85mm f1.8 AF vs 85mm f1.4 AF (nikon)

Had the 1.4 a while back but foolishly sold it! Definitely save for the 1.4, and I'd imagine some people will be upgrading to the 1.4G so there could be some s/h up for grabs.
 
Remember reading a comparison, cant remember where, may have been here or Ken Rockwell, or who knows!!!

Taking aside the 1.4/1.8 part, there is not a huge difference, I think at some apertures the 1.8 seemed better, at the majority though the 1.4 was. To be fair, this was pixel peeping at its best! Everyone agrees bokeh is better on 1.4.

The difference in price is proportional to the 50mm 1.4/1.8 lens. Had both of these, and the 1.4 is a better lens, but worth the difference... if money was tight would rather have the 1.8 and say a flash than just the 1.4. From what I have read, same applies to the 85mm. Yes it is better, but £500+ better????
 
There is a reason the 1.4 is such a legendary lens. It is £500 better then the 1.8 and then some. There are some issues of sharpness in the corners.

I don't think they'll be many coming up second hand, they seem to be like hens teeth at the moment
 
1.4 is much better built as well - all round just better! Keep saving.
 
MindofMel said:
found a decent review here peeps: http://www.nikonjin.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=272

major differece between the two is

f1.8 - better corner sharpness through the range
f1.4 - faster and has slightly creamier bokeh

im going to et the f1.8!
Click to expand...


All well and good, but you've got to look at the intended use for this lens - corner sharpness is great to have, but since I use this lens exclusively for portraiture and I've never put one of my subjects out there, it's irrelelevent. The 'creamier' bokeh is important though as it effects the overall look of the image.

If you're using the lens for technical work, get the 1.8...if it's for portraits and people, get the 1.4.

As an aside, the new Sigma 85mm f/1.4 is about as good as the old Nikkor 85 f/1.4 so maybe worth a look (and it's £1,000 cheaper than the new Nikkor and about the same as a 2nd-hand 'old' Nikkor).
A couple here already have them and though the dreaded Sigma QC gremlin seems to have struck again, it seems like a winner if you get a good example...
 
Several good points Arkady - the 1.4 would be what I would get funds allowing me to do anything - however based on that review and the lil play I had today in Jacobs the 1.8 isn't £500 less than the 1.4. In many respects it's as good, and the bokeh is nice as hell. I can live without the extra creaminess and put the other £500 towards a new macbook pro! :P

I'm trying to avoid thirty party lenses right now as I had a bad experience trying to get hold of a decent sigma 50-150 2.8
 
I think the 1.4 is such a total legendary lens it will hold it's value far better than the 1.8. I put mine on ebay (a moment of madness I know) and actually got more than I paid new (got it new in Hong Kong so a bit cheaper)!
 
i had both i dont think you would be disapointed with the f1.8 unless your in very dark places.i try to shoot at least 1.8 anyway.
that said the 1.4 just feels so right.
 
I own both and I have not used the 1.8 much at all, It will be going on the bay very soon. I think there is a clear difference between the two lenses. You get what you pay for I'm afraid. If you don't make money from photography then you should get the 1.8 it's a great lens, the blur is slightly harsher than the 1.4 but prob sharper to be honest.

Two things make 1.4 better IMO
1. Creamy bokeh
2. Build quality

£500 difference is half a mac book pro;)
 
Sticky said:
I own both and I have not used the 1.8 much at all, It will be going on the bay very soon. I think there is a clear difference between the two lenses. You get what you pay for I'm afraid. If you don't make money from photography then you should get the 1.8 it's a great lens, the blur is slightly harsher than the 1.4 but prob sharper to be honest.

Two things make 1.4 better IMO
1. Creamy bokeh
2. Build quality

£500 difference is half a mac book pro;)
Click to expand...

That's my thinking... £700 on one element of a hobby... or £200 and a nice addition to my hobby and a laptop..

What would you take for the f1.8?
 
Last edited:
I was in your shoes a couple of months ago, Mel.

I wanted to have something that was both 'fast' and longer than 50mm available in my camera bag, for those times when I wasn't carrying either the (quite large) 70-200mm f/2.8 or the 300mm f/4. Intended use was to be a mixture of walk-about/still life/landscape, with the option to use it for formal portraiture too.

I read all the reviews and looked at all the threads about the two, as well as looking at countless example images.

What I learnt from all that was that the f/1.4 (or "The Cream Machine", as some like to call it :D), is significantly soft in the corners when used wide open, but is still pretty sharp in the middle and has a bokeh quality that is far smoother than the f/1.8. The f/1.8, on the other hand, was pretty much sharp all over with quite acceptable (to me) bokeh.

In my case, I thought about the kind of pictures I take and what's my priorities are with regard to image quality :|. Lately, I've really gone off using the biggest apertures on all of my lenses and much prefer making portraits at f/4 or below. Most of the time, I am shooting against a plain background anyway, so bokeh is a non-issue, whereas sharpness is paramount. For landscape shots (yes, 85mm is sometimes just the right FOV for a particular landscape :p), I also want edge to edge sharpness and have no desire to venture above f/8.

So, before even getting into the debate about price, size etc., I already knew that I wanted the 85mm f/1.8. I bought one new for 310GBP and ... it's absolutely what I expected it to be and was money well spent :thumbs:.

However :naughty:, I looked at your website the other day, Mel, and saw a lot of outdoor portraits (with busy backgrounds) and examples of extreme shallow DOF on still life/detail shots.

I have to be honest with you and say that, for the type of photography you are doing (especially the weddings :thumbs:), the 85mm f/1.4 would almost certainly give you better results than the f/1.8. You shoot in a way that calls for smooth bokeh and flattering skin tones/textures. If I was in your shoes, I'd use the money to get the 85mm f/1.4, or check out the Sigma version, which (if you get a good one :naughty:) is very impressive indeed.

Sorry, I know that won't have helped your decision much :D.
 
Last edited:
Naboo32 said:
I was in your shoes a couple of months ago, Mel.

I wanted to have something that was both 'fast' and longer than 50mm available in my camera bag, for those times when I wasn't carrying either the (quite large) 70-200mm f/2.8 or the 300mm f/4. Intended use was to be a mixture of walk-about/still life/landscape, with the option to use it for formal portraiture too.

I read all the reviews and looked at all the threads about the two, as well as looking at countless example images.

What I learnt from all that was that the f/1.4 (or "The Cream Machine", as some like to call it :D), is significantly soft in the corners when used wide open, but is still pretty sharp in the middle and has a bokeh quality that is far smoother than the f/1.8. The f/1.8, on the other hand, was pretty much sharp all over with quite acceptable (to me) bokeh.

In my case, I thought about the kind of pictures I take and what's my priorities are with regard to image quality :|. Lately, I've really gone off using the biggest apertures on all of my lenses and much prefer making portraits at f/4 or below. Most of the time, I am shooting against a plain background anyway, so bokeh is a non-issue, whereas sharpness is paramount. For landscape shots (yes, 85mm is sometimes just the right FOV for a particular landscape :p), I also want edge to edge sharpness and have no desire to venture above f/8.

So, before even getting into the debate about price, size etc., I already knew that I wanted the 85mm f/1.8. I bought one new for 310GBP and ... it's absolutely what I expected it to be and was money well spent :thumbs:.

However :naughty:, I looked at your website the other day, Mel, and saw a lot of outdoor portraits (with busy backgrounds) and examples of extreme shallow DOF on still life/detail shots.

I have to be honest with you and say that, for the type of photography you are doing (especially the weddings :thumbs:), the 85mm f/1.4 would almost certainly give you better results than the f/1.8. You shoot in a way that calls for smooth bokeh and flattering skin tones/textures. If I was in your shoes, I'd use the money to get the 85mm f/1.4, or check out the Sigma version, which (if you get a good one :naughty:) is very impressive indeed.

Sorry, I know that won't have helped your decision much :D.
Click to expand...

Game, Set, Match

I decided to bide my time and save up for the 85mm f1.4 - Will keep myself occupied with the nifty fifty for now.
 
The 1.8 is pretty good - I've borrowed one and loved it a lot.

My suggestion would be to pick up the 1.8 now, try it, see if you get along with the concept of a 85mm prime and then flog it on for the 1.4 if the bug bites you. It might be that 85mm is too long/short for you - it does depend on what you shoot and how much space you have. You might think you know how it will perform, but I certainly can never get a real feel for the focal length until I've shot with it for a while.

The price of the 1.8 is pretty low (in relative terms) and its resale value won't be too beaten up by you having it for a while.

Thats my two rouble's worth for you.
 
Sticky said:
£500 difference is half a mac book pro;)
Click to expand...

....it's also 100% of a very good windows laptop or PC.... :D

If you're feeling very flush, go for the 1.4, but there's nothing wrong with the 1.8. The margin for error actually using it at 1.4 is minute...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top