I love focal lengths from 50 above, sweet spot being 85, I own a few of those but I miss the focal length on Z cameras as the f1.2 which I own is too heavy to take around just for the sake of it.
I own the 85/1.4D and love it, took it for a spin recently and on a D850 it always performs no matter no AI AF assist, unfortunately it can't mount on a Z without loosing AF so I am thorn between getting the S version in f1.8 flavor or if to go for a used G version that I can use on both D and Z body, I would like to know from those who own/owned it how does it perform on native F bayonet and how does it do adapted on a Z body.
G Lenses always adapt quite well to Z - should operate as good as on the DSLR, though with even better focus accuracy.
With that said, there are some third party Z lenses also worth considering - the Sirui Aurora 85mm f/1.4 is fantastic, with an absolutely beautiful rendering and still quite sharp - easily as sharp as either 85G, and it's also rather compact and light. The Viltrox 85mm f/1.4 Pro is also worth a look, with its excellent sharpness and good rendering. The 85/1.8S is a very good lens, but I find it hard to justify its price given the excellent third party glass available at the same price or cheapre. I've owned the 85/1.8S in the past, and I prefer my Aurora 85/1.4 in pretty much every way. I paid $375 used for mine, but even new it's $300 less than the 85S, and I'd prefer it even if they cost the same.
I own the 85/1.2 S. I do also own the Viltrox 85mm f/2 EVO which is fun and light.
However, I do enjoy using the 85/1.4 AI-S with the ETZ and Shoten E to F Mount adapter. Its has some heft to it. I do also have the 85/1.4G that I use with the FTZ which is def little lighter. I did recently purchase a SMC Takumar 85/1.8 as well that I use with the ETZ and Shoten E to M42 Mount.
85/1.2 S,85/1.4G and Viltrox 85 f/2 EVO have AF
85/1.4 Ai-S and SMC Takumar 85/1.8 are Manual Focus but with Focus Confirmation.
The Takumar 85/1.8 is the smaller of my 85's for MF and 85/2 EVO is the smaller of the 85's for AF.
I usually reach for the 85/2 Evo for when i want AF or Takumar 85/1.8 if i want to use MF.
My go to focal length is usually 50,85,105
I've been trying to force myself to use the 28 and 35 lately tho.
Jman13 wrote:
G Lenses always adapt quite well to Z - should operate as good as on the DSLR, though with even better focus accuracy.
With that said, there are some third party Z lenses also worth considering - the Sirui Aurora 85mm f/1.4 is fantastic, with an absolutely beautiful rendering and still quite sharp - easily as sharp as either 85G, and it's also rather compact and light. The Viltrox 85mm f/1.4 Pro is also worth a look, with its excellent sharpness and good rendering. The 85/1.8S is a very good lens, but I find it hard to justify its price given the excellent third party glass available at the same price or cheapre. I've owned the 85/1.8S in the past, and I prefer my Aurora 85/1.4 in pretty much every way. I paid $375 used for mine, but even new it's $300 less than the 85S, and I'd prefer it even if they cost the same....Show more →
I agree about the Sirui, assuming you can get a well centered copy. Its rendering is so pleasing that I replaced my Z 85/1.2 with it! It would be my first look for a Z camera.
My thing is AF, I can't shoot my portraits MF, I did a few times, a good and lucky example was a photo with the Planar 85 fully open where the subject, a casual visitor, was posing kinda steady for me but otherwise I need AF and I am ok with the D version on a D8xx body but won't use it in MF on a Z through an adapter, I am looking for a lighter alternative to the f1.2S on the Z bodies, the f1.8S as much as I do believe being sharp and well corrected (you can't tell on a Z as even the RAW files have some baked adjustments) is too expensive as a f18 lens, for less than a used one I could find an f1.4G which is probably same size or smaller and can be used on a D body too.
Anybody who got them, G and D, and can tell the difference and if worth going for a G?
Some Contax Planar 85/1.4 shots which I consider lucky ones given my MF abilities
I liked the 85mm 1.4G a lot.
On the D600 is was hard to hit at 1.4 but occasionally I did and it was great.
It worked well on the Z6III too but I went for the 1.2Z when I was able to.
The 1.4G would occasionally have some chromatic aberration and I think it was about ~F2 where it was pretty much perfect all the time for the way I shoot.
85/1.4 G or D? My experience and opinion is the only advantage I found with the G lens was faster, more accurate AF. The newer Nano multi-coatings do possibly improve sharpness and contrast a little. I definitely prefer the rendering and bokeh of the D lens for portraits and performance and people in general. I have the 24/1.4G, 35/1.4G and 58/1.4G, but I kept the 85/1.4D.
For use on Z bodies I would prefer a Z lens, but would probably try some of the 3rd party lenses before biting on a Nikon lens. I just started playing with the Viltrox Evo 85/2 on Sony and it's a fine little lens so far, especially for the price.
I too have the 58G and if I could I'd go for the 105E but not being a pro and making money, if not once in a very while, out of photography that's too much of an investment for a used lens even tho 105 would be a much wiser choice already having a few 85mm.
I am still angry at Nikon for not providing an adapter with support for AF lenses. It was a complete nobrainer to do from the very start and they still havent provided it. As a business decision, I dont understand it. Its breaking a longstanding tradition of backward compability which has been the strength of Nikon forever, especially compared to Canon, and in line with what Leica offers in their M.
Nikkor AF are some of the best lenses Nikon has ever done, especially the 60mm f2.8 micro, 85mm f1.4, 105mm f2 DC, 135mm f2 DC, 180mm f2.8 and 300mm f2.8, all of which are outstanding, and none of these optics have been replicated in an AF-S lens. Instead they are either nonexistent or have less great optics now. The 200mm f4 micro is maybe also worth mentioning, as is the 300mm f4.
Instead all these great lenses are now discontinued and only available used.
And many of these optics cannot be manually focused well either, the focus throw is just too small for doing that.
The AF 85mm f1.4 specifically is IMHO the best 85mm for portraiture, ever. This is from comparing images on flickr and other places (such as this site here); unfortunately I never found a great deal on one (sort of unsurprising) and never had the budget for it, plus I already own the 105mm f2 DC, so the 85mm f1.4 is actually a bit hard to justify. I specifically prefer it even over the Zeiss Classic and over the Canon EF 85mm f1.2, which are both also great.
About AF-S 85mm, I would pick up the AF-S 85mm f1.8. Its "only" a great lens with no weaknesses, not an outstanding one, but its IMHO definitely superior to the f1.4 version.
My experience with the 50/1.8S tells me it is too sharp and the bokeh nothing memorable, if the 85 performs on par it's not the portrait lens I'd use in place of the 85D, I own a few more 85 among which the marvelous Planar f1.4 but they are quite hard to nail focus in manual, I also own the 100/2 which is another gem but the working distance of the 85 better suits me not to mention, again, I can't work in MF at those aperture (even stopped down f2.8ish is too hard to nail perfect focus).
Subjectively the AF 85mm f1.4 is the best 85mm I have ever checked out through example images, for example on this forum, but also on sites like flickr. I prefer its rendering over the Zeiss Classic and the Canon EF 85mm f1.2, which are both also absoutely fantastic lenses.
If I had to get an AF-S however, the AF-S 85mm f1.4 is a completely different optical formula. For AF-S I would much prefer the 1.8, which is a very solid and very fairly priced performer.
Mind I dont own any of these lenses. Because I love the AF 105mm f2 DC so much, I have a hard time seeing me ever taking any 85mm lens with me. Its just a tiny notch more useful because, and this thread here has examples for this, a 85mm lens is just a bit too short yet for pure head portraits.
+++
About manual focus, I find on my D750 that I can focus my Zeiss 35/2 and Voigtländer 58/1.4 just fine just using the electronic rangefinder, that means the focus confirmation within the viewfinder. Anything longer however is a problem.
I have tried in the past to use a Zeiss Makro Planar 100mm f2 for portraiture, but found that unless the subject is of an age in single digits of years, this optic is suboptimal. In images with this lens one can for example literally count how many skin hairs a person has. Which makes even young women look less attractive than they could look.
