williamkazak wrote:
I am liking my 85 F1.8G. It compares very favorably to the 105 F2DC which I bought and sold three times.
I did that too with my 105DC as well as my 105 2.5 AIS! Every time my gf asks me why my answer would be: "It's complicated"...
SchnellerGT, as most indicated you can't go wrong with any of the G 1.8 trio lenses... IMO nothing matches them in value for money. Though I never used the Nikon 85 1.4G, I think it's worth the difference to those who need the difference which would be subtle differences in Bokeh, sharpness and other qualities that are only needed for critical work in addition to pro build quality. If those subtitles matter to you then you can rent both and decide yourself if it's worth the difference. For the price difference you can get the 28 1.8G, the 50 1.8G and a plane ticket to Yellowstone
I had it and sold it. I replaced it with Carl Zeiss 85mm f/1.4
Unless you need quick focus (action shots etc.) I'd get Zeiss. The glass is much better, IMHO.
Zeiss is also cheaper by at least $300 or more (depending what store you get it from).
People mention the difference in bokeh and other qualities of the final picture a lot, but rarely shutter speed. That is what I am more curious about. I have a 70-200VRII that I am falling in love with, but for really low light stuff when I am shooting people, F2.8 often doesn't get me the shutter speeds I need even at ISO 6400, and I don't push my D7K past that point. F1.4 is already 2/3 stop faster than F1.8, but then Ming's article I found really interesting regarding T stops, as he said that in addition to this, even when both are set at F1.8, the F1.4 lens is still getting faster shutter speeds because of less light reflection. So for photojournalists, concert shooters, etc...the 1.4G would be the much better lens when getting the fastest shutter speed possible is the name of the game right? I have read people post that the 2/3 of a stop difference isn't much in practicality, but with those 2/3s PLUS the T stop difference discussed by Ming, it sounds like there might be a significant difference when it comes to available light shooting in very challenging conditions.
Gregg B. wrote:
I had it and sold it. I replaced it with Carl Zeiss 85mm f/1.4
Unless you need quick focus (action shots etc.) I'd get Zeiss. The glass is much better, IMHO.
Zeiss is also cheaper by at least $300 or more (depending what store you get it from).
Having now owned (and shot) the 85 1.4D, 1.4G, 1.8G and Sigma 1.4, I find that I keep coming back to the 1.4D. While the new G lenses have brutal microcontrast, I personally feel that I love the 1.4D rendering the most. "Painterly" I think, is the word to describe it. The new G lenses render a very "modern look" to them, which I like for landscapes, but not for portraits.
i personally think that the bokeh in b looks much better, there is a huge difference to me.
you're talking about $1000 difference on a lens that will last you 10 years. if you're doing portraits professionally, i'd spend the money. if you're just doing it as a hobby or for fun, save the money and spend the $1000 on a trip somewhere.
