I paid 650 for my 85 1.4 af-d and Iīm going to sell it ever. I see the g version is better in almost every thing. But thereīs only one thing that disturbs me.
ED glasses should help with those axial CA so, why this lens doesnīt have any ED glass?
subidiom wrote:
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!
Here it is on a D3100....close enough to a D40. I'd love one for my D40!
i dont have D3x anymore but looking at the sample images even from this awesome lens, got me thinking again how big difference 135 still is to medium format.
Just to let everyone know the 85 is starting to show up at several stores. Mine was shipped from Adorama on Monday and Samy's just contacted me to let me know that they have it in stock.
Kittyk wrote:
i dont have D3x anymore but looking at the sample images even from this awesome lens, got me thinking again how big difference 135 still is to medium format.
I had something of a similar reaction, though in a different direction -- it reminded me of my experience of moving from DX to 12mp FX. When I did that, my lenses (including the 85/1.4D) all of a sudden got a lot better again. The D3x, as spectacular as it is, pushes those same lenses much harder, and reveals their limitations even more than DX does.
MF benefits from a lot of things (bit depth, etc.) -- but one key aspect is that it doesn't generally strain the limits of lenses with high density sensors.
that is true and my observation as well. Especially those older lenses shine on FX 12mpix.
D3x make them "bad" again (especially in corners, center is usually similar to DX).
for me, i guess i will just have to roll two systems for long time to come.
It's all about pixel density, those big fat 12mp FX pixels don't show optical flaws as easily as the D300's much higher density pixels. Even the D3x doesn't push the center quite as hard as the D300 (and coming D3100) do, though you open up a whole nother can of worms with the larger image circle of the D3x.
Jammy, i havent seen those but yes, they are about what i would expect (or practically same as old one perform) resized and postprocessed. It is just that one would hope with all that N ED gizmos this would look better :-I. It looks worse then my AF-D.
When i tested AF-S short time in shop, i seen no real difference. I will sure buy it, but i just hoped for more :-(.
It is just that worm inside me, eating why they charge so much for D3x and such lenses, when on MF i can get this kind of DOF at f5.6+, MF lens which start at f2.8 is smaller, cheaper and better overall (no CA wide open).
For me it made no sense, so we returned D3x. I will get D700x asap though, but yea, just because i can, not because i need. 85 AF-S i will buy first when prices go down or one of my two AF-Ds die.
It did hurt to get P65 but got me back to MF film days, when normal focal lenght meant wide enough for everything, yet DOF so thin that you can erase background in daylight as you wish, viewfinder worth two camels able to manual focus-track running people. We keep nikons in fact only for reportage and spending wisely because they are just overpriced for what they offer.
Yes, as a previous shooter of Pentax 67, the new Pentax 645D at only $10k and 40mp would be extremely nice if I could justify the ROI at this point. I really miss those giant viewfinders.
i really hope they will make 645D available in europe soon. i will not buy it, but it would make nikon really facepalm them self and we all can only benefit from it.
Hi all, I'm almost in the same "strange" boat of others, here. I'm starting to ask myself if it's not better for me to switch to something "other" and I'm not only speaking about MF but also considering making a (BIG) switch jumping ship and considering Canon or even SONY.
Actually I've a pretty decent investment in Nikkor glass and some other adapted lenses (Leica Voigt) and I was really leaning towards the new 85mm but it's LoCA -for ME- is inacceptable. It's exactly the same reason for why I've re-sold the otherwise excellent ZF100/2 for the Voigtlander 125/2.5. I'll try the new 85/1.4G as much as I can and I'll see if what the test at LensTip shows in regard of LoCA is "exaggerated" or not.
As for other qualities, I do not see a huge improvement (IMHO) over the older AF-D, other than the silent wave AF motor and, of course, the price. I do not have the 85/1.4D but I use both a Leica 90/2 APO Asph. and a Samyang 85/1.4 in that focal range: I miss AF sometimes but that's all.
The most annoying thing, to ME (always my humble opinion), is that there's no VR and no ED glass (if I'm right, in Nikon's intentions, this technology is specifically thought to minimise LoCAs). Most important I'll need to wait at least 5 years to see another 85's iteration.
Iīve asked in several places if thereīs a technical reason that explains why nikon didnīt use ED glass in this 85, but I have no answer... I guess with ED glass we get less CA both axial and transversal... being this CA problems the weakest point of the new 85.... I canīt imagine a reason not to use ED glass; maybe it is too expensive? Well, the lens is expensive....
i dont think that canon would make any difference. Sony have nice priced A850 body and sweet zeiss lenses, but everything else is quite lol.
i think for working pro MF makes sense, price might be 2-5x* over small format but you get to update your system much less often and once you are into T&S or fast glass, price balances very fast. Actually update is needed maybe only once a lifetime once service contract runs away and you lose your camera or so.
It cures NAS as well. You will look to all rumors about yearly new cameras as "still not good enough". Same for lenses - in MF world it is, that if one would need it, it have been done years ago. 135 only "recently" really rediscovers T&S (at lol prices) for example, macro is "unique" feature one buys dedicated lens for, and you scream happy if you can flash sync at 1/250. And so on and so forth.
It worked for us, i wouldn't go back. 135 system is good for sport, wildlife and journalism, but you hardly need to invest too much moneys into that. For me D90+35af2 would even suffice (though nobody will be able to take D700 from my hands for that purpose).
*) actually i know few togs who are so invested in equipment that they could have several MF systems for it instead. It all starts with dedicated 1000Eur macro lenses and 400Eur flashes and ends with 5000Eur lenses and dual 7000Eur bodies.
mach250 wrote:
any comparison of the af-d and g yet with the locas/ca's? I dont really see much of an difference in lenses, except for the lack of an aperture ring
My G shows up Monday and I'll be doing tests comparing it to my D.
paulesko wrote:
Iīve asked in several places if thereīs a technical reason that explains why nikon didnīt use ED glass in this 85, but I have no answer... I guess with ED glass we get less CA both axial and transversal... being this CA problems the weakest point of the new 85.... I canīt imagine a reason not to use ED glass; maybe it is too expensive? Well, the lens is expensive....
Iīm a bit disapointed with this CA issue.
This one was my observation in regard of the same "why no-ED and no-VR" argument over Nikon Gear but, with all the due respect for the experts there, the answer(s) didn't satisfy me at all.
I'd love one for my D40!