85 1.4 Choices

[Jakov Minić]

It is common knowledge that I am in love with the 85/1.4 AF-D so my words mean very little I am afraid.
I have used the 85/1.4 AF-S when I had mine for repair and NPS gave me one. As Erik, I couldn't really find any optical advantages. In fact I am so accustomed to the AF performance of the AF-D that that the AF-S felt fiddly and always searching for the right focus as other AF-S lenses do.
When my friend went to Moscow on a business trip, there was a Petzval thread and the talks of out of focus areas. Although all the 85s are cream machines my lucidity kicked in and I bought the already mentioned Zenit 85/1.5 but that's a completely different tool...

[Andy]

Wes,
I only have Nikkor's in this range, sorry can't provide any info on the Zeiss, Sigma, et al. lenses.

For the Nikkor's:
A few years ago (I think it was 2012) I compared the 5 different fast 85mm Nikkors (f1.4 and f1.8 )

Here is a group picture to compare the relative sizes:
(from left to right: AiS 1.4, AFD 1.4, AFS 1.4, AFS 1.8G, AFD 1.8 )


In these "old" days, I did more "comparisons" to figure out what the sweetspot of each lens was (probably better to call it curiosity). One of those tests was of course sharpness wide open (I am much more relaxed about this today)

This was the overall testchart


Here are crops of the upper left corner of all 5 lenses with their respective open aperture (Camera=D3x):

1) AiS 85mm/1.4


2) AF 85mm/1.4


3) AFS 85mm/1.4G


4) AFS 85mm/1.8G


5) AF 85mm/1.8 D


Please be aware, that with open lenses the impact of sample variation can be higher than with slower lenses. (Check for decentralization when looking for used ones)

The transition from the area of "sharpness" to background or foreground blur, the 1.4 lenses are vs. the f1.8 lenses @ same f-stop usually visual more appealing - the intro of the transition is earlier and softer - which contributes to this nice bokeh. The lenses aren't designed for AF speed (heavy lens elements to move around), so don't expect them to be comparable to a lens optimized for AF speed like the AFS 70-200mm/2.8 VR II.

The AFS 85mm/1.8G is closer to be a f2.0 lens seen from the actual aperture.
The AFS 85mm/1.8G is wide open sharper than the AFS 85mm/1.4G at their respective open aperture.
At same aperture, my experience is that the f1.4 always leads against the f1.8.
Bokeh with both the f1.8 lenses is not at the same level as with the f1.4 lenses.
The f1.8 lenses have usually less CA wide open vs. the f1.4 lenses

Quick bokeh impression between f1.4 and f1.8:
1) AF 85mm/1.4D @ f1.4


2) AF 85mm/1.8D @ f1.8


Subject isolation is usually easy to do with the f1.4 lenses (D3s & AFS 85mm/1.4G @ f1.4)


Creamy bokeh as well (D300 & AFS 85mm/1.4G @f1.4)


rgds,
Andy

[wesstl]

Although all the 85s are cream machines my lucidity kicked in and I bought the already mentioned Zenit 85/1.5 but that's a completely different tool...

I have the Zenit and you described it perfectly: a different tool. I really like the results for the right subject but feel I need a more "normal" 85. The AF-D is tempting.

[wesstl]

Wow, Andy. That's great info and much appreciated. My thoughts: the AF-S 1.8 makes a nice showing and is a real bargain for the price. But it's not the 1.4. Your images from the AF-S 1.4 are perfect examples of my reasons for wanting one. Now I need to decide if I can live with the issues of the AF-D. I can live with weak corners if the center is good and the oof areas are good. I may look for the AF-D, work with it, and if I decide I need the AF-S I'll sell the D.

[richardHaw]

thanks, Andy. your test confirmed my experience that the Ai-S is sharper than the AF-D

the russian lens gives your trippy bokeh. some people love it some people hate it. its interesting though.

[paul_k]

Over the years I have worked my way through several 85-ish mm lenses from various manufacturers
My first one (back in the early 70's) was the Canon FL 1.8/85mm, quite an exotic lens in those days, but by 'modern' standards obviously heavily outdated lens due to the (again by modern standards) inferior coating and lens design. But I really love the image rendering of that lens, even after 40+ years.

I switched to Nikon in the late 70's (really the only pro's alternative in those days, not so much for the sake of the brand, but more so because of the dealer and repair network, availability of third party accessories, and offerings on the second hand market ) when I started my studies at the art academy in The Hague.
Being told it was the 'best' my first portrait lens was the 2.5/105mm, but never felt the 'magic' of that lens, so after some time traded it in for a 2/85mm AI. Found that one handy as a low light short telelens alternative (compared to my 4.5/80-200 Ai and 4.5/300mm AI ED), but didn't impress me very much either.

After that had a long spell where I basically never used short tele's like a 85mm but rather long telelenses (between 200 and 500mm) for my fashion work. Last couple of years though started looking into the 85mm range again, especially for the use in portraiture (also due to the fact I basically am quite content with my present DF and D800, and now find I have some money left to spend on 'luxury' lenses).

As I wanted to experiment with tilting the focal/sharpness plane (similar to eg a large format camera) I initially got a 2.8/85mm TC (never grew to like it due to the awkward handling) and later a LensBaby Composer with 80mm Edge. Didn't work out for me (too fiddly to work with, and imagewise too sharp and too clean),  so decided to approach it in a more 'traditional' way by simply using shallow DoF, and moving away from the holy grail of 'perfect sharpness'.

So no I've started a small collection of 85mm lenses, ranging from a Lomography Petzval 2.2/85mm, a pre Ai Nikkor-C 1.8/85mm, 1.8/85mm AF D to a 1.4/85mm AF D.
The Petzval is an acquired taste (love the typical bokeh, although for some that's an absolute horror), which BTW is despite many reports claiming the contrary is quite capable of delivering sharp images despite the ancient design and awkward pin and rack focusing system http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/156848896/large.
The Nikkor-C 1.8/85mm has the typical soft (un)sharpness of film age lenses, much like the 1.8/AF D, although the latter being more of a workhorse then an 'artistic' 85mm.

Had the opportunity to play around and compare with the 1.4/85 AF S and 1.4/85mm AF D (which I own). Found the differences in sharpness and AF speed for real life/my personal use use neglectable (not much of a pixelpeeper, and coming from a manual focus background not having unrealistic expectations of what the AF should be able to do/how much it should be able to compensate my operating errors).

The 1.4/85mm AF D has an amazing ultra thin DoF image rendering wide open at and around 1.4 http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/145046624. But it completely changes character when stopped down (only) a few stops http://www.pbase.com/paul_k/image/163023739 delivering eye watering sharpness and detail.

So unless you really are after the latest and 'sharpest' IMO hold on to your cash and 'just' get a 1.4/85mm AF D.

[John Geerts]

Very interesting overview, Paul.  Have you ever tried the Nikkor 80/2.8 ? 

[paul_k]

Very interesting overview, Paul.  Have you ever tried the Nikkor 80/2.8 ?

No, as I never had a F3AF, for which this lens along with the 3.5/200mm were especially designed, although they reportedly also worked (and better/faster) with the F501/N2002 and F4. But since I could afford AF D lenses when I upgraded to AF film SLR's, and considering  they are/were incompatible with later DSLR's, I never looked into them myself

But from what I heard from a model friend who back then once did a shoot with it, the AF was sluggishly slow on the F3AF ('strike a pose, and hold, one mississippi, two mississippi, and then take the picture') basically more of a novelty then a really practical tool.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

One uses the lenses for F3AF, 80/2.8 and 200/3.5 ED_IF, these days for their optical quality only. No AF is possible of course and in fact some Nikons can be short-circuited by mounting these lenses on them. Solution is of course to replace their CPUs with a modern equivalent.

Manual focusing is a bit sluggish on the shorter 80, somewhat easier on the 200. Their optical performance is very good to excellent and in particular the 80/2.8 is really an outstanding performer in visible as well as in IR light. Its bokeh is superb as well.

[John Geerts]

Yes.    I use it as a manual AI lens, and it works perfect on all my digital Nikons. Focussing is not really a problem if you are used to manual focussing, the little drag in the ring (of the AF-moter) works fine for critical focussing. Sharpness, colours, contrast and bokeh are nearly perfect, in my opinion.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Two examples with the AF 80/2.8 Nikkor (visible light: two invasive Rosa species side by side; R. rugosa and R. pimpinellifolia). IR: Hawaii Oslo; front of a store also featuring in a film  of the same name).

[Tristin]

While I would certainly be interested in trying them, the F3AF lenses are the ugliest lenses Nikon has made.  Nearly worthy of a paper bag!

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I always thought the first generation of 'plastic fantastic' lenses was the prime candidate to win that prize ...

[Roland Vink]

Being told it was the 'best' my first portrait lens was the 2.5/105mm, but never felt the 'magic' of that lens, so after some time traded it in for a 2/85mm AI. Found that one handy as a low light short telelens alternative (compared to my 4.5/80-200 Ai and 4.5/300mm AI ED), but didn't impress me very much either.

The AI 85/2 has never had a great reputation as far as I can tell. Maybe it suffers in comparison with the older 85/1.8 versions - these are solid, well proportioned lenses, with performance that was favoured by a generation of photographers. During the 1970s there was a trend towards more compact lenses and cameras, so the AI 85/2 lost 1/3 stop from its predecessors and is much smaller - it looks rather petite, even runty in comparison, and it has a ridiculously long focus throw - 255° from infinity to 0.85m, so focusing is very slow. According to one source, contrast was kept intentionally low to make it more flattering for portraiture, but this makes it less useful as a general purpose lens. Sharpness is also reported to be not as good, but that may be the result of the lower contrast. Whatever the reason, the AI 85/2 never had the following of the 85/1.8.

I have used the AIS version for many years with excellent results. As far as I know the optics and coating are unchanged from the AI version, yet my copy is as sharp and contrasty as other similar Nikkors like the 105/2.5 or 135/2.8. Maybe Nikon tweaked the optics or coatings for the AIS version? I also consider it to be a better looking lens, and the focus throw is just right - at 170° it is the same as the AI 105/2.5. This is one case where AIS version has a better focus throw than the AI. Overall I consider it to be a great little lens - fast, sharp and compact with good handling (just compare the size to the current AFS 85/1.8!). Combine the shorter focal length and 2/3 stop faster speed and you have nearly 1 stop improvement in hand-holdability compared to the 105/2.5. Only the bokeh is not quite as smooth.

[Mongo]

Big thanks to Andy for the test shots of the various lenses. The results put some meat on the bones of the various opinions about each lens. They also tend to strongly confirm those opinions.

Mongo has the AI-S version and delights in its chaaracter. Having to manually focus is a small liability but not one which is not able to be overcome. Have seen the G model results from a friend's copy and they seem a bit 'clinical' by comparison albeit, sharper and has AF.

From the results posted by Any, one should give some serious though to the 1.8G model as an all round great performer for the task one is likely to put an 85mm lens to.