At this point my conclusion agrees with Bjorn's in that the 85mm is suited best for medium distances or closer (<15' or so). Also, it has better color than the 24-70 f2.8.
I think that 51-point 3D tracking doesn't work as well with f1.4 because it can't predict accurately enough for such short DOF, so I'll do some more testing with that turned off tomorrow on more distant subjects.
i am allergic to chromatic aberrations but that what we see on the image is completely fine. It is probably a bit overexposed white jacket at far distance at f1.4 i would like to see lens not having any. i have few AISes which have red one instead of blue (i like it more as it blends more in the picture) but that shot is imo very fine. I love my 85.
It doesn't matter how much you pay for a piece of equipment. It's only going to perform as good as the user behind it. No guarantees it's going to perform flawlessly out of the box. Wish it were the case, though!
Please do not take this the wrong way. But all the photos posted look awesome. However, when you get to the 100% crops, they ALL look soft. No real detail to be seen. That is quite disturbing and has always been my biggest gripe about these lenses. The jeans, dog, women look very soft when looking at 100% crops. I sure would like to see 100% crops look as good as the small images.
Jorge Torralba wrote:
Please do not take this the wrong way. But all the photos posted look awesome. However, when you get to the 100% crops, they ALL look soft. No real detail to be seen. That is quite disturbing and has always been my biggest gripe about these lenses. The jeans, dog, women look very soft when looking at 100% crops. I sure would like to see 100% crops look as good as the small images.
Were they shot at 1.4? If you are looking at 100% crops of 1.4 shots, I'm afraid you'll be searching for a long time for shots that are absolutley sharp. You lose a lot of contrast when shooting wide open like that. And with the DOF being so narrow at 1.4 and the loss of contrast, the images won't look perfect at 100%.
They also don't look sharpened. I'd be very worried if those images were post sharpening. My Canon 85mm 1.8 is stupidly sharp in comparison to those images wide open but they look like those when they are unsharpened...
It makes sense for people to post unsharpened images otherwise all you are comparing is how much USM was applied!
andylaiphoto wrote:
guess it's just me but the bokeh in a few of those shots look funky.
All lenses have the ability to display funky bokeh, depending on the shooting conditions. There is no lens out there that will have great bokeh 100% of the time.
AndrewE wrote:
Are you sure that photo is un-edited? Your bokeh in the center sure looks much creamier than the edges?
That's due to mechanical vignetting and is very common with fast lenses that have a slightly too small front element. The aperture opening will then actually look smaller when seen from the periphery of the image circle, which makes the DOF larger than in the middle of the picture.
I got some amazing shots this weekend with my beater 85/1.4 AIS on a friend's 5D. I can't wait to use it on a D700 which i should be getting in the next few months.
phillip ino wrote:
All lenses have the ability to display funky bokeh, depending on the shooting conditions. There is no lens out there that will have great bokeh 100% of the time.
I shoot wide open with all my lenses almost all the time and have never had anything look like that.
Makten wrote:
That's due to mechanical vignetting and is very common with fast lenses that have a slightly too small front element. The aperture opening will then actually look smaller when seen from the periphery of the image circle, which makes the DOF larger than in the middle of the picture.
Learn something new every day, Thanx for the explanation.
andylaiphoto wrote:
I shoot wide open with all my lenses almost all the time and have never had anything look like that.
You've probably just never noticed it. I too shoot my lenses wide open much of the time, and all of them shows larger DOF in the extreme corners due to mechanical vignetting. There are very few lenses that have large enough front lens elements not to give this side effect, if we're talking about focal lengths up to ~100 mm on FF and faster than f/2.
It is really hit and miss with that lens. It needs a lot of fine adjustment. Sometimes I get amazing photos and sometimes I just think I got a bad copy. I think it is one of the most hyped lens that sometimes doesn't live up to the reputation. Especially if you have used the Canon 85 1.2. It ain't a bad lens but it ain't an amazing one either.
Mine stay in the bag most of the time now. I will see it soon along with my 50 1.4 to upgrade to the AF-S 50 1.4. I use my 70-200 VR a lot now for the VR function. With auto ISO, the 70-200 is a really great lens.
Tuan, I appreciate your opinion and everyone else's unbiased opinions here.
So I just shot a wedding this past weekend with it. It was great, got lots of saleable 3D pop and low-light images, even with distant subjects. The amount of dimensionality that it gave, when there's the right kind of foreground and background, is definitely unique for the Nikon line.
That said, I've run it thru its paces and overall the Nikon 85 f1.4 is simply not as good as the Canon 85Lmk2. Gee, 15 year-old technology vs 1.5 year-old technology, what a surprise. The strength of the 85 f1.4 is its unobtrusive size, light weight, and the fact the its being driven by an accurate AF system. But its still not THAT sharp, its only an f1.4, its 35mm film-era optimized, and its (relatively) slow to focus.
I've just been spoiled by that damn 85Lmk2 I guess. And since switching costs a lot, my expectations are (probably unreasonably) high.
So I'm going to go with a 105 VR or 70-200 until Nikon brings out its 85mm f1.2 AF-S G, when we'll finally get to see what pairing up-to-date glass with deadly-accurate focusing can do.
