NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Jedi on March 09, 2018, 15:38:56
-
Good morning, my English isn't perfect, however I would like to try to ask you a council. I have got Nikon D810, Nikon AF-D 85mm f/1.4, Nikon AF-D 105mm f/2 Defocus Control, Nikon AF-D 135mm f/2 Defocus Control, Nikon AF-D 180mm f/2.8, which are old champions for portrait, for their bokeh, their "old style" colours, their high but "not aggressive" sharpness for portrait: we know this aspects, all the members of this forum know them.
They are fixed lens and I'm thinking to buy a zoom for its flexibility and practicality (is this word correct?), but I wouldn't lose the high quality of those prime lenses and I want to buy the zoom, I have to sell those prime lenses. I would like to buy the Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8E FL VR, for my Nikon D810, for portrait and mountain landscapes shoots. 70-200mm FL seems to be extraordinary, very, very, very sharp from edge to edge, also at f/2.8 and its bokeh seems to be wonderful. The weight isn't a problem for me, but the question is: I would lose quality for sharpness (mostly on the corner) and bokeh? To the infinity focus 85mm f/1.4 AF-D isn't good, it is a monster portrait lens, but I have got also the 105mm f/2 DC, which has got a double personality: at f/2 - f/4 is a portrait lens, at f/8 and f/11 is a razor, for landscape, such as the 135mm f/2 DC. My 180mm f/2.8 AF-D, also with Fine tuning AF of my D810 isn't very good for landscape, but is exceptional for portrait and street.
What I have to do? I sell the primes to buy the 70-200mm f/2.8E FL VR, to obtain an only one lens, which I could use for portrait and landscape?
Thank you!!!
-
You seem to have mostly answered your own question already?
The 70-200mm would not be a suitable portrait lens for my use. I would consider keeping your favourite portrait lens/lenses, sell the rest, and look to purchase the less expensive 70-200 f4G zoom. What is the problem with your 180mm AF-D for landscape pictures. I am very happy with my copy for landscape use.
Cheers
-
You seem to have mostly answered your own question already?
The 70-200mm would not be a suitable portrait lens for my use.
Cheers
It's also a portrait lens, in my opinion, see:
https://www.juzaphoto.com/recensione.php?l=it&t=nikon_70-200_f2-8e_fl#fotoesempio
-
You seem to have mostly answered your own question already?
The 70-200mm would not be a suitable portrait lens for my use. I would consider keeping your favourite portrait lens/lenses, sell the rest, and look to purchase the less expensive 70-200 f4G zoom. What is the problem with your 180mm AF-D for landscape pictures. I am very happy with my copy for landscape use.
Cheers
+ 1
-
You seem to have mostly answered your own question already?
What is the problem with your 180mm AF-D for landscape pictures. I am very happy with my copy for landscape use.
Cheers
It's very sharp only for portrait and middle distances. At infinity is very poor; with AF Tuning at +10 is a bit better, but it isn't great, no...., my 180mm.
-
I was thinking what BEZ already recommended
-
The 70-200/2,8 FL lens is an extraordinary lens but I am not too sure whether it is a one-for-all-purposes solution. Maybe you should rent and test one how it fits your need. But I hardly believe it can replace all those other lenses.
Imho my impression is that the 85/1,4 D is a lens with aggressive sharpness, sometimes too much for portrais - but perfect If you want to go a different portrait approach while exactly using that kind of aggressiveness
-
The 70-200/2,8 FL lens is an extraordinary lens but I am not too sure whether it is a one-for-all-purposes solution. Maybe you should rent and test one how it fits your need. But I hardly believe it can replace all those other lenses.
Imho my impression is that the 85/1,4 D is a lens with aggressive sharpness, sometimes too much for portrais
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o
Excuse me, have you ever used this lens, the Nikon AF-D 85mm f/1.4?????? Aggressive sharpness???
-
It's very sharp only for portrait and middle distances. At infinity is very poor; with AF Tuning at +10 is a bit better, but it isn't great, no...., my 180mm.
Do you have one ? I own one since last June. I'm using it also for longer distances; and this lens is tack sharp that it would even challenge fixed focus lenses. And for me it's also the perfect portrait lens:
portrait:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4777/25845001307_b2200e5550_h.jpg)
Nikon D5
Nikkor 70.0-200.0 mm f/2.8E FL
ƒ/7.1 200.0 mm 1/200s ISO 1000
longer distance:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4799/39821285835_bcfecdd97e_h.jpg)
Nikon D5
Nikkor 70.0-200.0 mm f/2.8E FL
ƒ/5.0 98.0 mm 1/160 ISO 100
-
Do you have one ? I own one since last June. I'm using it also for longer distances; and this lens is tack sharp that it would even challenge fixed focus lenses. And for me it's also the perfect portrait lens:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4777/25845001307_b2200e5550_h.jpg)
Nikon D5
70.0-200.0 mm f/2.8
ƒ/7.1 200.0 mm 1/200s ISO 1000
:o :o :o :o
Maybe I will check my 180mm...... :'( :'( :'( :'(
-
This was a sharpness test taken with my old pre-AI Nikkor-P 180mm f/2.8 lens. I find it pretty sharp.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4774/40673835612_2b4dfaf893_h.jpg)
Nikon D610
Nikkor-P 180.0 mm f/2.8
ƒ/2.8 180.0 mm 1/800s ISO 250
-
This was a sharpness test taken with my old pre-AI Nikkor-P 180mm f/2.8 lens. I find it pretty sharp.
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4774/40673835612_2b4dfaf893_h.jpg)
Nikon D610
Nikkor-P 180.0 mm f/2.8
ƒ/2.8 180.0 mm 1/800s ISO 250
Yes. it is!
-
Perhaps the 70-200mm is too aggressive for portraits? I am not convinced. I haven't got the 70-200mm, but can you look at these pictures, please? (they aren't my pictures).
https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?l=it&t=2611259
https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?t=2610042&l=it
They're wonderful for portraits, imho. Aren't you agree??
-
Jedi. I'm not too sure what do you mean with "agressive" for portraits.
-
I would not sell those prime lenses. I could not bear to. I'd eat rice and beans until I could save enough money to buy the AF-S 70-200/2.8E FL, etc. Nikkor.
Dave Hartman who unfortunately doesn't own any of the discussed lenses.
-
Jedi. I'm not too sure what do you mean with "agressive" for portraits.
I checked the dictionary, I'm sure of the meaning the word "aggressive": Nikon AF-D 85mm f/1.4 isn't aggressive. It's a very , very kind portrait lens!!!!!! It's very, very soft lens!!
-
I would not sell those prime lenses. I could not bear to. I'd eat rice and beans until I could save enough money to buy the AF-S 70-200/2.8E FL, etc. Nikkor.
Dave Hartman who unfortunately doesn't own any of the discussed lenses.
Hello, thanks for your council of wisdom. Many times, with our "disease", it's hard to resist! maybe it's the best choice.
-
By the way, in more than 40 years, I sold a lot of (Nikon) camera bodies, I never sold a lens ..... 😉
-
There is a consensus among the experienced Nikonians (indeed in other camera systems too) that the best prime lenses are in their own class of high optical quality and performance. Few zooms can compete, but as you likely have read, the reviewers rate the 70-200 f2.8E one of the best zoom lenses ever... eg PhotographyLife. Thom Hogan argues this 70-200 edges out [nearly] all Nikon-fit primes at all focal lengths:
"Let me put it another way: at present the only three primes I know of that perform better than the 70-200mm f/2.8E at the same focal length are the 200mm f/2, the recent Nikkor 105mm f/1.4E, and the 85mm f/1.4 Zeiss Otus."
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/nikon-lens-reviews/nikkor-zoom-lens-reviews/nikon-70-200mm-f28e-fl-ed.html (http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/nikon-lens-reviews/nikkor-zoom-lens-reviews/nikon-70-200mm-f28e-fl-ed.html)
One photographer will rate a particular lens as the "silk purse" but it will be considered the "Pig's ear" by another ::) Ultimately, it is a matter of personal choice of the aesthetics, and above all these lenses serve a diversity of applications (a fact too rarely appreciated!).
Thus, I personally rate my 85 f1.4D AF very highly, but then do not own a 70-200 f4E. And I argue the DC Nikkors are also in their own league for portraiture. See the Threads here on NG. THe 200 f2 is also a unique - and expensive - optic, which some photographers find to be too heavy
-
By the way, in more than 40 years, I sold a lot of (Nikon) camera bodies, I never sold a lens ..... 😉
I sold, for example:
Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/2 ZF.2 to buy Zeiss Distagon 35mm f/1.4 ZF.2
Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VR to buy Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 to buy VRII, which I sold to buy Zeiss 85/1.4 and Zeiss 135/2
Nikon AF-D 35-70mm f/2.8 to buy Nikon AF-S 28-70mm f/2.8,
Nikon 200mm f/4 AI-s to Nikon AF-D 180mm f/2.8
........, for example.
-
Excuse me, have you ever used this lens, the Nikon AF-D 85mm f/1.4?????? Aggressive sharpness???
Yes I have, i own it. And I described my impression based on my experience with my sample. I took the word agressive as it was there, being aware that it is not a too precise descriptoin Compared to the 135 DC or 105/2,5 it is less soft and less forgiving in showing details. Sometimes that is good sometimes other lenses are a better choice. The AF-S 200/2 is something completely different btw
-
There is a consensus among the experienced Nikonians (indeed in other camera systems too) that the best prime lenses are in their own class of high optical quality and performance. Few zooms can compete, but as you likely have read, the reviewers rate the 70-200 f2.8E one of the best zoom lenses ever... eg PhotographyLife. Thom Hogan argues this 70-200 edges out [nearly] all Nikon-fit primes at all focal lengths:
"Let me put it another way: at present the only three primes I know of that perform better than the 70-200mm f/2.8E at the same focal length are the 200mm f/2, the recent Nikkor 105mm f/1.4E, and the 85mm f/1.4 Zeiss Otus."
http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/nikon-lens-reviews/nikkor-zoom-lens-reviews/nikon-70-200mm-f28e-fl-ed.html (http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/nikon-lens-reviews/nikkor-zoom-lens-reviews/nikon-70-200mm-f28e-fl-ed.html)
One photographer will rate a particular lens as the "silk purse" but it will be considered the "Pig's ear" by another ::) Ultimately, it is a matter of personal choice of the aesthetics, and above all these lenses serve a diversity of applications (a fact too rarely appreciated!).
It's true:
1) There are very, very good wonderful reviews about 70-200mm f/2.8E FL: I have opened this thread for this reason: a) 70-200mm performs better than the primes, for portraits and landscapes (bokeh, colours, sharpness)?, b) Do you would like to change my primes?
2) It's a subjective choice, a personal taste: for example, I sold Nikon Af-S 85mm f/1.4G to buy Nikon AF-D 85mm f/4, because the G lens was too contrasty for portrait; for example, I prefer Zeiss tones or Nikon AF-D styles, for the colours, to the new Nikon AF-G lenses. The weight of Nikon 200mm f/2 G isn't a problem for me, but the problem would be the price, so I have bought the Nikon F-D 180mm f/2.8 and I'm searching for Nikon 200mm f/2 I-S, for its lower price than the 200/2 AF-S G and its colours.
It's also a subjective choice, personal taste
-
What I have to do? I sell the primes to buy the 70-200mm f/2.8E FL VR, to obtain an only one lens, which I could use for portrait and landscape?
David is right, the 70-200mm f/2.8E FL VR will not replace your primes.
It's like a woodworker selling all his hammers and chisels in order to buy a really good, special saw. He might be able to saw wood really well but he is no longer able to carve it. That is what those primes can do, carve an image with all the precision you can wish.
The zoom may cover the focal lengths but is a completely different tool. More for sport and photojournalism than creating art.
-
Thanks for your clarity and help.
-
David is right, the 70-200mm f/2.8E FL VR will not replace your primes.
It's like a woodworker selling all his hammers and chisels in order to buy a really good, special saw. He might be able to saw wood really well but he is no longer able to carve it. That is what those primes can do, carve an image with all the precision you can wish.
The zoom may cover the focal lengths but is a completely different tool. More for sport and photojournalism than creating art.
Superb analogy :-) Although many event photographers use zooms, notably for weddings, I would suspect the more appealing records of bride and groom et al testify to the optical prowess of choice primes
-
I have 3 fixed focal lenses in the 70-200 mm range. I never considered to sell these for replacement by a zoom (which I own).
-
I would keep at least some of the primes and save until you can afford the zoom. The 70-200 FL is exceptionally good both for landscape and sports. For portraits in the studio, I’m very happy with the zoom as I can control the lighting the contrast doesn’t get excessive. For natural light portraits ”on location” it is also good but I think some of the primes produce better out of focus rendering especially in front of the subject. And of course many primes in this range are substantially more compact.
Overall the 70-200/2.8 FL has been a positive surprise and I think Nikon really hit it out of the park with this version.
-
I own the 70-200 FL version, and have passed on some of the lenses you've mentioned. Here's my 2 cents.
First of all, if AF performance is a thing at all, the 70-200 FL beats them all. MF experience is great on the 70-200 too, unlike most other AF lenses that are abysmal when it comes to manual focusing.
Bokeh on the 70-200 FL is great, I love it. The Tamron 70-200mm G2 also has great bokeh and rendering, but it has quite severe focus breathing issues which is not found on the 70-200 FL. I would figure it's an annoyance at portrait distances.
For landscapes, you'd want a steady tripod, and preferably a replacement lens foot:
http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/assets/images/products/LCF-11-for-Nikon-70-200mm-f2-8E-FL-ED-VR-2016.main-1.png?fcts=20180216042736&resizeid=6&resizeh=1000&resizew=1000
The 70-200 FL is light weight in my book, but certainly not light enough to just sit on the camera in the breeze for longer exposures.
You own the 85mm, 105mm, 135mm, and 180mm D-series fast prime lenses. Which ones are your favourite? I sold my 180mm AF-D and dropped the 135mm f/2 DC from my list because it wasn't as good as the 105mm in terms of optics. The 85mm f/1.4 Zeiss classic and 105mm f/2 DC-nikkor were on my list a while ago, but I've forgotten about them altogether after purchasing the new 70-200mm FL.
My suggestion is to rent one for a week or so, and don't delete any photos. Load images and keep them in a program like lightroom, this allows you to see which focal length you are using the most. You may then base your decision off the sample you have. I absolutely love my 70-200 FL, and some may disagree, but it does have prime traits. I own an 85mm f/2.8 PC-E which is sharper than the 70-200mm at close focus distances, but both are plenty sharp.
I made this a while ago to illustrate the fact that different software handle files differently, it could be somewhat helpful here to exemplify the expected rendition of the 70-200 FL:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4603/40374594392_29395f9e32_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/24vLmhq)Nikon D810 Jpeg Fine VS LR Raw and C1 Raw Conversions (https://flic.kr/p/24vLmhq) by Macro Cosmos (DH) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/133023063@N04/)
Edit: I forgot to mention VR and the 4 programmable (somewhat) buttons on the 70-200 FL.
VR allows me to shoot at 200mm, 1/50 handheld. Not the best in the world and I know people who can easily do 1/20 with the right technique, but it's good enough for me.
The 4 buttons are indispensable. I have them programmed for AF and use them more than I use my back button for AF. Also note that the zoom and focus rings are reverted unlike conventional nikkor zooms. It took me... maybe 10 minutes to get used to it, so no big deal to me.
Cheers!
MC
-
David is right, the 70-200mm f/2.8E FL VR will not replace your primes.
It's like a woodworker selling all his hammers and chisels in order to buy a really good, special saw. He might be able to saw wood really well but he is no longer able to carve it. That is what those primes can do, carve an image with all the precision you can wish.
The zoom may cover the focal lengths but is a completely different tool. More for sport and photojournalism than creating art.
So you think technically anyway Nikon AF-D 85/1.4, 105mm f/2 DC and 135mm f/2 DC are irreplaceable to obtain a precise, specific, pleasant and satisfying result.
-
I own the 70-200 FL version, and have passed on some of the lenses you've mentioned. Here's my 2 cents.
First of all, if AF performance is a thing at all, the 70-200 FL beats them all. MF experience is great on the 70-200 too, unlike most other AF lenses that are abysmal when it comes to manual focusing.
Bokeh on the 70-200 FL is great, I love it. The Tamron 70-200mm G2 also has great bokeh and rendering, but it has quite severe focus breathing issues which is not found on the 70-200 FL. I would figure it's an annoyance at portrait distances.
For landscapes, you'd want a steady tripod, and preferably a replacement lens foot:
http://www.reallyrightstuff.com/assets/images/products/LCF-11-for-Nikon-70-200mm-f2-8E-FL-ED-VR-2016.main-1.png?fcts=20180216042736&resizeid=6&resizeh=1000&resizew=1000
The 70-200 FL is light weight in my book, but certainly not light enough to just sit on the camera in the breeze for longer exposures.
You own the 85mm, 105mm, 135mm, and 180mm D-series fast prime lenses. Which ones are your favourite? I sold my 180mm AF-D and dropped the 135mm f/2 DC from my list because it wasn't as good as the 105mm in terms of optics. The 85mm f/1.4 Zeiss classic and 105mm f/2 DC-nikkor were on my list a while ago, but I've forgotten about them altogether after purchasing the new 70-200mm FL.
My suggestion is to rent one for a week or so, and don't delete any photos. Load images and keep them in a program like lightroom, this allows you to see which focal length you are using the most. You may then base your decision off the sample you have. I absolutely love my 70-200 FL, and some may disagree, but it does have prime traits. I own an 85mm f/2.8 PC-E which is sharper than the 70-200mm at close focus distances, but both are plenty sharp.
I made this a while ago to illustrate the fact that different software handle files differently, it could be somewhat helpful here to exemplify the expected rendition of the 70-200 FL:
(https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4603/40374594392_29395f9e32_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/24vLmhq)Nikon D810 Jpeg Fine VS LR Raw and C1 Raw Conversions (https://flic.kr/p/24vLmhq) by Macro Cosmos (DH) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/133023063@N04/)
Edit: I forgot to mention VR and the 4 programmable (somewhat) buttons on the 70-200 FL.
VR allows me to shoot at 200mm, 1/50 handheld. Not the best in the world and I know people who can easily do 1/20 with the right technique, but it's good enough for me.
The 4 buttons are indispensable. I have them programmed for AF and use them more than I use my back button for AF. Also note that the zoom and focus rings are reverted unlike conventional nikkor zooms. It took me... maybe 10 minutes to get used to it, so no big deal to me.
Cheers!
MC
Great!! Thanks for the council!!!
-
I'd like to have it checked the AF-D 180mm f/2.8. With AF fine tuning at +10 the sharpness is a bit better, +10 is the best value, I have tried a lot searching for the best value, +10 is the best. Sharpness, I repeat, at close and medium distance is great, bokeh is fantastic, but sharpening at infinity is poor, also with +10. I have this problem only with AF-D 180/2.8, not with AF-D 85/1.4, 105mm DC, 135mm DC and, in the past, no problems with Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VRI, 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII, Nikon AF-S 28-70mm f/2.8, Nikon AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8, Nikon AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8. Poor sharpness at infinity, in the past, only with Nikon AF-D 20mm f/2.8, but I think it was poor for 36 Mpxs of my D810 and because I tried in the same time the Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/2.8 and I wanted to buy the Zeiss.
-
I'd like to have it checked the AF-D 180mm f/2.8. With AF fine tuning at +10 the sharpness is a bit better, +10 is the best value, I have tried a lot searching for the best value, +10 is the best. Sharpness, I repeat, at close and medium distance is great, bokeh is fantastic, but sharpening at infinity is poor, also with +10. I have this problem only with AF-D 180/2.8, not with AF-D 85/1.4, 105mm DC, 135mm DC and, in the past, no problems with Nikkor AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VRI, 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII, Nikon AF-S 28-70mm f/2.8, Nikon AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8, Nikon AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8. Poor sharpness at infinity, in the past, only with Nikon AF-D 20mm f/2.8, but I think it was poor for 36 Mpxs of my D810 and because I tried in the same time the Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/2.8 and I wanted to buy the Zeiss.
Not sure what's wrong with your 180mm here, mine was tact sharp globally, and AF was just bang on. It's slooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow, but it's bang on. I've taken some of my best photos with that lens.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1517/25184750130_d24b64ab48_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/EnuqMQ)Waking up in the Morning (https://flic.kr/p/EnuqMQ) by Macro Cosmos (DH) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/133023063@N04/), on Flickr
This is on the D750, and its tonality is great, colours are vibrant, oh and tact sharp. The D750 has an AA filter, this lens will only be far better on a D810, and even better on a D850.
Many of these old nikkors actually have insane resolution. They may not be the sharpest knife in the kitchen wide open, but closing the iris by just half a stop delivers brilliant results. If you post some screenshots of your 180mm exposures, I may be able to help and provide more insight.
-
Not sure what's wrong with your 180mm here, mine was tact sharp globally, and AF was just bang on. It's slooooooooooooooooooooooooooooow, but it's bang on. I've taken some of my best photos with that lens.
(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1517/25184750130_d24b64ab48_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/EnuqMQ)Waking up in the Morning (https://flic.kr/p/EnuqMQ) by Macro Cosmos (DH) (https://www.flickr.com/photos/133023063@N04/), on Flickr
This is on the D750, and its tonality is great, colours are vibrant, oh and tact sharp. The D750 has an AA filter, this lens will only be far better on a D810, and even better on a D850.
Many of these old nikkors actually have insane resolution. They may not be the sharpest knife in the kitchen wide open, but closing the iris by just half a stop delivers brilliant results. If you post some screenshots of your 180mm exposures, I may be able to help and provide more insight.
I can't add a picture to show to you the problem at infinity of my lens: can you help me? I haven't a site; I have tried with Imageshack, but you can't deliver the images to a forum.....
-
(http://)
-
I can't add a picture to show to you the problem at infinity of my lens: can you help me? I haven't a site; I have tried with Imageshack, but you can't deliver the images to a forum.....
Here you are a shoot at infinity with D810 + Nikon 180mm f/2.8 AF-D, at 1/400s f/8 ISO 160 Focus on the town. It is not fault of the mist, my lens is always poor at infinity.
Morro Reatino (Italy)
-
If I use Live View, it is discreetly better..........
-
Do you think that Nikon 180mm f/2.8 ED Ai-S is better at infinity? I don't need autofocus.
-
Another: D810 + AF-D 180mm f/2.8 1/400s f/8 ISO 400 (focus on the town)
(it was a true test, the picture is a filth :) :)
-
Another shoot, but a short distance:
D810 + AF-D 180mm f/2.8 1/500s f/3.2
-
Another shoot, at short distance:
D810 + AF-D 180mm f/2.8 1/400s f/3.2 ISO 180
-
Please help me!! Have I to change lens?
-
Here you are a shoot at infinity with D810 + Nikon 180mm f/2.8 AF-D, at 1/400s f/8 ISO 160 Focus on the town. It is not fault of the mist, my lens is always poor at infinity.
Morro Reatino (Italy)
The contrast of your second distant shot is low because of the haze, which is a common problem of any long lenses shot at distance. The images whose contrast is low don't look really sharp.
-
The contrast of your second distant shot is low because of the haze, which is a common problem of any long lenses shot at distance. The images whose contrast is low don't look really sharp.
Yes, but with my lens all the images at long distances are soft, no sharp!!!
-
I think you have a problem with your 180 mm f/2.8.
-
The first picture of the girl look sharp enough but it is back-focused - the focus point is not on the eyes but further back on the head. The second picture looks better. The AF 180/2.8 does not focus quickly, so if the subject is moving there may be some out of focus shots.
Before we blame the lens (or camera) try some tests: focus the lens manually and focus using live view (best on a tripod). Use a static subject so subject motion does not affect focusing. Select subjects near infinity, medium and close distances. This will tell you if the lens, when focused correctly, is optically sharp.
If the lens is sharp, repeat the tests using AF to test the focus system. If the lens is consistently back-focusing, use the AF fine tune to adjust it. If you still cannot get consistent focus using AF at near and far distances, maybe the lens and/or camera need adjusting at a service centre.
-
The first picture of the girl look sharp enough but it is back-focused - the focus point is not on the eyes but further back on the head. The second picture looks better. The AF 180/2.8 does not focus quickly, so if the subject is moving there may be some out of focus shots.
Before we blame the lens (or camera) try some tests: focus the lens manually and focus using live view (best on a tripod). Use a static subject so subject motion does not affect focusing. Select subjects near infinity, medium and close distances. This will tell you if the lens, when focused correctly, is optically sharp.
If the lens is sharp, repeat the tests using AF to test the focus system. If the lens is consistently back-focusing, use the AF fine tune to adjust it. If you still cannot get consistent focus using AF at near and far distances, maybe the lens and/or camera need adjusting at a service centre.
As I wrote, I have done this test and there is a difference between manual focusing and live view.....
-
If you still cannot get consistent focus using AF at near and far distances, maybe the lens and/or camera need adjusting at a service centre.
Yes, there is difference also using the best value of AF tuning, +10. The problem is the lens, in fact with other my actual lenses and in the past, the D810 is perfect at all distances (85/1.4D, 105/2 DC, 135/2 DC today, but also 24-70/2.8 70-200/2.8 VR and VRI, 14-24mm, 28-70/2.8, 17-35/2.8, 300/4 AF-ED in the past,perfect). I have changed them to buy Zeiss lenses in a little time.
Do you think that Nikon 180mm f/2.8 AI-s ED is sharper than Nikon AF-D 180mm f/2.8 at infinity with D810? I don't need AF.
-
The 85mm 1.4 and 180mm AF-D ED f/2.8 are both really good lenses, plenty sharp even wide open, on the high end cameras like the screwdriver AF is quite fast and very accurate.
The above is of course only the case if you take care regarding how you shoot;
The 180mm lens is quite light for it's focal length, so you need high shutter speed to freeze the moment 1/500 on a D810 I would also recommend the battery grip to add mass to the camera.
If the subject or you are moving use AF-C.
The 180mm Ais f/2.8 ED is a little different optical design, also very good Bokeh - They are very similar though. A mechanical jewel.
To me it looks like your 180 and camera needs to go in for service together.
BTW I once saw a very bad case of a large fingerprint on the inside of one of the rear elements on a 180mm AF-D, it produced very hazy looking images,,,
-
The 180mm lens is quite light for it's focal length, so you need high shutter speed to freeze the moment 1/500 on a D810 I would also recommend the battery grip to add mass to the camera.
Excuse me, but when I have tried 180mm f/2.8 AF-D with LV, AF and MF, I used tripod and 1/800s and the difference was great, at Af Fine OFF and AF FIne at the best value, +10. It's not my fault, it isn't the case if I take care regarding how I shoot.
-
If the subject or you are moving use AF-C.
Yes, I am not a begonner, I use in these cases AF-C!!!!!!!
-
To me it looks like your 180 and camera needs to go in for service together.
There would be no danger of being in the regulation for the others lenses?
-
BTW I once saw a very bad case of a large fingerprint on the inside of one of the rear elements on a 180mm AF-D, it produced very hazy looking images,,,
I now check.........
-
I check now.....
-
BTW I once saw a very bad case of a large fingerprint on the inside of one of the rear elements on a 180mm AF-D, it produced very hazy looking images,,,
No, it's clean, (open diaphragm, against light source).
-
The 85mm 1.4 and 180mm AF-D ED f/2.8 are both really good lenses, plenty sharp even wide open, on the high end cameras like the screwdriver AF is quite fast and very accurate.
What do you think about this comparison by The Digital Picture? If you choose Nikon AF-D 180mm f/2.8 and Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8 VRII on D3x at f/4 at 180mm and 200mm, The Digital pictures says 70-200mm wins!! Everywhere!!!!!!! :o :o :o :o
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=647&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=4&LensComp=621&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=4
My 180mm f/2.8 AF-D is very sharp at infinity in Manual focusing.
-
You are completely entitled to disagree with me, i'm just stating that for the record, I have no difficulty in making sharp images near to infinity with the two lenses.
So other people reading this thread don't think that they are bad lenses.
Our own Nikkor Guru has a few words written down on these two lense, to make sure I din't make a fool out of myself I just read his words on these two lenses, here is a link:
http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_short.html (http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_short.html)
Quote 180mm AF-D f/2.8 ED: This 180 must be ranked among the finest Nikkors of all times in terms of its optics,
These are written some years ago, however lenses with this high performance seldom underperform drastically like you state in your posts, so something must be amis you tell me.
This 180 must be ranked among the finest Nikkors of all times in terms of its optics,
-
so something must be amis you tell me.
Excuse me, what does it mean: "must be amis you tell me"? I don't understand.....
However, I didn't want to be offensive. My lens has got problems IMHO.
-
Comparing old AF-D lenses with the latest and greatest 70-200mm FL f/2.8 is an easy win for the new Pro caliber zoom if you look at resolution however the 85mm is an f/1.4 lens ;) so,,, it wins the speed battle :)
My choice was to discard the 70-200mm FL f/2.8 and I got the 85mm f/1.4 G and 200mm AFS f/2.0 but I kept my 108mm AF-D f/2.8 ED and 300mm PF f/4 ED
In this range I now mostly shoot the 200mm AFS f/2 since it gets the job done.Btw I use the hood from 300mm f/2.8 highly recommended!
Edit to remove a typing mistake!
-
Excuse me, what does it mean: "must be amis you tell me"? I don't understand.....
However, I didn't want to be offensive. My lens has got problems IMHO.
It just means that 'something is not right' with either the lens or the camera 'please tell me' when you know what is wrong, after a visit to Nikon Service.
Maybe use fewer :o :o :o :o :o :o :o in your posts :)
-
Comparing old AF-D lenses with the latest and greatest 70-200mm FL f/2.8 is an easy win for the new Pro caliber zoom if you look at resolution however the 85mm is an f/1.4 lens ;) so,,, it wins the speed battle :)
My choice was to discard the 70-200mm FL f/2.8 and I got the 85mm f/1.4 G and 200mm AFS f/2.0 but I kept my 108mm AF-D f/2.8 ED and 300mm PF f/4 ED
In this range I now mostly shoot the 200mm AFS f/2 since it gets the job done.Btw I use the hood from 300mm f/2.8 highly recommended!
200mm f/2 AF-S is too expensive; 180mm or 200mm aren't very important focals for me, but I would like to work with a great lens which works well.
-
The 200mm AFS f/2.0 in used condition is not that expensive and it can replace all of these lenses in your list:
Zeiss 85/1.4, Zeiss 100/2, Zeiss 135/2, Nikon AF-D 85mm f/1.4, Nikon AF-D 105mm f/2 DC, Nikon AF-D 135mm f/2 DC, Nikon AF-D 180mm f/2.8, Nikon AI 300mm f/2.8
-
The 200mm AFS f/2.0 in used condition is not that expensive and it can replace all of these lenses in your list:
Zeiss 85/1.4, Zeiss 100/2, Zeiss 135/2, Nikon AF-D 85mm f/1.4, Nikon AF-D 105mm f/2 DC, Nikon AF-D 135mm f/2 DC, Nikon AF-D 180mm f/2.8, Nikon AI 300mm f/2.8
I am not agree. A 200mm can't replace an 85mm, a 100mm or a 135mm. I will never sell a Zeiss furthermore. A 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom could do it,ma only in terms of focal lenghts, because, as I learned, 85/1.4 AF-D, 105mm f/2 DC and 135mm f/2 DC are specific tools for portrait, because they're faster (first of all 85/1.4) and have got Defocus Control (105mm and 135mm DC).
-
I am not agree. A 200mm can't replace an 85mm, a 100mm or a 135mm. I will never sell a Zeiss furthermore. A 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom could do it,ma only in terms of focal lenghts, because, as I learned, 85/1.4 AF-D, 105mm f/2 DC and 135mm f/2 DC are specific tools for portrait, because they're faster (first of all 85/1.4) and have got Defocus Control (105mm and 135mm DC).
...... I learned in this topic!!
For my landscapes I use Zeiss, from 21mm to 135mm (in the range of 70-200mm range I use Zeiss 85/1.4, 100/2, 135/2, of course). My doubts with this topic were at the beginning about bokeh, colours, contrast of new Nikon lenses, tonal passages and sharpness for portrait....... and then I'm searching for a great lens around 180mm-200mm to complete over 135mm for landscapes....
-
We are all constantly learning and evolving ;)
The 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses are Pro everything photo journalist lenses and does everything to almost perfection.
I of course agree that the 200mm can't exactly replace shorter focal lengths, however it can mimic the look and feel or even surpass it, depending on style:
For my work ie. If you are able to manipulate distance to subject and subject distance to back ground, then the 200mm f/2 can replace/surpass the 85mm f/1.4 and 105 DC, 135 DC as well as 180mm and 300mm (maybe except the 300mm f/2 I have never used it)
What i'm trying to say is;
With the complex internal focusing and floating element lens designs of later years the shear size of the front and rear elements and of course the overall design, makes for different qualities not related directly to focal length and aperture value.
To our advantage we now can pick now from many different looks ;)
-
I have seen some my friend's pictures with D810 and 70-200mm f/2.8 FL and, in my modest opinion, for my little experience, the 70-200mm f/2.8 seems to be very very contrasted, much more than my 105mm f/2 DC and 135mm f/2 DC, the bokeh of 70-200mm is very nervous, less fluid, less flowing. On the landscape 70-200mm FL APPEARS very, very sharp, but on the faces of persons, it destroyes their faces. Maybe my friend can't use very well, so I've searched for others pictures and I've found also these pictures......
https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?l=it&t=2611259
https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?l=it&t=2610042
https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?t=2611258&l=it
https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?l=it&t=2367058
https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?l=it&t=2659127
https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?l=it&t=2067315
https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?l=it&t=2461888
https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?l=it&t=2389497
https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?l=it&t=2521904
https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?l=it&t=2391321
https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?l=it&t=2600084
https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?l=it&t=2599995
https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?l=it&t=2684732
https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?l=it&t=2652934
https://www.juzaphoto.com/galleria.php?l=it&t=2495306
Here the 70-200mm is too much contrasted, is it true? Are you agree?
What can you see to me about this aspect? For over 135mm I would be able to use the Nikon AF-D 180mm f/2.8 in manual focus for landscapes and AF for portraits and street and not buy the 70-200mm...... For landscapes until 135mm I use Zeiss; for portraits Nikon 85/1.4, 105 DC and 135mm DC.
-
Five pages. But for what ? The 180 mm is not sharp enough; the 70-200mm is too sharp / « contrasted ». Make up your mind. End of story.
-
Five pages. But for what ? The 180 mm is not sharp enough; the 70-200mm is too sharp / « contrasted ». Make up your mind. End of story.
Thank you.
-
It's true the 70-200/2.8 FL is very contrasty. The only situation where I find this to be a problem is in dim indoor available light where it can be that a high contrast lens renders the shadows so dark that they're significantly affected by noise whereas a low-contrast lens may not lead to this effect. I haven't studied it in detail, it just has been my impression. In reasonable daylight or in the studio I really like the 70-200/2.8 FL and it has become my go-to lens for tight portraits in the studio. I tend to use fast primes in indoor available light and my primes are not quite so contrasty as this zoom. I guess there is much that is subjective about these matters. Generally the 70-200/2.8 FL is very much to my liking although I've been a fan of the primes for a long time. I do find that the zoom does not have as nice bokeh as most Nikon tele primes especially there can be some weird effects in the out of focus areas in front of the subject. However, the bokeh behind the subject (which is typically more important) is improved from the VR 70-200/2.8 G II version.
-
It's true the 70-200/2.8 FL is very contrasty. The only situation where I find this to be a problem is in dim indoor available light where it can be that a high contrast lens renders the shadows so dark that they're significantly affected by noise whereas a low-contrast lens may not lead to this effect. I haven't studied it in detail, it just has been my impression. In reasonable daylight or in the studio I really like the 70-200/2.8 FL and it has become my go-to lens for tight portraits in the studio. I tend to use fast primes in indoor available light and my primes are not quite so contrasty as this zoom. I guess there is much that is subjective about these matters. Generally the 70-200/2.8 FL is very much to my liking although I've been a fan of the primes for a long time. I do find that the zoom does not have as nice bokeh as most Nikon tele primes especially there can be some weird effects in the out of focus areas in front of the subject. However, the bokeh behind the subject (which is typically more important) is improved from the VR 70-200/2.8 G II version.
Thank you!!
Thank you very much!! Your experiences and impressions are very precious for me. Probably you have got my same subjective tastes about personality of lenses and when you can understand that and which is the personality of the lenses, the door of photography opens up to you and climbs a step further in this magical world. I discovered magical word of bokehand delicate character, footprint of the Nikon DC lenses and I'm not sure to buy the 70-200, for this different character.
Unfortunately, often those who have no sensitivity to these things also come to offend others. However, a forum is also a place to exchange opinions respecting others. :) :) :) ;) ;)
-
Do you use a filter in front of the 180mm?
I had problems using any kind of filter on that lens, without filter everything was fine.
-
Do you use a filter in front of the 180mm?
I had problems using any kind of filter on that lens, without filter everything was fine.
Yes, Nikon uv always mounted.
-
I would also strongly suggest to remove all filters! ;)
-
Do you use a filter in front of the 180mm?
I had problems using any kind of filter on that lens, without filter everything was fine.
Good point, Werner! I'd had the same problem with the 50/1.8G used for distant shots, which was solved by removing the protection filter. Even a high quality filter caused that problem.
-
Good point, Werner! I'd had the same problem with the 50/1.8G used for distant shots, which was solved by removing the protection filter. Even a high quality filter caused that problem.
Tomorrow I will try with and withoout filter for distant subjects. Thanks!!!!!!!
-
Yes I have, i own it. And I described my impression based on my experience with my sample. I took the word agressive as it was there, being aware that it is not a too precise descriptoin Compared to the 135 DC or 105/2,5 it is less soft and less forgiving in showing details. Sometimes that is good sometimes other lenses are a better choice. The AF-S 200/2 is something completely different btw
I don't see a very sharp lens as a problem for portraiture. Too sharp? Try a UV filter with a little nose grease. I'm not kidding.
Another approach is to spray the inside surface of an older multi-coated UV filter with a light or very light over spray of flat black paint. A mist of black dots will cause diffraction that is available at large apertures. This is a home made Harrison and Harrison black dot filter used in Hollywood to soften the skin of older leading men filmed against younger leading ladies.
One might use a lower megapixel camera with an AA filter and use no sharpening at all or maybe just for the eyes.
A post processing possibility is to create a "plastic skin" layer over a normal resolution and sharpness layer. The drop the opacity of the plastic skin until it subtly takes the edge off the sharper layer, maybe 10% to 15% opacity for the top layer. What you end up with is not plastic skin but a softer, kinder version of reality.
My 2 cents is it's easier to deal with a lens that a bit too sharp than with one that's not sharp enough. The ideas above didn't mention soft light v. hard light which is another way of mitigating a lens that's too sharp.
Dave Hartman
-
https://richardhaw.com/2017/05/21/repair-nikkor-p-c-180mm-f2-8-auto/
the 180/2.8 is amazing :o :o :o
the 70-200/f2.8 is more for convenience for me. I had the v2 and it was as good as it gets. when I was shooting events, it was irreplaceable.
these days, i am more into a lens' rendering than empirical data. this has allowed me to appreciate older lenses.
-
https://richardhaw.com/2017/05/21/repair-nikkor-p-c-180mm-f2-8-auto/
this has allowed me to appreciate older lenses.
I appreciate older lenses, in fact I love Nikon AF-D 85/1.4, 105/2 DC, 135/2 DC, 300/2.8 AI-S, (Zeiss lenses). I needed an AF lens for portraits (for landscapes I had and I have today Zeiss and I'm at peace with the universe!): so, in the past, I bought Nikon AF-S G 85mm f/1.4 and Nikon Af-S G 105mm f/1.4E , but I have resold them in a little time, because I didn't like their accentuated contrast and their colours, very different from old Nikon AI-s and Nikon D and their "tonal passages" (are these words right? I don't speak English very well! Excuse me....) and I bought 85/1.4 AF-D, 105/2 DC, 135/2 DC and I love them!!!!!! I needed it too a 180mm/200mm, also MF, for landscapes and street, so I preferred AF, so I bought this 180mm f/2.8 AF-D. I want to appreciate more old lenses!!!!
-
Tomorrow I will try with and withoout filter for distant subjects. Thanks!!!!!!!
Hello, Nikonians!! I tried this morning two shoots with the 180mm f/2.8 AF-D, with D810, with and without filter Nikon UV!!! Surprise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Great surprise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Without the filter the 180mm is much, much, much, much, much better!!!!!!!!!!!! It's a razor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
With filter
(D810 180/2.8 AF-D focus at infinity 1/500s f/8 ISO 250)
-
Hello, Nikonians!! I tried this morning two shoots with the 180mm f/2.8 AF-D, with D810, with and without filter Nikon UV!!! Surprise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Great surprise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Without the filter the 180mm is much, much, much, much, much better!!!!!!!!!!!! It's a razor!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Without filter
(D810 180/2.8 AF-D focus at infinity 1/500s f/8 ISO 250)
-
Thank you very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very very much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....., especially to Erik Lund, Akira and Alaun!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Crop without filter:
-
Crop without filter:
Crop with filter:
-
Great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;
Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Excuse, but I'd like to understand:doesn't the 180mm f/2.8 AF-D "tolerate" the filters????......, or is the filter defective????? (It's a Nikon... :o :o)
-
https://richardhaw.com/2017/05/21/repair-nikkor-p-c-180mm-f2-8-auto/
the 180/2.8 is amazing :o :o :o
Hello, I have read the page of your link and the author says that more lens elements in a lens, more glass-to-air surfaces cause image degradation: the Nikkor-P 180mm f/2.8 Auto has got 5 elements in 4 groups, while the Nikon AF-D 180mm f/2.8 has got 8 elements in 6 groups, so is 180 AF-D's capacity of isolating the subject not great as 180-P's? (I hope my English to be right!!! :-\ :-\)
-
Long focal length lenses are more critical about flatness, parallel planes and the thickness of filters. On the front.
I discarded filters when I went digital with the D1, it was quite clear that the image degation is quite severe with most lenses and also unpredictable.
Contrast is very easy to control in post processing, so not an issue for me, and yes I like sharp lenses as well.
-
Hello, I have read the page of your link and the author says that more lens elements in a lens, more glass-to-air surfaces cause image degradation: the Nikkor-P 180mm f/2.8 Auto has got 5 elements in 4 groups, while the Nikon AF-D 180mm f/2.8 has got 8 elements in 6 groups, so is 180 AF-D's capacity of isolating the subject not great as 180-P's? (I hope my English to be right!!! :-\ :-\ )
The coatings of the elements by far are much more important.
To evaluate these two lenses by amount oooof elements doesn't make any sense.
They are two different designs optically,,,, though very close.
Some pro zooms outperform most old fixed focal length lenses in many aspects disregarding amount of elements.
But again post processing is so effective
-
I appreciate older lenses, in fact I love Nikon AF-D 85/1.4, 105/2 DC, 135/2 DC, 300/2.8 AI-S, (Zeiss lenses). I needed an AF lens for portraits (for landscapes I had and I have today Zeiss and I'm at peace with the universe!): so, in the past, I bought Nikon AF-S G 85mm f/1.4 and Nikon Af-S G 105mm f/1.4E , but I have resold them in a little time, because I didn't like their accentuated contrast and their colours, very different from old Nikon AI-s and Nikon D and their "tonal passages" (are these words right? I don't speak English very well! Excuse me....) and I bought 85/1.4 AF-D, 105/2 DC, 135/2 DC and I love them!!!!!! I needed it too a 180mm/200mm, also MF, for landscapes and street, so I preferred AF, so I bought this 180mm f/2.8 AF-D. I want to appreciate more old lenses!!!!
I have seen no real difference in color between any Nikkor lens,,, ever.
Don't understand this too contrasty statement, a matter of post processing will control this easily.
And yes better with a sharp lens as a start point, then only sharpen what needs to be sharpened,,,
You sold 85 and 105mm 1.4 G, two of the finest tools, very odd, but ok I don't get it :)
-
The coatings of the elements by far are much more important.
To evaluate these two lenses by amount oooof elements doesn't make any sense.
They are two different designs optically,,,, though very close.
Some pro zooms outperform most old fixed focal length lenses in many aspects disregarding amount of elements.
But again post processing is so effective
Thanks for all, Erik Lund!