Agree, IMO the f/1.8 is certainly as good, possibly better than the f/1.4.....my opinion only. DxO Mark gives a "score" of 44 to both. The f/1.4 has sharpness of 30 Mp, the f/1.8 27 Mp. But CA for the f/1.4 is 7µm vs. 4µm in the f/1.8. Thus the same overall score I presume.
I had the f/1.8 but wanted that bit of smoother bokeh and faster lens, hence I upgraded to the f/1.4 and have not looked back. Recently I was shooting a series of indoor sports events and the 85mm was a joy to work with. It is a super fast, tack sharp, and beautiful lens to shoot with - I simply think it is perfect...
I had the f/1.8 but wanted that bit of smoother bokeh and faster lens, hence I upgraded to the f/1.4 and have not looked back. Recently I was shooting a series of indoor sports events and the 85mm was a joy to work with. It is a super fast, tack sharp, and beautiful lens to shoot with - I simply think it is perfect...
for me it was the cost...
D7200, 40mm Micro Nikkor f2.8, Lowepro AW Hatchback 16,
Sorry I can't... I switched quite instantly, and only had the f/1.8 for a week or so. The comparison pictures were just that, nothing I would keep, and only taken for comparison reasons.
Just picked up a cheap Hoya Duto and have been using it on my 1.4D, and I'm loving the results. It makes that creamy bokeh the creamiest without sacrificing subject sharpness–painterly to the extreme.
I started using the 105mm DC 2.0 as my main portrait lens on an F100 with film and still use it. DC gives some control over bokeh but mine is always set at '0'.
If your primary use is portraits, you should consider it.
135 is long for my taste as a portrait lens, I like a slightly shorter perspective.
I also usually stay at F2 since dof at 1.4 can be challenging.
Portrait subjects hopefully don't move too quickly so focus speed should not be an issue.
My only other portrait lens that I consider the equal of the 105mm DC 2.0 is a 90 F2 Leica summicron (s4 pre asph) that has a completely different rendering. For some reason I end up using the Leica in outdoor lighting and the Nikon under lights.
I have not seen any wrong answers in any of the posts on this thread, you should find out what works for you.
D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8. Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.
Comments
It's on my bucket list for sure
Sigma 70-200/2.8, 105/2.8
Nikon 50/1.4G, 18-200, 80-400G
1 10-30, 30-110
Can you post an image of each of the lenses showing the difference in bokeh? Or a link to the images?
Thanks
If your primary use is portraits, you should consider it.
135 is long for my taste as a portrait lens, I like a slightly shorter perspective.
I also usually stay at F2 since dof at 1.4 can be challenging.
Portrait subjects hopefully don't move too quickly so focus speed should not be an issue.
My only other portrait lens that I consider the equal of the 105mm DC 2.0 is a 90 F2 Leica summicron (s4 pre asph) that has a completely different rendering. For some reason I end up using the Leica in outdoor lighting and the Nikon under lights.
I have not seen any wrong answers in any of the posts on this thread, you should find out what works for you.
Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.