p.2 #2 · 85mm/1.4D/1.8G vs. 135mm/f2 DC vs 105mm/f2DC?
Jason_Brook wrote:
85/1.4D beats the socks off the 1.8G in everything but sharpness. The 1.8G is just dull and boring. As for 135, if you're shooting head and shoulders it's stellar. If you're shooting "big" (full body) it gets tricky because CA destroys sharpness. I've never owned the 105DC.
I'd throw the Sig 85/1.4 into the mix. I ignored it for years because it's Sigma and their older primes are jaded to me, but I recently got one and I'm very impressed. It's different from the 1.4D, but a hell of a lot creamier than the 1.8G. Nice and sharp wide open towards infinity as well, something the 1.4D isn't....Show more →
p.2 #3 · 85mm/1.4D/1.8G vs. 135mm/f2 DC vs 105mm/f2DC?
mshi wrote:
Just use 70-200VR2 instead and you've got all the FL you mentioned. Besides, it's much better.
I'm in general agreement. I shoot mostly studio and mostly portrait, and was a snob for manual-focus primes 85/100/135. Then I added the 70-200/4 AF-S. This is a high-performance wonder, and there's plenty of creamy b/g blur at f/4 (I'm usually at f/11). Point-n-shoot easy.
p.2 #4 · 85mm/1.4D/1.8G vs. 135mm/f2 DC vs 105mm/f2DC?
For portrait in Nikon line, I prefer 135/2 dc and 58/1.4. Lately I really like 135/2 dc more but 58/1.4 is more versatile in many situation but if space is permitted, I would use 135/2 dc more. If I have any complain, I think without processing, 135/2 dc has a bit less contrast, the color may be less saturated than the modern glass like the Sigma Art or 85/1.4G. 85/1.4-85/1.8. 85 1.4/1.8 are really sharp but for my personal taste, the rendering is not to my liking like the 58/1.4 or 135/2 dc. I can't quite explain it.
Lately though, the lens that combines sharpness, contrast, saturation, beautiful rendering and 3D effect for me is Zeiss 135/2 Apo. However, I find Zeiss such a pain to use with D810 but love it on my Sony A7r eventhough the balance is not all that great but the picture is well worth the effort.
p.2 #5 · 85mm/1.4D/1.8G vs. 135mm/f2 DC vs 105mm/f2DC?
suteetat wrote:
For portrait in Nikon line, I prefer 135/2 dc and 58/1.4. Lately I really like 135/2 dc more but 58/1.4 is more versatile in many situation but if space is permitted, I would use 135/2 dc more. If I have any complain, I think without processing, 135/2 dc has a bit less contrast, the color may be less saturated than the modern glass like the Sigma Art or 85/1.4G. 85/1.4-85/1.8. 85 1.4/1.8 are really sharp but for my personal taste, the rendering is not to my liking like the 58/1.4 or 135/2 dc. I can't quite explain it.
Lately though, the lens that combines sharpness, contrast, saturation, beautiful rendering and 3D effect for me is Zeiss 135/2 Apo. However, I find Zeiss such a pain to use with D810 but love it on my Sony A7r eventhough the balance is not all that great but the picture is well worth the effort. ...Show more →
You have me wanting to check out the 58 1.4 now. My current favorite portrait lenses are the 135/2 dc and my 85 1.8g. I agree about the rendering. I took two of the same shots as a test with the 135 and the 85, I thought the 135 looked a lot better. Skin tones to me just look so natural on the 135, and the bokeh was amazing. How is the AF in low light on the 58?
p.2 #6 · 85mm/1.4D/1.8G vs. 135mm/f2 DC vs 105mm/f2DC?
Jason_Brook wrote:
85/1.4D beats the socks off the 1.8G in everything but sharpness. The 1.8G is just dull and boring. As for 135, if you're shooting head and shoulders it's stellar. If you're shooting "big" (full body) it gets tricky because CA destroys sharpness. I've never owned the 105DC.
My findings for the 85mm 1.4D vs 1.8G have been the opposite. In my side-by-side samples, the 1.8G had similar bokeh but faster focusing, sharper, better color/contrast, and handles CA much better. The 1.4D is a great lens but the newer G lenses have performed better for me in everyday sitations. Studio work would likely be different though.
I have a 105mm f2 DC now and really like that focal length on FX better than the 85mm. Overall I like it better than any flavor of 85mm I've used (all of them... Nikon and Sigma) but then again I don't need the f1.4/1.8.
p.2 #8 · 85mm/1.4D/1.8G vs. 135mm/f2 DC vs 105mm/f2DC?
redrock_z71, I find your post rather interesting. Right now, I have an old and battle scarred 85/1.8D, and I have looking to replace it with either the 85/1.8G or the 105/2.0DC. This may seem silly, but I'm leaning toward the 105 just because it feels so good and has that classic Nikkor substance, as opposed to the 85G, which is the modern plasticy Nikkor feel. But, I keep reading how good the 85 is supposed to be. It's nice to read somebody who favors the 105.
p.2 #9 · 85mm/1.4D/1.8G vs. 135mm/f2 DC vs 105mm/f2DC?
Danner wrote:
redrock_z71, I find your post rather interesting. Right now, I have an old and battle scarred 85/1.8D, and I have looking to replace it with either the 85/1.8G or the 105/2.0DC. This may seem silly, but I'm leaning toward the 105 just because it feels so good and has that classic Nikkor substance, as opposed to the 85G, which is the modern plasticy Nikkor feel. But, I keep reading how good the 85 is supposed to be. It's nice to read somebody who favors the 105.
I find that the added focal length adds additional background compression to make the subject stand out a little more. Some above have mentioned using the 70-200 f2.8 and I do that a lot as well (@150-200mm when I can) for the same reason. I like the 85mm on DX but not so much FX... my personal tastes anyway.
p.2 #10 · 85mm/1.4D/1.8G vs. 135mm/f2 DC vs 105mm/f2DC?
Frogfish wrote:
PF is Purple Fringing Bill. Otherwise known as Longitudinal chromatic aberration. As distinct from other forms of chromatic aberration.
p.2 #11 · 85mm/1.4D/1.8G vs. 135mm/f2 DC vs 105mm/f2DC?
Frogfish wrote:
No it isn't better .... just different (from the two DC series lenses at least).
You might have steady hands but many still prefer using VR so that they can select lower ISO. Maybe your better is better than Nikon's better? That can't be the case. Go look up each's lens construction and count how many or lack of ED elements in your proclaimed 85/105/135, which explains why there are inherently just so much AF inconsistencies and purple fringe and slow AF speed in your beloved but sperannuanted lenses. The look that the DC gives you or the do-called skintones can be easily achieved in post if you shoot raw by the way.
For your convenience, here is the 70-200 VR2's guts.
Thanks for the link. That was a good read and a great comparison of the three lenses. I appreciate your sense of humor, laughed pretty hard at the available models (dolls) jokes. Page now bookmarked.
p.2 #13 · 85mm/1.4D/1.8G vs. 135mm/f2 DC vs 105mm/f2DC?
mshi wrote:
You might have steady hands but many still prefer using VR so that they can select lower ISO. Maybe your better is better than Nikon's better? That can't be the case. Go look up each's lens construction and count how many or lack of ED elements in your proclaimed 85/105/135, which explains why there are inherently just so much AF inconsistencies and purple fringe and slow AF speed in your beloved but sperannuanted lenses. The look that the DC gives you or the do-called skintones can be easily achieved in post if you shoot raw by the way.
p.2 #14 · 85mm/1.4D/1.8G vs. 135mm/f2 DC vs 105mm/f2DC?
The look that the DC gives you or the so-called skintones can be easily achieved in post if you shoot raw by the way.
I don't know about "easily"...though I would very much appreciate and love to see a workflow that accomplishes such.
I prefer the 135/2 DC over the 70-200 (in my case, the Tamron VC...very sharp / good contrast).
Each time I open and view an image that was taken with the 135/2 DC, I immediately see (or more like "sense") something better, and I know immediately which lens I used for that image, without looking at the lens data.
I suppose I could pin down and quantify the "something better" if I really tried (skin tones, sharpness, smooth bokeh, etc), but there IS something about 135 DC images, that for me, even given that it isn't the most modern lens, produces a wonderfully "viewable" image.
Superb "viewability"...maybe that's a good term for the 135 DC.
It's the same thing some folks say about a given sensor...an Olympus or Fuji comes to mind...or maybe a D700...something about the way those images look...more-or-less undefinable, yet undeniably real.
Neddie Seagoon wrote:
Thanks for the link. That was a good read and a great comparison of the three lenses. I appreciate your sense of humor, laughed pretty hard at the available models (dolls) jokes. Page now bookmarked.
While I'm also from Czech rep. as the guy who wrote the review I linked, I'm not him and jokes are not mine.
p.2 #19 · 85mm/1.4D/1.8G vs. 135mm/f2 DC vs 105mm/f2DC?
Ohh I just got me a 85 1.4D to match with my DF..(got it yesterday).It balance well on Df well if you put the hood on thats a diff story I haven't shot a lot with it yet but the OOF the way it render is amazing for sure..No wonder why they used to call it 'The cream machine'
I haven't shot a lot with it yet but the OOF the way it render is amazing for sure..No wonder why they used to call it 'The cream machine'