Why 85 mm lens

Vipmediastar_JZ

^^^
You don't take a photograph, you make it.
Ansel Adams

Once I understood that I think my photography evolved away from snapshots.

heartyfisher

Talking about snaps .. ;-) here is one of my first ones with my tamron 85 :-)

At the train station .. on the way home after I picked up the Tammy :-) Met this fellow and his wife.

heartyfisher

Now that's some pleasant news! (I feel like a genius ..).. Tamron 85 1.8 Reviews highly at DXO ( on our main blog news! )
http://nikonrumors.com/2017/01/15/tamron-sp-85mm-f1-8-di-vc-usd-lens-nikon-f-mount-reviewed-at-dxomark.aspx/

PeachBlack

Awesome. Everything I have read said that this was a great lens and I would love to have the image stabilization. It's probably a better choice than the Sigma if you are using the lens for low light situations rather shortening depth of field. I can't think of a sensible reason why you'd prefer either of the Nikon 85s.

BVS

The Nikon 85 1.8 still wins on weight and price (particularly used/refurb), which is important to some people, but it certainly gets pushed down market. Hard to figure out a case for the 1.4 now though, unless there's something special about the rendering or something.

PeachBlack

Yeah, but the Tamron is quite literally 50% sharper and the price difference is very small. An 85 is generally not a lens that you use because it's light. It's a lens you use with a particular purpose in mind. Plus, you know, image stabilization.

I take that back... It's only 32% sharper than the Nikon. I can't see ANY reason to buy the Zeiss Milvus 2.0, though. Its max aperture is smaller, its optical quality is nearly identical to the Tamron, it costs way more than twice as much, it doesn't have image stabilization, and it has no autofocus.

donaldejose

I note DxOMark rates its sharpness as equal to the mp in the D810, D5 and D750 sensors. If I understand DxOMark correctly this lens is resolving the full resolving potential of each sensor so you would not be able to find a sharper lens. Another lens may have more contrast than the Tamron but would not have more sharpness because how can any lens produce a final image sharper from a sensor than the pixel level of that sensor? Thus, if you can get by with f1.8 rather than f1.4 you cannot get a sharper 85mm lens for Nikon than this one.

heartyfisher

"you cannot get a sharper 85mm lens for Nikon than this one. "

Ahhh .. but you can !!

I have just got the Tammy 85 (and its really very nice!) But you can get a sharper lense than it (Looking at you SIGMA !!) Why ? How?

1) at F1.4-F2 the apertures you bought the lense for in the first place !

2) Using it on DX cameras. The PMP is 21, so it has 3PMP of resolving power to fill. Lets see if the Sigma can improve on that :-)

Of course its just sharpness numbers. And as we have discussed here on this thread, the 85mm lense is much more than just sharpness.

PeachBlack

There's a difference between the sharpness of the lens and the ability for it to be measured on a 5 year old sensor anyway.

BVS

Pretty impressive that the Tamron 85 is sharper on the D810 (according to DXO) than the 105 1.4, the 200 2, the Sigma 50, and all the super teles that they've tested.

Interestingly, the Nikon 58 1.4G is also sharper than both the 500 f/4G and 600 f/4G. So sad Nikon, so sad...

PeachBlack

heartyfisher said:

And as we have discussed here on this thread, the 85mm lense is much more than just sharpness.

Sharpness is super important, though. By maximizing sharpness, you also maximize your ability to crop. I recently did a beauty shoot that involves super close-ups to show off makeup—like makeup ads. In these shots it's important to see every single everything super clearly.

In the past I would use a 105/2.8 Micro lens because it allows you to get in super close and fill the screen with face. There is a huge downside, though. In order to get anything approximating a decent depth of field, you need to stop down to sometimes as much as ƒ16—which, as we all know, degrades the image and also slows down your recycle times on the flash.

So in my last shoot I decided to use my new 85, back up, shoot at ƒ8, and just crop the hell out of the image. Honestly, it worked great. I had plenty of sharpness and plenty of resolution, even when cropped severely.

This is not from that shoot (contractual reasons), but it basically shows that even tiny fractions of the whole screen are still super sharp.

BVS

Camera Labs has a new review up for the the Sigma Art 85, including comparison shots between it and the Otus, Nikon 85 1.4, Nikon 105 1.4, Tamron SP 85, and the older Sigma 85 1.4 EX.

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Sigma_85mm_f1-4_DG_HSM_Art/index.shtml

[Deleted User]

Imho, The Nikkor 105 1.4e sample images def have more "pop" (color contrast) then all but perhaps the Otus.

It would have been instructive if they had included the Zeiss Milvus 85mm 1.4 and Nikkor 85mm f1.8 for additional comparison.

For some the new Samyang 85mm f1.2 looks impressive for Canon users. Perhaps it can compete with the best of this group.

PeachBlack

The skin screams out "please don't make me pop!" Saturation is bad!

[Deleted User]

Your images taken with the 200f2 are hands down superior.
Based upon others' comparisons, one might come to the conclusion that the Nikkor 105 F1.4 would come closest to those results albeit at a shorter FL.
I would be interested to see your own results with the new105.
Continued success.

PeachBlack

If I had tried to take this shot using a 200mm/2.0, I'd have had a blurry picture of her left nostril. There's a reason why all the photos I take with that lens are shot in open fields or wide open beaches. It's a great look, but it's completely impractical. With the amount of room I had, I would've had a headshot here and nothing more using the 105/1.4. My pictures with the 85 feel too cramped for me most of the times anyway. I'd still rather have a 50.

Also, photographers are in love with bokeh and blur and all that stuff, but clients not as much. They want to see their product and they want to see the context where the photo was shot. We're in Hawaii shooting. Make it look like Hawaii! I take and post a lot of photos at ƒ1.4, but the shots for clients that you don't see are shot at ƒ5.6 and above. I've never used my 200/2.0 for real work. It's been a super expensive toy that I wouldn't buy again. The 105/1.4 is in the same kind of category—an expensive toy that makes super pretty pictures in the right context, but it's impractical to use in most circumstances. How many times do I need ƒ1.4 headshots? I'm guessing not often enough to justify that price tag.

Now if you're a hobbyist with deep pockets who's enamored with bokeh, go for it. Other photographers will be very impressed.

donaldejose

"I take and post a lot of photos at ƒ1.4, but the shots for clients that you don't see are shot at ƒ5.6 and above." Isn't it true that chromatic aberration decreases as you stop down a lens? It would seem to me then that spending $750 for the very sharp Tamron 85mm f1.8 Di VC would be a more rational business choice than spending $1,200 for a Sigma Art 85mm f1.4 or spending $2,200 for a Nikon 105 f1.4 lens. It would also seem to me than that all of us who are thinking we "need" the sharpest lens at f1.4 with the least chromatic aberration which you can buy so we can shoot better images at f1.4 are deluding ourselves into creating a false "business need" which does not exist, just as PeachBlack admists is true for the 200mm f2.

I have noted before that Joe Edelman (he has lots of you tube videos and lives near me) teaches shooting portraits at higher than f4 to insure most of the face is in focus. He calls the current trend to shoot at f1.4 a passing fad. Joe spent his career shooting portraits, model portfolios, and regional advertising. He says paying clients want the full face, full object or full piece of clothing in focus. He also says a model's portfolio should have both her eyes in focus because her prospective clients want to see her full face, not a blurry rear eye. If someone with PeachBlack's skill has clients who want his f5.6 and higher images and is not his great f1.4 images than why should us lesser beings lust after and pay a lot of money for a bunch of f1.4 primes? If you look at this video (posed before on this forum) and ask yourself how many of these photos are being shot at f1.4 is seems the answer is none.

Just saying . . . . to present an argument not often, if ever, presented here for us to consider.

Ironheart

Horses for courses. I'll point out that f/1.4 & f/1.8 lenses focus better in low light, and present a brighter image in the viewfinder. I generally stop down a few clicks for a slightly sharper image, and a bit more latitude on DoF. Unless of course you are looking for maximum subject separation. I don't view shallow DoF as a fad, but more of an artistic choice. Not all photographs are art, some are science, some are business. You will make different choices depending on the intended use of the final image. If you are using photography to determine colors, say for a particular plant or flower for a scientific publication, you would not choose to desaturate, or oversaturate your colors "for effect". Nor would you want a blurry plant, with just one flower or leaf in focus. However, both of those may be true if you are taking an artistic photo of a plant.

Also, f-stop isn't the only way to control DoF. The above image was shot at f/7.1

donaldejose

But Ironheart I think you miss my point which was the lack of a good business case for spending the extra money to move from f1.8 to f1.4. f1.8 should be just fine. It is hard to think we will be photographing in such low light that we cannot see our subject at f1.8 or that our camera cannot focus on it at f1.8. Remember, even though that lens is shooting at f5.6 it is still open to f1.8 as you look through the viewfinder and as the camera focuses.

WestEndFoto

Regarding a good business case, I think you have to consider who your customer is and one thing that is often overlooked is that the customer is the artist. If the artist does not have any paying customers, he or she is their own customer.

I concede that most customers that actually hand over cash will not appreciate f/1.4.

donaldejose

Agreed WestEndPhoto. Artistic production seems to me just about the only reason to shoot at f1.4 and consider f1.8 "inadequate." But I also have to wonder just how many award winning photos ever were shot at f1.4. Can you point to any? I would think very, very few, if any. So I am not too sure the f1.4 photographer's desired artistic production will be appreciated by most people who "consume" photos by purchasing prints or judging contests. If you want facebook likes or flicker accolades, fine. But is there any other real significant artistic appreciation for f1.4?

safyre

Not sure if this applies anymore but a few years back, I remember 1.4 lenses were designed for low light while 1.8 lenses were designed for low apertures.

Meaning, 1.4 lenses would peak in performance at the f/2.8-4 range while 1.8 lenses peaked at f/5.6-8. Being that I shoot a lot at f/2.8, the one 1.4 lenses provided better optimal performance, not to mention slightly better low light capabilities.

In regards to depth of field, I understand there is a can be a difference between something that is used for commercial purposes versus what is used for art. With that said, I do believe a lot of newer, inexperienced photographers use shallow depth of field as a crutch for not learning proper composition. I know quite a few photographers that are lazy when it comes to portraiture composition because they can just turn the background into a bunch of mush at 1.4-2, but forget that even bokeh can be distracting if you don't account for composition.

The main benefit of having 1.4 is simply having the option to use it when it is necessary. When you are shooting a wedding and you are trying to capture spontaneous moments without having the time to compose every picture, being able to shoot at a shallow depth of field can be very useful.

tc88

Donaldejose, your argument is flawed. While as you quoted from Pitchblack, his customers only want pictures with f/5.6 and smaller aperture, he shoots with a Sigma f/1.4. So here you have it, he's the exact counter example to your argument.

PeachBlack

There's no fundamental contradiction. I like photos shot at ƒ1.4, and 85mm is the shortest practical focal length for portraits. Just because I don't always use ƒ1.4 for all of my corporate clients, I do sometimes use it for individual model tests and random people who like that "special look." I like to use ƒ1.4 for dazzling photos on my web site and I like the option, especially since it's so good. But still, 85 is borderline impractical for many, many circumstances. I will say this again until I'm blue in the face, communication is more important than differences between top tier and secondary tier lenses. If you're shooting people and you're not talking to them the whole time, you're not getting the most out of your shoot. Today I had a long shoot on the beach under very difficult conditions. Would I have liked to shoot 200mm? I guess. I wasn't going to risk it, though. Fifty mil and they can actually hear me.

WestEndFoto

Have you ever tried a radio?