Portrait lens for Df

TaoTeJared

I was recently lurking around the web to choose a general purpose wide-ish lens to complement my 50mm f 1.8G lens for my recently acquired Df. I ended up with recently introduced AF 28mm f 1.8G due to budget constraints. While looking through DxO website, I saw that AF 85 f 1.4 D (which I own) was ranked way down compared to both G-series 1.8 and 1.4.
So, my question is for you guys, is it worthwhile to upgrade to G-series 85mm? Would I see noticeable improvement?

Cheers

I have been looking and testing (with D800) 85s as I need to update my old 85mm 1.8. DxO artificially creates or makes people believe the difference is very different than what it really is and what can been seen.
What I found:
First and foremost, all of the lenses are sharp and I could not really tell any real difference between them.
•Nikkor 85mm 1.4G - $1,600 • Smoothest bokeh, warm color, AF faster than "D" lenses but I have seen faster.
•Nikkor 85mm 1.8G - $500 • Neutral color, Fastest AF of the group, Bokeh a bit harder than the 1.4g - similar to Sigma's.
•Nikkor 85mm 1.4D -$1,000 • Noticeably slower focusing. Slightly on the warm side. Bokeh just behind the 1.4g, a bit better than the 1.8g.
•Nikkor 85mm 1.8D - (What I have) Got trounced in every category. Considering one can pick one up for $200, it is a hell of a deal though.
•Sigma 1.4 - $950 • Nice lens, had some weird CAs in the bokeh that really stood out. Fast AF, about the same as the 1.4g. 85mm 1.4g was just as good.
•Zeiss 1.4 ZF.2 - $1,300 • Very nice lens but manual focus. Seemed to be almost identical to the 1.4D. Bokeh edges seemed a bit harsher of the bunch.

The big difference you would see is the focus speed. The "G"'s are much better. Other than that, I don't think you will really see much of a difference.

Personally I'm still sitting on the fence between the 1.4 & 1.8 G Nikkors. Most of that depends on other purchases I need to make rather than any performance being better than another. I prefer the warmth of the 1.4g and I thought the bokeh was a bit softer. The 1.4g is also a bit better built which makes a difference for me personally. I know it won't be disappointing to get the 1.8g if I do go that route though.

One other lens one might consider is the 105mm 2.8VR. It is a great portrait lens and I use it a ton. If one is focused on available light shooting, the VR really does make a big difference on "keepers." The added benefit is that you get a macro as well. The price has really fallen in the last few years.

[Deleted User]

Bought the 85mm f/1.8g 2 days ago.
First test, one of my favorite models, available light.
Both photo's, Nikon d600, f/4 - 1/800 sec., 100 ISO

Msmoto

@Ton

Excellent decision, the 85mm… you will love it.

[Deleted User]

I already do Tommy, with these setting nothing can go wrong of course and the combination with the D600 pffff. Sorry it is not the DF, but we can compare these camera's a little bit ......

henrik1963

I agree with Tao: The 85 1.4 is a bit warmer and has a softer bokeh. But they are close for most uses.

Baltonski

Thanks Tao.

Yours was the kind of response I was hoping to get from this forum. Someone who experience with all the models at a pro level and to the point, and without any slander...

Cheers and thanks again for the feedback. much appreciated.

SquamishPhoto

But this thread was about a good portrait lens for the Df body and I suggested the AF 105 f2 DC lens because it has that old style silver ring.

I'd argue that the old 105 f2.5 AIS is a better aesthetic fit and pretty much just as good of a portrait lens as the DC is. It also has a huge cult following as its cheap and somewhat easy to find good copies of.

donaldejose

Sure, if you are willing to manually focus. I think few are willing to do that today.

WestEndBoy

Wide angle manual focus works great. I would not want to do it with such a narrow depth of field.

donaldejose

Yes, MF is easy to use on a wide angle lens at f5.6 or f8 by using hyperfocal distance.

For anyone who doesn't know hyperfocal distance technique:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperfocal_distance

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/focus.htm

SquamishPhoto

Spare me. You guys are just saying what you think makes sense. Go try one and then tell me its too much of a challenge. The technique isn't learned overnight, but its hardly rocket science. All these people seem to be doing fine work with theirs: https://www.flickr.com/groups/nikkor_105mm/

SquamishPhoto

Wide angle manual focus works great. I would not want to do it with such a narrow depth of field.

Says the guy with a MF 50mm f1.2

You must be joking.

donaldejose

We all did MF with a split screen "back in the day." Some still have the eyes for it. Many older people no longer do. Setting the hyperfocal distance focus with a wide angle can be done without fine eyesight because you are not actually focusing at all. You are just estimating distances. Of course, you will need one of the old MF lenses with the appropriate markings on it.

WestEndBoy

Wide angle manual focus works great. I would not want to do it with such a narrow depth of field.

Says the guy with a MF 50mm f1.2

You must be joking.

I rarely shoot that at 1.2. More often 5.6 or 8.0 or occasionally at 2.0. I only shoot at 1.2 to get the "effect" that this lens has at 1.2. And the targets are stationary. Sometimes I try to shoot cyclists moving towards me at 1.2 and what a challenge that is.

However, to your point, you do have an excellent point. Models are often pretty stationary too. Either the Zeiss 55 or 100 would be excellent portrait lenses and I have always wondered about them. Which one would you recommend, I see that you have the 100? I just might get one of those instead of the 58.

SquamishPhoto

If only!

@WestEndBoy As for which to purchase between those I wouldn't buy either. I'd get the 135mm f2 they released little while back. Its a true apochromat much like most of Nikon and Canons top line of tele and super tele lenses, but looks to perform as good or better than most of them. MF, obviously, but it performs a hell of a lot better than the 100mm f2. That thing is really bad for CA.

But you have the 85mm 1.4G, so I wouldn't even bother with switching or adding a focal length, honestly. You have something that is equally good and even better in some respects. Personally, I would ditch both of your 50mm lenses in favour of the new Sigma and ignore the Zeiss altogether. Its just too expensive for a 50mm.

WestEndBoy

Pitchblack:
Ha ha
I was thinking "what will Pitchblack say" when I wrote "models are often stationary" and then seriously considered replacing "often" with "occasionally".

Squamish Photo:
I appreciate your advice. I definitely fine both of the 50s wanting in many respects and have been debating the next step. I find your comments on the 135 interesting as well.

And I definitely know what I have in the 85. That is my default portrait lens with the 135 coming up second.