one I'd select for a specific application.

Dave (D&A)
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
My idea when I went to Nikon was make 2 lens kits one for the commercial type work and one for the real image type stuff. I'm still working on it but like my Tammy 24-70 is purely the PR lens and travel . It does not get in the bag on landscape and lighting type work. Maybe as a backup but not primary. My 85 does double duty fashion 3/4 and full length and it will go on a landscape shoot as well along with all my Zeiss glass which I consider all that landscape and real image lenses. Being a commercial shooter that does not exactly pick a certain area but more a generalist per say makes this harder as I need a pretty good assortment both AF fast work and than live view work on the image work. For instance I can't just buy 3 zooms and call it a day. So folks really need to think carefully otherwise your kit maybe 12 deep. I'm not there yet. LOL
 

D&A

Well-known member
:ROTFL:Guy Wrote--->>>"My idea when I went to Nikon was make 2 lens kits one for the commercial type work and one for the real image type stuff"<<<

You mean your commercial type work isn't comprised of real images? Do your clients know that? :ROTFL: (I simply couldn't resist! :) )

Your points though are well taken! Lens selection is more often than not based on what factors we need or want incorporated in our images or particular attributes that are desirable to be reached. It can be very subjective at times. Additionally for a variety of reasons, whether financial, travel wise or a host of other considerations, what we purchase and use may be dictated by sets of circumstamces we're faced with.

In these cases, its important to know the strengths and weaknesses of each lens on a particular camera system/body, especially in how its going to be used. Just knowing this goes a long way in extracting the most from a given lens. It's amazing how much image quality can be improved from a given lens, even an average performing one, simply by playing to its strengths and minimizing it's weaknesses.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

Alon

Not Available
In case you mean by "commercial" work as in Portraits.

Then the 85/1.4G stays in the cabinet and the ZF2 is used for posed shots.

In case you mean fashion portraits i.e. fast moving, then the 85/1.4G is used.

In case you mean street whatever stuff, then it is the 85/1.8G.

In case you mean long portraits, then it is the 135D.

In case you want a long hernia, then it is the 200/2 VR I or II.

In case you mean artsy fartsy, then the Lux 80 comes out.

In case you mean super duper sharp shots, it is the 90AA.

In case you mean swirly Bokeh, it is the 75/1.5

And I still cannot sort out what to do with the Contax 85/1.2 besides looking at it?
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Normal no but sometimes its more about a person and product as well. Depends really on what your doing.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Lars,

In my experiences with multiple samples of each, the 105 DC had the edge in shapness accross the frame. These comparative results were as a result on testing with various Nikon 12MP ful frame cameras.

Dave (D&A)
 

Lars

Active member
Lars,

In my experiences with multiple samples of each, the 105 DC had the edge in shapness accross the frame. These comparative results were as a result on testing with various Nikon 12MP ful frame cameras.

Dave (D&A)
I suspected that. While my 135 DC seems to resolve enough wide open at DC 0 setting, it doesn't really impress it terms of microcontrast. Perhaps the design has some residual softness even at neutral setting.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Hi LArs,

I explained in detail both here on Getdpi and elsewhere, that there were many 105 DC and 135 DC lenses where "null" or neutral (without any DC effect) wasn't set at at "0" but generally a couple of settings to the negative or positive direction from of "0" (I forgot which direction). At these settings the lens is actually sharpest and a definite difference can be senn vs. setting it at "0". Try a series of shot on a tripod, starting at -2, then -1, 0, +1 and +2, to nail down where the image is sharpest. Don't be surprised if its not at "0". Many of these lenses weren't. Some people send theirs back to Nikon, to be calibrated. Of course some actually like the look of slight defocus applied to their image with this lens, as opposed to shooting at the "null setting".

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:

ymc226

New member
IMHO...

It's pretty clear by the MTF's: While the 1.4G and 1.4D are pretty close on center performance with the G just slightly superior, the 1.4G is far superior on edge and corner performance as compared to the D version. What this means is perhaps that for portraits only, the softer-edged D version may be desirable -- and again I'd argue that you can't beat the 105DC for portraits. However, as an all-around imaging lens with the latest Nikon digital bodies, I don't think it's even a discussion as to which 85/1.4 is the "best" lens; the G wins hands-down.
Jack,

Do you mean that the 105DC performs better for portraits when using its DC function wide open or is it better wide open without using the DC compared to the 85/1.4 D?
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
Getting back to the original OP's question...
The 85mm 1.4 G is probably one of Nikon's best designs. It rates pretty high up there in the MTF charts at 5.6 and the OOF areas are quite good too. The AF is fast with the newer nano coated optics, better designed for todays sensors. Take into consideration what you'd get for you 1.4G, used, to a 1.4D new, and if the savings are worth it. Personally, I'd keep the 85mm 1.4g. I sold my 105 DC because of better AF and contrast. For portraits, my next choice would be the 200mm F.2.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
The 200 f 2 is just the most gorgeous lens. Loved it for portraits.

I need to rob the bank again and get it again. Maybe next years expense. I miss it too much. Problem is nothing like it in that range.
 

D&A

Well-known member
The 200 f 2 is just the most gorgeous lens. Loved it for portraits.

I need to rob the bank again and get it again. Maybe next years expense. I miss it too much. Problem is nothing like it in that range.
+1! Little else needs to be said!

Dave (D&A)
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Truly no joke. I think the absolute best lens they make. I know they have outstanding longer lenses but this lens has a look that can't be matched.
 

dmeckert

New member
Getting back to the original OP's question...
The 85mm 1.4 G is probably one of Nikon's best designs. It rates pretty high up there in the MTF charts at 5.6 and the OOF areas are quite good too. The AF is fast with the newer nano coated optics, better designed for todays sensors. Take into consideration what you'd get for you 1.4G, used, to a 1.4D new, and if the savings are worth it. Personally, I'd keep the 85mm 1.4g. I sold my 105 DC because of better AF and contrast. For portraits, my next choice would be the 200mm F.2.
i was figuring i'd grab the D used, and pocket about $600 all said and done. the new price is ridic. i figured i'd see people's opinions and decide if $600 was worth what i'd be sacrificing. i'm starting to really think it's not. the G really is fantastic. i've just been feeling cheap lately. haha.

i'd love a 200/2...but that price tag. ayayay!
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
i was figuring i'd grab the D used, and pocket about $600 all said and done. the new price is ridic. i figured i'd see people's opinions and decide if $600 was worth what i'd be sacrificing. i'm starting to really think it's not. the G really is fantastic. i've just been feeling cheap lately. haha.

i'd love a 200/2...but that price tag. ayayay!
Me too, on the 200 f/2!

One man's cheap is another man's thrifty, nothing wrong with that!
 
Top