Nikon 85mm 1.4D

[shutterlight]

How do people feel about the Nikon 85mm 1.4D? My lens range stops at 50mm, not counting a non-AI 200mm f4 I have. The 85/1.4G is both too expensive for me and also doesn't work with my film cameras (FE/FM), so it's out. I feel like the out of focus areas on the 85/1.4D are somewhat nicer, but that's obviously very subjective.

Any thoughts on the 85/1.4D would be helpful and appreciated.

 

[film_man]

It is an amazing lens. I had two copies of it over the years, used it with the F5, F100, F3 and FM2n. It is sharp at all apertures, wide open there is a tiny bit of glowing depending on light, you will also get some purple fringing on very high contrast areas but that is more an issue with digital. It is still there on film but film makes it look nicer.

I would highly recommend it, it balances well even on the smaller manual bodies and manual focus is very nice too, ok not like an AIS lens but still very good and much better than AFS lenses. The only issue I had was that wide open manual focusing can be a bit tricky, I found myself stopping it down to f/1.8-2 just to be safe which is still a fantastic look and eliminates the slight haze/glow. On the F5 I had no issues using it wide open, it just nailed focus.

Just get it, you'll love it and in the unlikely event you don't you can sell it for no loss. The only reason I sold mine was that I wanted to try a 58/1.4G (which is another amazing lens and is a bit easier to work with indoors due to the shorter focal length).

 

[narsuitus]

Back in 1969, the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 was the second lens I purchased for my Nikon F SLR. The 35mm f/2 was the first lens I purchased. I primarily used both lenses for reportage. I also used the 85mm for portraits. After a few years, I had both lenses AI converted by Nikon.

The two lenses served me well for decades. In 2002, I replaced the 35mm f/2 with the faster 35mm f/1.4 Nikkor. In 2017, I replaced the 85mm f/1.8 manual focus with the faster 85mm f/1.4D auto focus.

Thus far, the 85mm f/1.4D has been a great lens. It was well worth paying the price for the faster glass and the auto focus. The larger physical size, the greater weight, and the larger filter size (77mm vs. 52mm) were only minor inconveniences.



85mm f/1.4D by Narsuitus, on Flickr

 

[ChristopherCoy]

The 85 1.4 isn't nicknamed "the cream machine" for nothing. And it doesn't demand a $400-$500 price tag on the used market for no reason either. It's highly regarded as one of, if not the best portrait lenses in the Nikon lineup. Using one was a complete tease, I've been lusting for one for a while now.

 

[gone]

The 85 1.4 is the one Nikon lens I considered getting before I bought an Elmarit R 90 2.8 and put an adapter on it. Very different lens than the H non AI 85 1.8, a lens I found to be not suited for portraits. At 70, I can still get by w/ manual focus (and on the Leicaflex, I could probably shoot in the dark w/ that viewfinder!). Oh no, this is going to be one of those threads where I go right to eBay and start checking prices.

$450 seems to be the starting point on the auction site, which is not that bad. If the images are as good as everyone says, that's a fair price. Probably it's closest competitor would be an R 90 Summicron, and those are getting pricier all the time. Certainly many hundreds of dollars more than the Nikon, and it would need to be used in stop down form.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I prefer the classic 85/1.4 Ais, the no-nonsense version. No auto focus, but much more solidly built than the later tweaks like the D or G. Close-range corrected too. It was the original "cream machine" and has its own particular kind of out-of-focus rendering a little bit different from Nikon's other two fast 85's. It stayed in production for a very long time for a good reason.

 

[ChristopherCoy]

I prefer the classic 85/1.4 Ais, the no-nonsense version. No auto focus, but much more solidly built than the later tweaks like the D or G. Close-range corrected too. It's was the original "cream machine" and has its own particular kind of-of-focus rendering a little bit different from Nikon's other two fast 85's, and stayed in production for a very long time for a good reason.

The benefit that the D offers, for me at least, is that I can use it either on the F2, or on the F5 with auto focus.

However, I was unaware that there was an Ais 1.4 version.

ETA: Looks like the Ais and the D versions are relatively in the same price range.

 

[Horatio]

How about the 85 f2 AI?

 

[DREW WILEY]

The 85/2 Ai has a completely different personality, image-wise (definitely not a "cream machine"). And it's not in the same league as its big brother in terms of the same high level of optical correction either. But some people like it for its significantly more compact size and lower weight in this focal length, and for the fact that its traditional build quality is better than the plasticky autofocus 85/1.8 D version.

 

[Christiaan Phleger]

There was a time when I knew several wedding photographers who paid full retail markup to have more than one of the D. I've had a hankering for one, and thankfully Nikon made a reasonable amount so I'm pretty sure I'll pick one up at some point. In that wedding era I stuck with the Ai-s 1.4 having a youthful aversion to AF ha. Now a 85mm 1.8G is more likely; I've been appreciating the lighter weight of the G lenses on the newer bodies that I find to be using lately. I am finding a curiously pleasant work around when using a G lens on my F4 for black and white. I did use the Z 85mm 1.8 and it is a gem.

 

[Arthurwg]

I'm only using two lenses on my Nikon (F6 now), a 24mm F2.8 and the 85mm F1.4, both D lenses. I've had both from new and they are still perfect after several decades of use. D lenses have a much better build quality than the G series. They will last a lifetime and produce great pictures.

 

[Joseph Bell]

I recently rented the 85mm 1.4D for a week and found it delightful in all ways. The lens handles very well, and better still - the images are dreamy at 1.4 and sharp as can be stopped down. The colors and contrast were always lovely. I highly recommend this lens!

 

[Roger Thoms]

Just picked up a 85mm f1.4D Nikkor AF, lol, went to buy a 28-70mm f2.8D and walked away with the 85mm instead. Kind of a bait and switch, but I think in a good way, got to love Craigslist. Now that I have the lens I’m researching it, I know, you’re supposed to research first. One thing for sure the 85/1.4 is an impressive piece of glass and I’m excited to add it to my arsenal.

Roger

 

[Moose22]

Just picked up a 85mm f1.4D Nikkor AF, lol, went to buy a 28-70mm f2.8D and walked away with the 85mm instead. Kind of a bait and switch, but I think in a good way, got to love Craigslist. Now that I have the lens I’m researching it, I know, you’re supposed to research first. One thing for sure the 85/1.4 is an impressive piece of glass and I’m excited to ad it to my arsenal.

Roger

It's awesome. Research done.

I use the crap out of my 85mm D lenses. The 1.4 is a low light monster. It is just enough reach to do "normal" portraits without getting in someone's face, works well with all my cameras (AF or not) and handles great even manual focused, and the center is sharp even wide open. I have a 1.8 too, a touch smaller and just about perfect in most ways.

If you find a use for it, you'll love it. Most people do.

 

[bdial]

How about the 85 f2 AI?

I have a 1.8D, I like it quite a lot, fast enough for my needs, and very sharp. I have no experience with the 1.4, so I can’t make a good comparison.

 

[Arthurwg]

BTW, I think I paid $1200.00 new for mine 30 years ago. I'd say it's a great bargain at used prices today.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

How do people feel about the Nikon 85mm 1.4D? My lens range stops at 50mm, not counting a non-AI 200mm f4 I have. The 85/1.4G is both too expensive for me and also doesn't work with my film cameras (FE/FM), so it's out. I feel like the out of focus areas on the 85/1.4D are somewhat nicer, but that's obviously very subjective.

Any thoughts on the 85/1.4D would be helpful and appreciated.

I never bought this lens because I won the 1.8 version of the 85 mm lens and don't see the 1.4 a any significant advantage just dividing the price.

 

[gone]

It's a good lens. I had one years ago on an F4, the bokeh is nicer than most (nearly all) Nikon Lenses. It wasn't what I would call special, so I put an R Leica 90 2.8 Elmarit on my Nikon years ago and never looked back. It's better in every way, and the Summicron is even more compact and has creamier bokeh than the Elmarit, but mostly because it goes to F2 vs the F2.8 on my Elm.

The Leicas need to be shot in stop down metering mode w/ the adapter, but on cameras w/ AE and AE lock, you can get a shot off very quickly. The Nikon 85 2 is also good, but the sample variation is quite large. A good one will give you shots as sharp as the Leica, but it doesn't have that 3-D pop, it can't focus as close, and the bokeh gets these octagon highlights in the background in many situations.

 

[ColdEye]

I love my 85 1.4d. One of the few lenses I know is a keeper. It focus fast too for an older design.

 

[drmoss_ca]

And it's very sharp, too. Self-portrait with flash and cable release:



Post_BMT_7 by chrism229, on Flickr

If you can stand the ugly mug, the full res photo on Flickr is 4000 pixels a side and has been cropped square. Detail is such that it's like a digital photo (and I find that undesirable, but since most of my F6 photos are handheld they aren't going to be so surgically sharp!)

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Nice photo. I like the contrast and the subtle shadows on the face.

 

[RalphLambrecht]

How do people feel about the Nikon 85mm 1.4D? My lens range stops at 50mm, not counting a non-AI 200mm f4 I have. The 85/1.4G is both too expensive for me and also doesn't work with my film cameras (FE/FM), so it's out. I feel like the out of focus areas on the 85/1.4D are somewhat nicer, but that's obviously very subjective.

Any thoughts on the 85/1.4D would be helpful and appreciated.

I find that the 85/1.8 gives me all I need and is much more affordable.

 

[MattKing]

I like an 85mm used with 35mm film. The lens used in drmoss' example is clearly decent.
But it is mostly the lighting and the subject that makes the result look "sharp".

 

[Roger Thoms]

I like an 85mm used with 35mm film. The lens used in drmoss' example is clearly decent.
But it is mostly the lighting and the subject that makes the result look "sharp".

Decent is not much of an endorsement, what Nikon 85 do you think really shines? Just curious as my only experience is with the 1.4D which so far I'm thinking is an awesome lens and quite sharp with very nice OOF areas. I will qualify that statement with the fact that most of my Nikkor experience is with zooms and my AF 24mm f2.8.

Roger

 

[MattKing]

I'm not the one to look to for Nikon opinions - for whatever the reason, the only Nikon product I've ever used is a single enlarging lens.
My comment was about the conclusion that one might reach from drmoss' example - it is the light and the subject that gives that example its appearance. The lens merely didn't get in the way. Thus my attempt to use a term - decent - that was relatively value free.