LMT1972 wrote:
Some serious vignetting on the D3x @ f1.4.
You're not kiddin. That is some pretty severe vignetting. Though for its intended purpose of portraiture, it's probably not going to be an issue. Especially since it's gone by f/4. Wide open it's just going to draw your eye into the frame, and if you're in a studio setting where the vignetting might be an issue you're probably shooting at f/4 or smaller anyways.
The vignetting is worse than on other lenses (and it's something of which I was not aware on any of them... learn something every day around here), but the new Nikkor does show quite a few redeeming qualities. Reading the entire review adds some depth and is interesting.
"On the edge of the frame it gives us the level of sharpness unparalleled with any 85 mm device tested by us so far..."
I love my 85/1.4 AF-D, but 85mm is a focal length I really like to use for more than just portraits/shallow DoF. I hope to pick up this new one and sell my AF-D.
And if the 35/1.4 AF-S materializes, I may end up shooting with the new Nikon prime holy trinity.
I wouldn't say I'm happy with the vignetting, it does look good in certain situations. It is a lens flaw though, and a very noticable one in such an expensive lens. Having said that, I'd much rather live with vignetting and have great across the frame sharpness and low CA than the other alternatives. Pick your poison
I rather wonder if it's a result of Nikons narrow lens mount or they were already trying to keep the lens's size in check and it was a sacrifice.
Jammy Straub wrote:
I rather wonder if it's a result of Nikons narrow lens mount or they were already trying to keep the lens's size in check and it was a sacrifice.
My guess is that if they'd managed to get the vignetting down, the front elements would be bigger, and everyone would be b*tching about the 82mm from filter thread.
I haven't seen anything that suggests a dramatic jump above the AF-D, though there are a few things that are appealing. Reading across the various reviews and looking at samples, here's what I'm seeing:
A bit sharper wide open, esp. in the corners.
CA is a toss up.
Improved contrast at wider stops.
Better flare control.
More vignetting.
Better at distance, which makes it more versatile.
Bokeh? Hard to say. It's not a dramatic redesign, so there's probably not a huge difference.
AF -- probably a little faster and more accurate, though I've seen mixed reports about that, too.
A bit more color saturation (a benefit for general purpose use, though the relatively restrained, cool color palate of the AF-D is one of its exceptional qualities).
So, what does that mean? It seems to add up to an incremental improvement, but not a must-have. I still might have to swallow hard and get one, because it's my most used and most loved lens -- but it doesn't sound like any one characteristic is dramatically improved.
Once my local shop has them in, I'll definitely give it a try.
There's a dramatic jump... in price, said this observer.
Nikon 85 f/1.4 used to be around a thousand. Then, Nikon raised it to about $1200 or so.
This new one is about $1700 for now. (maybe it'll get cheaper in a year or two to about $1500 but "maybe" is a key word in this sentence).
So we have $1200 vs. $1700, which in my opinion is a dramatic jump.
Since the "D" version is now discontinued and lots of people is trying to sell it, it'll get even cheaper and the price difference higher.
Chris Dees wrote:
Did you expect a dramatic jump?
The AF-D has always been an outstanding lens.
When the price comes down I'm going to get one.
No, I didn't necessarily expect a dramatic jump -- and I'm frankly relieved that they didn't do anything goofy to it (VR might have been nice, but a lot of people who understand these things better than I do have argued that VR in such a fast lens introduces problems of its own, including reduced overall optical quality and weird out-of-focus effects).
It's just that when all of the improvements are small and incremental, it's a little harder to justify. As I said, I might go for it -- but I'm also very happy with the AF-D.
One significant reason is that it would give me AF capability in a compact DX body, which I sometimes think about picking up for travel and extra telephoto reach.
I'm thinking the Zeiss looks pretty good at the price it is now...
If I was set on buying an 85 right now (I'm not, because I have the 100/f2 Zeiss and other lenses that cover this focal range for me) it'd come down to whether or not I needed AF in the lens. If so, I'd buy the Nikkor, if not, likely the Zeiss. On a budget that Samyang looks like ok bang for the buck. I think if I had the current AF-D, it'd be a real tough call whether it was worth it or not to sell and trade up to the AF-S... However, who am I kidding, if this was a critical lens for me, I'd do it. Horses for courses.
Smiert Spionam wrote:
One significant reason is that it would give me AF capability in a compact DX body, which I sometimes think about picking up for travel and extra telephoto reach.
Can you imagine the look of this thing on a D40? Wicked! I should have mine on Friday - very excited.
I've held off buying the 1.4D for almost two years in anticipation of this lens...just dumped my 1.8D for only $40 less than I paid for it 5 years ago!
