Now the new one has 9 elements instead of 6 for the AF-D - hopefully they've improved the coatings even without nanocoating. No ED glass and no aspherics according to the Nikon website - though we all know a great lens doesn't necessarily need these things.
I can't see anyone jumping on this till the af speed is discussed in a review. Remember what happened with the 50 1.4G. I won't be selling my 85 1.8D unless this lens is amazing, and I can get a decent price for my 1.8D if I do decide to sell it. It also isn't a lens I use that much, as others have said, it doesn't really have that wow factor for me. I more often prefer to use 200 f2.8 if I have the space, than the 85 1.8D close up.
I'm expecting it to be in the vein of the 50 1.8 d to g upgrade. Hopefully it's a similar step with more improvement in focus speed. List seems to be about 20% more than the old one, so pending street prices and number of people switching, used D prices might not change.
yeah if their recent primes are anything to go by, this should be a winner. sold my 85/1.4D a few months ago in anticipation of replacing with this or the sigma 85. will wait to see how this goes.
I like my current AF 85/1.8D, but will buy this one if AF speed is faster, not that the speed of my lens is slow. All I need now is an upgrade of the 180/2.8D to AFS and I'm set.
With the capabilities of the D4, I would guess that the premium paid for 1.4 lenses would be better spent on the body. Just my thought, but I think the 1.8 will push a lot of those costly 1.4 lenses, especially Ds, on the market. I have no plans to depart with mine as I seldom use it since getting the Zeiss 100. But it makes a pretty paper weight and shoots great portraits when I'm inspired to use AF.
"Now the new one has 9 elements instead of 6 for the AF-D - hopefully they've improved the coatings even without nanocoating. No ED glass and no aspherics according to the Nikon website - though we all know a great lens doesn't necessarily need these things."
Not according to the website, it has 7 blades. I doubt the bokeh is any different than the previous one unless they reshaped the blades. But it will be nice if it is.
Carl Feather wrote:
With the capabilities of the D4, I would guess that the premium paid for 1.4 lenses would be better spent on the body. Just my thought, but I think the 1.8 will push a lot of those costly 1.4 lenses, especially Ds, on the market. .
It' the typical beginner's mistake to buy an extremely expensive camera and then throw a cheap consumer lens on it. The older "D" lenses are 20-25 yr. old design, and have pre-digital coatings. I've sold off my old "D" lenses, tried and passed on the newer consumer grade "G" lenses, and now only buy premium lenses such as Sigma f1.4. Would consider the latest Nikon f1.4 if they were better than the Sigma or Zeiss. Why go cheap on the most important thing--the lens?
Gregg Heckler wrote:
"Now the new one has 9 elements instead of 6 for the AF-D - hopefully they've improved the coatings even without nanocoating. No ED glass and no aspherics according to the Nikon website - though we all know a great lens doesn't necessarily need these things."
Not according to the website, it has 7 blades. I doubt the bokeh is any different than the previous one unless they reshaped the blades. But it will be nice if it is.
I was talking about lens elements, not blades.
AFS: 9 elements in 9 groups with 7 rounded blades
AF-D: 6 elements in 6 groups with 9 rounded blades
The blades only have an affect on bokeh when it's not shot wide open. Who knows what the wide open bokeh will be with the new optical design. Stopped down a bit you'll notice the difference in bokeh if there are bright point highlights in the out of focus areas. Rounding the blades will help a lot though.
Two23 wrote:
It' the typical beginner's mistake to buy an extremely expensive camera and then throw a cheap consumer lens on it. The older "D" lenses are 20-25 yr. old design, and have pre-digital coatings. I've sold off my old "D" lenses, tried and passed on the newer consumer grade "G" lenses, and now only buy premium lenses such as Sigma f1.4. Would consider the latest Nikon f1.4 if they were better than the Sigma or Zeiss. Why go cheap on the most important thing--the lens?
Kent in SD
That is really hogwash Kent. It's a case-by-case basis on lenses. Sometimes the body DOES make a larger difference to the photographer. The lens is but one element in the image-making chain and some of those old lenses have no peers today for the look and feel that they can portray.
