luminosity wrote:
The above images aside (which I gather were sharpened via PP), the 85/1.4D is a bit soft wide open, except perhaps for the absolute center of the lens. As Photozone's testing showed on both FX and DX (but particularly FX), the lens is very soft outside the center at wide apertures. On FX, it's hideously soft. Of course, as a portrait lens, that's not really a problem.
The 85/1.4D has major issues with flare and purple fringing, which the nano coating of the G helps deal with to some extent. It doesn't track moving subjects well, and certainly not as well as the G version.
Having said all that, it's still a very nice lens, and I own it myself . Have taken many a good photo with it. It just isn't the incredibly sharp lens some people make it out to be. If you stop to think about it, it wouldn't make sense for it to be that: if you're taking portraits of people, sharpness isn't always a good thing....Show more →
From another 85D user.....
Corners are only an issue when shooting planar objects...which none of your shots above are. Do the fun brick wall test, it gets VERY soft in the corners. Flare is definitely an issue (which the new 'G' version fixes) and purple fringing is quite nasty (which the new 'G' slightly improves). Color is on the very cool side and the glass is very low in contrast compared to the newer coated lenses. As far as center sharpness goes, I have never found it to be an issue. Actually, I think it is much sharper in center than the reputation it has garnered. Center sharpness is as good as the new 'G' version that just came out. It is the corners that is the issue. I also prefer the bokeh of the D version over the new G. It is some of the best I have seen from any lens
Hmm, wow, I didn't see any purple fringing at all under normal exposures. My extreme fringing and flare tests showed it to be on the good side but probably not exceptional. You guys sure you're not talking about Canon's 85/1.2L? These descriptions sound like it fits that lens - which is also in my arsenal.
I don't feel any need to defend Nikon's lens design but I do like correct information and these descriptions don't seem to fit. On a M4/3 sensor it's one of the sharpest lenses I've used so far (out of about 230 in total, probably -20 for duplicates) across the entire half-ff-width. It was sharp enough to put a smile on my face. The only other lens that's done that consistently is the Canon FD 300mm F4.0L and this Nikkor is as sharp or sharper than that lens. With this Nikkor the OOF areas are soft - obviously - but the rest isn't.
I can't speak to the corners on digital but I just put the lens on one of my Nikon film bodies and spent 20min with it pointed at a res-chart. I know very well what good glass (or soft corners) looks like through my Nikons and this lens seems fairly exceptional as far as sharpness across the fame goes. I took it outside and pointed it at some far off distant buildings with tile surfaces and it also seems exceptionally sharp there too. The Sun is uber-bright today and there are no noticeable fringes looking through the FF either.
The images I shot with it on the M4/3 were sharpened ever so slightly but I needed much less than I do with just about any other lens. It had that Zeiss condition where sharpening actually ruins the image by doing nothing other than adding black or white halos around contrasting edges. All of these here and above were sharpened with a radius of 0.3 pixels and between 30% and 60% - tho most were on the low side of that.
"Corners are only an issue when shooting planar objects" - yes I noticed some focus field curvature on the FF just now - at some distances. Mostly close focusing. But this isn't a macro lens so I don't expect flat-field rendering and it wasn't too bad. About average for 50~65mm lenses - so a little much for an 85mm but still not too bad.
Keep in mind that the sky at f1/4 meters at between 1/8,000s and 1/10,000s somewhere. EXIF: "Image Digitized: 2011:01:02, 13:41:38" which is the brightest time of this white-sky-day. None of those three images (shot RAW) have any sharpening at all and all ACR values except color noise were set to zero (0) - the images were saved directly from ACR without passing through any other apps.
Also I think that if this lens suffered from purple fringing it would show up in images like these:
Just to post more images... Anyway, I've only shot with the lens for one day but there doesn't seem to any credibility to these "reports" based on just that. Maybe I'll encounter some conditions in the future where it will show it's ugly head? But let's hope not.
- Or, how doI get this thing to show it's true evil purple nature?
I promise you, it's there, and I have a great deal of experience with it at this point, after shooting with it often in the year I've had the lens. It's essentially common knowledge/conventional wisdom at this point.
If you're shooting with an m4/3 sensor, you're chopping off a lot of the soft areas, so that helps a lot. Even the edge of your frame will resolve relatively well. Shoot it on a full frame Nikon sensor and you're likely to see what Ryan and I described.
Bifurcator wrote:
- Or, how doI get this thing to show it's true evil purple nature?
don't have anything to say about this lens in particular, but if you want to test for purple fringing, the sure way is to have a blown highlight border something near black. shoot some distant city lights at night, both in focus and oof.
Keep in mind that the sky at f/1.4 meters at between 1/8,000s and 1/10,000s somewhere. EXIF: "Image Digitized: 2011:01:02, 13:41:38" which is the brightest time of this white-sky-day. None of those three images (shot RAW) have any sharpening at all and all ACR values except color noise were set to zero (0) - the images were saved directly from ACR without passing through any other apps.
Also I think that if this lens suffered from purple fringing it would show up in images like these:
Well, I think all Ryan and I can tell you is that we both have ample experience with purple fringing. I know I do, at least, and I doubt his copy is all that different from mine.
Yes, and ironically enough, the glass itself has purple fringing on it . Not that that could have come from an 85/1.4 (would never be used for a product shot like you see above), but just a small irony.
The next time I get a photo taken with it that has clear purple fringing, I'll post it here .
Bif, it is an excellent lens....one that I think people are writing off as crap now the new one has come out. I had the new one for a month or so and didn't come blown away by it. I am back with the old D, which I actually prefer over the new G for portraits.
let me supply a pic with the 'lack of sharpness' compared to the new
Sorry, I don't have any bad purple fringe shots to show. I delete them or avoid them as much as possible. Here is one that I kept shot at f/2.2 I believe so it isn't as bad as can be. Once you learn the lens you know which situations to/not to shoot in
rsolti13 wrote:
Bif, it is an excellent lens....one that I think people are writing off as crap now the new one has come out. I had the new one for a month or so and didn't come blown away by it. I am back with the old D, which I actually prefer over the new G for portraits.
Yeah, that sounds more like it. Marketing, heh! I like actualities much better.
Marketing? I didn't make that comment because of marketing.
I've made my comments from experience, thank you very much. Whether I called something the right name is somewhat irrelevant: it's still purple.
At any rate, I'm rather familiar with the lens, and I'm glad you're getting good mileage from it. Just remember that you're chopping off much of the imaging circle and are left with the best part of it. We're using all of it on FX.
luminosity wrote:
Marketing? I didn't make that comment because of marketing.
I've made my comments from experience, thank you very much. Whether I called something the right name is somewhat irrelevant: it's still purple.
No it's not! It's l-a-v-e-n-d-e-r.
j/k.
At any rate, I'm rather familiar with the lens, and I'm glad you're getting good mileage from it. Just remember that you're chopping off much of the imaging circle and are left with the best part of it. We're using all of it on FX.
Yeah, you full-framers you... :P
Again though, to be clear, you're not talking about this lens right?
or http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/AF85mm/AFNikkor85mmf14UKa.jpg
we are all on the same page. Both myself and Josh have the 85 1.4D...not the 1.8 or AI-S. The 85 1.8 is even more of a purple monster than the 85 1.4
Another note...why did you choose to use the Nikon 85 1.4D on m4/3 instead of the Rokinon? You have to use the lens in manual focus, right? If so, the Rokinon is surprisingly better than the Nikon 85 1.4D in almost every way
I've owned and shot the 85/1.8, so I can speak from experience on that as well.
But, as Ryan said, we are all talking about the 85/1.4D. It seems kind of obvious that your mileage is going to be different from ours because the sensor you're working with is much smaller than an FX 35mm sensor.
rsolti13 wrote:
we are all on the same page. Both myself and Josh have the 85 1.4D...not the 1.8 or AI-S. The 85 1.8 is even more of a purple monster than the 85 1.4
Another note...why did you choose to use the Nikon 85 1.4D on m4/3 instead of the Rokinon? You have to use the lens in manual focus, right? If so, the Rokinon is surprisingly better than the Nikon 85 1.4D in almost every way
No reason. I buy lenses in bulk (kinda) based on my cost vrs. typical resale price. The more interesting and non-duplicate ones I play with for a month or so before selling them on. So this one just happened to come along. I don't think I've ever seen the Rokinon. How is it better? And don't say purple... you guys are imagining things!
Bif, the Rokinon is sharper across the frame, has nicer bokeh in my opinion, controls flare much better.....and......handles CA much better . I have had both, like the Rokinon better IF I could focus 1.4 manually accurately on moving kids. Though the AF in the Nikon isn't much better. That is where the new G does a far better job.
rsolti13 wrote:
Bif, the Rokinon is sharper across the frame, has nicer bokeh in my opinion, controls flare much better.....and......handles CA much better . I have had both, like the Rokinon better IF I could focus 1.4 manually accurately on moving kids. Though the AF in the Nikon isn't much better. That is where the new G does a far better job.
Thanks for that rsolti13! ...and all without saying the "P" word!
Sounds like a lens I'd like to put on the keepers shelf. I'm going to keep an eye out for a deal on one. What's the full name of it, Rokinon 85/1.4 or are there versions to look for?
Bifurcator wrote:
Thanks for that rsolti13! ...and all without saying the "P" word!
Sounds like a lens I'd like to put on the keepers shelf. I'm going to keep an eye out for a deal on one. What's the full name of it, Rokinon 85/1.4 or are there versions to look for?
Samyang/Bower/Rokinon...I think there are other names out there. They are dirt cheap....about $250 or so. Definitely worth a shot for someone that likes to try different glass
. Have taken many a good photo with it. It just isn't the incredibly sharp lens some people make it out to be. If you stop to think about it, it wouldn't make sense for it to be that: if you're taking portraits of people, sharpness isn't always a good thing.
Anyway, I've only shot with the lens for one day but there doesn't seem to any credibility to these "reports" based on just that. Maybe I'll encounter some conditions in the future where it will show it's ugly head? But let's hope not. 
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/AFNikkor/AF85mm/AFNikkor85mmf14UKa.jpg