What do you think about the Nikon 85 1.4G? I am trying to decide if it is worth the investment. I am also considering the 85 1.8G. I listened to TRR and got the 50 1.8 and have not been disappointed but this is a bit different...
We also have the 85 1.8G and I think it is very worthwhile. I think you'd have a hard time telling the difference between the 1.8 and 1.4 in practice. My Nikon contacts basically told me to get the 1.8. On the canon side there is a bigger difference in IG between the 1.8 and 1.2 - with these Nikon G lenses it is basically 2/3 of a stop and over $1000 that simply isn't worth it IMO. Round it out with the 28 1.8G and you've saved a ton of money (and weight) over the 1.4 versions with imperceptible IQ difference.
The Sigma produces some pretty nice buttery deliciousness as well. Might want to hit the camera store and look at them side by side. I would advise against the 1.8G simply because if you are going to invest in a prime you might as well get the fastest prime you can. IQ wise there is no way the 1.8G is better than the 70-200 at 85 so the only reason to invest in the prime is to get the extra speed. I can't be bothered carrying the 1.8 when the 1.4 is so good and gives you 1.4 when you want/need it. Wish it was 1.2.
TRReichman wrote:
Have you ever tested the 70-200 vs the 85 1.8g side by side? I can see a pretty big difference in spending $500 vs. $1700.
- trr
I've tested the Sigma 85 against the Nikon 70-200 and at 2.8 the 70-200 VR1 is sharper edge to edge. A $1200 difference is meaningless if a prime 85 is going to be an important tool in your arsenal. Over the lifetime of the lens that amount means nothing and I shoot my 85 1.4 wide open frequently. Going cheap when it comes to glass is foolish in the long run.
martinezphoto wrote:
I've tested the Sigma 85 against the Nikon 70-200 and at 2.8 the 70-200 VR1 is sharper edge to edge. A $1200 difference is meaningless if a prime 85 is going to be an important tool in your arsenal. Over the lifetime of the lens that amount means nothing and I shoot my 85 1.4 wide open frequently. Going cheap when it comes to glass is foolish in the long run.
Interesting, my sigma 85mm will eat my 70-200 VRII for breakfast which mirrors what tests online have shown. The sigma 85mm just like the nikon 1.4 is one of the sharpest lenses for nikon.
I bought the sigma over the nikon 1.4 because of the better performance at f/2 and f/2.8 and the price. I use it a lot because it is shaper than the 70-200 and when the 70-200 is just too big and heavy.
When I was exploring Nikon land this summer, I had both the 85 1.4G and 1.8G. Bokeh was very very similar, sharpness was about equal. They both felt like plastic crap, so no build advantage on the 1.4. I'd say save some money and get the 1.8G.
I am having a difficult time with the Nikon side of 85mm. I am very used to that focal length, but it seems that the bokeh rendering for Nikon is not nearly as appealing to me as the Canon side. Despite all of my desire to have Nikon sensors for their comparatively incredible image flexibility (truly much more flexible), and despite the better AF tracking I am getting with Nikon, I am now thinking of going back to 100% Canon just because of lenses like the 85L...
sboerup wrote:
When I was exploring Nikon land this summer, I had both the 85 1.4G and 1.8G. Bokeh was very very similar, sharpness was about equal. They both felt like plastic crap, so no build advantage on the 1.4. I'd say save some money and get the 1.8G.
Any difference in flare performance of backlit shots?
