I don’t shoot nearly enough portraits (looking to change this however!), when I do though the 85mm 1.8 is one of my favorite lenses. This one is from last summer.
Our family went on a little trip into San Diego and I saw this little spot in Old Town that peaked my interest. We were all in travel clothes tired from our travels late the night before but my wife is a trooper for letting me test the scene (and share the image) with this 85mm f1.8S. Z7 ISO 250 (should have adjusted) 1/1250s at 1.8. This is >50% cropped (was a portrait orientation image).
I haven't used the Z 85 for a while so, I thought I would see what I could get in the back yard. Luckily, a couple of the local birds turned up to see what I was doing and posed for me briefly.
Not a fan of this lens’ bokeh (looks identical to my 50mm f1.8s). Very busy looking. What is the best option for 85mm on a Nikon? Aside from the native f1.2. Adapting a Sigma or Samyang f1.4 or Sony f1.8?
jaygould wrote:
Not a fan of this lens’ bokeh (looks identical to my 50mm f1.8s). Very busy looking. What is the best option for 85mm on a Nikon? Aside from the native f1.2. Adapting a Sigma or Samyang f1.4 or Sony f1.8?
For a 1.8, I think it's pretty excellent to be honest. I do have this lens and the Sigma 85 art and I decided to keep both when I really only wanted to keep one. The 1.8S is perfect when wanting a small kit, but the Sigma creates images that have that little extra dreaminess for my liking. Depending on the scene though, the difference is very slim and the rational decision would be to sell the Sigma and enjoy the 1.8S.
Here's a situation where I don't think it makes a big enough difference for most, but it will show some subtle differences. It's not a perfect test on a tripod, etc., but still helpful I hope. Edits are the same except a slight adjustment to exposure slider based on aperture and ISO differences (which were small).
urbanwild wrote:
Curious - how would you compare the second and third image?
That is what I was doing. I feel the Nikon is a little creamier at 1.8 than the Sigma. Pretty close though.
Alistair1 wrote:
That is what I was doing. I feel the Nikon is a little creamier at 1.8 than the Sigma. Pretty close though.
Ah, I thought you were comparing the sigma at 1.4 vs the nikon at 1.8.
There really isn't much between them at 1.8 when I look at a variety of images in comparison. So kudos to the smaller, lighter option with the Nikon. But also kudos to the Sigma that really isn't much different in sharpness with a Z lens. If one wants the 1.4 aperture and doesn't want to spend the 1.2S price, I think the IQ of the Sigma is beautiful. The weight and the need for the ftz are big considerations, but it's still a less expensive option for a 1.4 with excellent IQ.....perfect for those who aren't picking up the 85mm everyday.
I would love to see a Sigma art vs Nikon 85mm f1.2S comparison. I'm sure the 1.2S would deliver in that comparison, but how much more and is the price difference enough for those who don't use 85mm as much?
urbanwild wrote:
Ah, I thought you were comparing the sigma at 1.4 vs the nikon at 1.8.
There really isn't much between them at 1.8 when I look at a variety of images in comparison. So kudos to the smaller, lighter option with the Nikon. But also kudos to the Sigma that really isn't much different in sharpness with a Z lens. If one wants the 1.4 aperture and doesn't want to spend the 1.2S price, I think the IQ of the Sigma is beautiful. The weight and the need for the ftz are big considerations, but it's still a less expensive option for a 1.4 with excellent IQ.....perfect for those who aren't picking up the 85mm everyday.
I would love to see a Sigma art vs Nikon 85mm f1.2S comparison. I'm sure the 1.2S would deliver in that comparison, but how much more and is the price difference enough for those who don't use 85mm as much? ...Show more →
It's strange; looking at the two now on a larger 4k screen (I previously looked at them on a 2k(ish) laptop), the Sigma looks a little better to me at 1.8 than the Z at 1.8! As you say, the differences are very small.
It would be great if Sigma could make their 1.4 art lenses in Z mount. Especially the 40mm. But they are all great lenses.
jaygould wrote:
Not a fan of this lens’ bokeh (looks identical to my 50mm f1.8s). Very busy looking. What is the best option for 85mm on a Nikon? Aside from the native f1.2. Adapting a Sigma or Samyang f1.4 or Sony f1.8?
Bear in mind. Bokeh is subject to aperture used, relative distances of subjecte and backgrounds, light, type of of blurred objects. Even a lens that is praised for creamy bokeh can still produce busy bokeh. I am saying this as many of my shots here are not really showcasing the bokeh quality of 85/1.8S. I’d feel guilty for someone to draw conclusions based on very limited number of examples from this thread alone. Check out Flickr for more examples. In terms of bokeh only, how about Nikkor 85/1.4 D, aka. Cream machine. Also I recall seeing images from old Monlta 85/1,4 lens had beautiful bokeh. but I never owned that lens so I cannot be certain. Anyhow, good luck with your search.
akul wrote:
Bear in mind. Bokeh is subject to aperture used, relative distances of subjecte and backgrounds, light, type of of blurred objects. Even a lens that is praised for creamy bokeh can still produce busy bokeh. I am saying this as many of my shots here are not really showcasing the bokeh quality of 85/1.8S. I’d feel guilty for someone to draw conclusions based on very limited number of examples from this thread alone. Check out Flickr for more examples. In terms of bokeh only, how about Nikkor 85/1.4 D, aka. Cream machine. Also I recall seeing images from old Monlta 85/1,4 lens had beautiful bokeh. but I never owned that lens so I cannot be certain. Anyhow, good luck with your search.
Absolutely.....the examples I shared were tight to the subject which reduces the differences in bokeh. Plus there were no branches, etc in the background. Pretty tough to find comparisons of similar images between different lenses on Flickr though. I spend lots of time looking at Flickr before buying a lens but I feel like I have to weed through a lot to see what I'd like to see. The community on FM has been more helpful in showing me what a lens can do.
Alistair1 wrote:
It's strange; looking at the two now on a larger 4k screen (I previously looked at them on a 2k(ish) laptop), the Sigma looks a little better to me at 1.8 than the Z at 1.8! As you say, the differences are very small.
It would be great if Sigma could make their 1.4 art lenses in Z mount. Especially the 40mm. But they are all great lenses.
That is what I find and pretty typical with other lenses as well (slightly better bokeh at the same aperture when one lens has a lower f-stop). I personally like the Sigma 85mm f1.8 image above the most but it's entirely around the head tilt / pose and not due to the lens.
