85mm 1.4 users out there..?

Colin Corneau · Apr 14, 2009

I'm contemplating, as part of a shift towards primes, getting the f/1.4 version of this lens.

However, I have a line (several, actually) on the 1.8 version. It seems almost too trifling to bother, but two factors are giving me pause here:
the slightly faster shutter speeds in really low-light situations (hey, YOU try shooting basketball at EI3200 and making 1/200th work)
the sweet, sweet bokeh.

Does anyone shoot with this lens, or have experience in it? Is that little-bit-extra worth it?
Are the portraits you shoot with it that little bit more outstanding because of it?

Any advice gratefully accepted, however tax slips will not be distributed. 8^)

Anscojohn · Apr 14, 2009

You do not say what lenses you are contemplating.

Tom Duffy · Apr 14, 2009

Colin,
It's not clear which brand you're speaking of, though probably Nikon?

ajuk · Apr 14, 2009

I wish I did have one!

Colin Corneau · Apr 14, 2009

Whoops, sorry -- yes, Nikon.

I may use it for digital for my work, but let's face it...my main motivation is the 15+ rolls of Kodachrome taunting me in my cooler. Be a sweet lens the next time I travel.

chriscrawfordphoto · Apr 14, 2009

I have the Nikon 85mm f1.8 and it is an extremely sharp lens and it has a lot better bokeh then most Nikon lenses. I also have an Olympus 85mm f2 and the Nikon is sharper.

Mick Fagan · Apr 14, 2009

The 85 1.4 Nikkor is quite a brilliant lens, literally brilliant when looking through the viewfinder. Mine is an Ais version, manual focus.

I used both the 1.8 and the 1.4 versions, there is a world of difference with sharpness between the two. I don't mean apparent sharpness, I mean real sharpness. I then went looking for the 1.4 version and once I had one and I understood how to use it, I will not be in a hurry to let it go, if ever.

The slower version is soft, even looking through the viewfinder you can see the difference.

I find using the 85 1.4 for shooting as you describe, pretty much perfect with this lens. When further distance is required I switch to the 180 2.8 this is a very nice performer as well.

To round out the range, the 105 2.5 is the best Nikkor lens I own and have the pleasure of using.

Mick.

Anscojohn · Apr 14, 2009

Colin Corneau said:
Whoops, sorry -- yes, Nikon.

I may use it for digital for my work, but let's face it...my main motivation is the 15+ rolls of Kodachrome taunting me in my cooler. Be a sweet lens the next time I travel.

*******
Back when Nikon F was the new kid on the block, the 85 1.8 did not have a stellar reputation. The 105 2.5 was "it."

GraemeMitchell · Apr 14, 2009

Imo it is one of the best lenses in the Nikon line-up. I use mine enough that I've been thinking of picking up another one, and if I do I would probably get the older manual design (i have the AF one now), b/c dof is so slight with it, I almost always use manual focus on it, and the older non-AF lenses tend to be more pleasurable to focus by hand.

I did pick up a 105 f/2 DC b/c I heard good things about it, but I don't think it compares to the 85mm.

Colin Corneau · Apr 14, 2009

I think the focal length is of interest for me, although I have (years ago) owned the 105 2.5 -- seem to recall hearing it's one of the sharpest lenses ever made?

That extra little bit of f-stop could well make a difference in lowlight, but I'm most curious about the 1.4's capacity in portraits. What can I say, I've used the 50mm 1.2 and was amazed by it.

Mick Fagan · Apr 15, 2009

Check out my gallery, I have 4 or 5 portraits with the 85 1.4 and about the same with the 105 2.5.

Basically you can see the difference in the out of focus background. Each lens has a different perspective and/or compression effect as well

The 85 is possibly best for a full bust shot or 3/4 length, whilst the 105 is positively brilliant for a tight head shot.

Between them they leave most of the Nikkor range for dust, regarding portraits.

I have used the 50 1.4 for portrait work and found it lacking, cannot put my finger on it, but I haven't bought one and really don't see the need for one.

Mick.

Java · Apr 15, 2009

I use a few Nikon primes and have a 85mm f1.4 AIs, I think it is brillent. I use it on my FA and FM2n (both of which do not have the brightest of view finders) and the amount of light it gathers I think is amazing. Really sharp as well.

Don't hink you would be disapointed if you got one. Sorry can't compare to the f1.8 version as I don't have one.

Stan160 · Apr 15, 2009

I haven't used any variant of the Nikon 85's, but I assume the 1.4 is a lot larger and heavier than the 1.8. If so, this may be worth considering, particularly for low-light and hand held work. The extra speed of the 1.4 might be nullified by it being harder to hold steady, you might even find it easier to get sharper results with the lighter 1.8.

Ian

Mick Fagan · Apr 15, 2009

Ian has a point about the weight and size. The 1.4 is quite large in the barrel department, but that is offset by the silky smooth focusing capability, and I mean silky smooth like a hot knife in butter. At the same time focus doesn't shift, unless you move it.

I use mine mainly on F3 bodies, if I'm going to be using one for a really extended period of time, I'll put the motor drive on. I know this adds even more weight, but the balance factor is perfect.

Plus with a drive added your left hand is lower down and therefore the focusing ring grip falls perfectly into your lower palm and fingers.

Without a drive added the camera cannot sit flat on a bench with the lens attached, it sits facing upwards a bit. Meaning that without a drive your left hand is bent down slightly and I do know that this is a slightly awkward position to maintain for a few hours. Personal experience with that one.

When my FE2 motor drive worked, I nearly always attached the drive when using the 85 1.4 for this very balance reason.

I still wouldn't consider the 1.8 anywhere near the capabilities and razor sharpness of the 1.4 version though. If you are doing colour then you will be pleasantly surprised with the 1.4, it is a wonderful performer with colour film.

I would suggest the 85 f2 is possibly better than the 85 f1.8. The f2 version is earlier than the 1.4 I have and was manufactured in the late seventies through to the introduction in the early eighties of the 1.4 version.

The f1.8 version is a later version manufactured after the 1.4 and as far as I know is only available as an auto-focus unit. At least the 1.8 versions I have seen and used were auto-focus units, not particularly great on a manual focus camera, but certainly usable.

Mick.

Colin Corneau · Apr 15, 2009

I've seen a 1.8 version in MF. And I've hand-held a 300 2.8 down to 60th so...bit of experience on that one, too.

OK, now to find out what to sell in order to cover this latest caper!

DanielOB · Apr 15, 2009

Nikon F1.4/85 is an excelent lens (e.g. bokeh,...) . Long to talk about its qualities, but to make long short, it is class of Leica F1.4/80.
But if you intend to use it with digital camera only I would not invest in it, stay with F1.8.

www.DanielOB.com

Chaplain Jeff · Apr 16, 2009

Hello,

I have found that in this range on my Nikons, I prefer the Kiron 90mm, f/2.5 lens. It sounds as if you're wanting something faster. Is there a reason you want / need the extra half stop?

The Kiron will give you a look that is absolutely fabulous and quite unlike the "scientifically sharp" look the Nikkor will give. Much preferable for portraits.

kavandje · Apr 16, 2009

I'm getting a stonking deal on a Carl Zeiss Planar T* 1,4/85 ZF. While it's initially going to be put on my electronic camera (D700), I am keeping my eye open for an older mechanical Nikon, on which it will also work. Can't wait.

Colin Corneau · Apr 17, 2009

Zeiss lens? Great stuff! Hard to beat that.

It looks like I'll get pretty close on trade-in stuff to be able to go for the new Nikkor 85 1.4...and, I guess it's just the years of newspaper work talking but faster is always better.

Hamster · Apr 23, 2009

Did anyone try this new inexpensive Korean 85/1,4? I think it is called the Samyang. Available in F/EF/K mount, and under 400US.

I can get it from a shop nearby and its cheapness is tempting.

Seem a lot of dSLR forums have been getting excited about it. I do wonder how it performs with Kodachrome...

Rob Skeoch · Apr 24, 2009

I had the Nikon 85mm F1.8 AF.... not that impressed.... now I have the Zeiss 85 F1.4 AF on Sony... I like it .... great bokeh.... I agree with those post regarding the old Nikon 105mm F2.5.... it was one of my all-time favorite lenses. Over-all I prefer the 85mm F1.4.
-Rob

nicefor88 · May 2, 2009

I tend to agree with Mick.
I used the 85 f1.4 for some time but eventually sold it because of the weight and also to finance a 80-200 f2.8
The 85 f2 that I owned 20 years ago was excellent but, because of my FE's rather "not-so-clear" focusing scree (you know acrylic!), I emptied my bank account to treat myself to the f1.4
Then, I got a F3 with a much brighter focusing screen and the 85 f1.4 lost some of its appeal and raison d'être...
If you shoot a lot in low light and like portrait as well and... have the cash then buy the f1.4 you won't regret it!
The 105 f2.5 is a short telelens I would recomment to anyone. A truly great lens.

85mm 1.4 users out there..?

Advertiser

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency