i've tried the nikkor af version and the 85L and at 1.4 both are amazing. crisp and contrasty. these lenses just don't disappoint. canon's is much slower, which is what led me to purchase the more versatile 1.8 version, which definitely still holds it's own. however i lust for shooting portraits at f/1.2 and hope to own both soon.
i currently don't own the autofocus nikkor 85 1.4, but i have the ais version for when i want to use film.
anything in particular you would like to know about the two?
I owned the 85/1.4 AF-D and currently own the 85L-II, and have rented the 85L-I. Slightly different character between the N and C lenses. Both are very easy to fall in love with and it's a tough call if one is "better" than the other.
I know this much for sure - the 85L-I's autofocus was so slow as to be very challenging to use in a wedding context. I personally would probably not consider a used one of these. The 85L-II is merely slow, but within the range that works for me personally. It's tough to track action (kids, dancing, etc). The weight and bulk of the Nikon 1.4 is much preferable on my shoulder all day, and as a walkaround lens for other pursuits. Never noticed the difference in f-stop make much difference. Both are as sharp as you like wide open.
The Canon lens must have an enormous image circle - almost no corner fall-off in any lighting. I often add vignetting in post. If there was a smaller, lighter, faster-focusing 1.2/1.4 Canon prime that had falloff, I might have chosen that instead actually...
I've also owned the Canon 85/1.8 and it is very, very hard to fault that lens. Worlds better than the Nikon 85/1.8 (had that one too) and one of the better bargains in photography.
I'm surprised with the comments in this thread as I had read Ken Rockwell that Nikon expert write about how the 85L is like decades ahead of the Nikon version, it seems his is a lone opinion
I absolutely loved my Nikon 85 AF-D. The combination of image, color, size, weight, and focus speed (with a pro body) was just right. I love my 85L-II just as much, it's a magic lens, but the bulk, weight, and funky focusing are a drag. not to mention the cost. Decades ahead, I don't know, maybe if you get hired to shoot the marriage of a test chart and a brick wall...
I used to use the 85/1.4 nearly permanently when I was on nikon. great lens.
When I switched to Canon the first lens I bought was the 85/1.2 - very expensive but it is better than the nikon in the picture quality area. I think the sharpness is about the same, but the canon I found has better colours/contrast at very wide apertures (it is incredible here). The bokeh at 1.2 is also something else.
On the bad points, it's much more money than the nikon, it's heavier (obvously) and the AF is much much slower. That said, the AF whilst being slow is very accurate.
Dawei Ye wrote:
I'm surprised with the comments in this thread as I had read Ken Rockwell that Nikon expert write about how the 85L is like decades ahead of the Nikon version, it seems his is a lone opinion
I'm surprised anyone reading this forum would quote Mr. Ken's opinion.
I have had both and they both are wonderful performers. Love them both. Prefer the Canon just a smidge, but if I had to use only the Nikon, that would work also.
Ken has been discussed from time to time here and his commentary has been a bit of a lightning rod. Perhaps that is and understement.
