looking at an 85mm lens, is this one really worth the 1200 difference vs the f/1.8g lens?
86637
Depends on what you are going to use it for. I have the 1.8 50mm and the 1.4 85. The 85 1.4 has much more versatility for portraits and can create amazing blur beyond what the 1.8 can. It also allows for a faster shutter when shooting portraits of young kids(which helps with movement). Lastly, it is an amazing macro lens, but unless you are really into that, the 1.8 is sufficient in my humble opinion
86638
Yes, if you want the best professional quality images for portraits, the 85mm 1.4 is the right lens to use. Unless you are a professional, however, the 1.8 is probably the best value for money and gives excellent image quality also.
86639
it sure is. you will not be disappointed. you really need to do alot of shooting to make it worth while. casual shooters should use the 1.8 and call it good unless ;your rich
305766
The 28 1.8 is sharp starting at f2.2 and better corrected. At 1.8 it is a little soft. Distortion is better than 28-300 and the lens is significantly lighter but just as well made.
1239593
The focal length being 105mm will give you a sharp picture through the entire range. It's not the most durable lens since it has a plastic mount. The 18 200mm has a metal mount. It's probably a better all around lens but it does get soft in places. For me it seems to be around 135mm but it seems to help if you get the shutter speed around 1/500. I had the 18 105mm for two years and the mount broke on me after dropping from a 2 1/2 foot speaker onto carpet. Cost $65 to fix.
1346887
I have the 85mm 1.8 and a digital rebel. With a crop sensor camera, the 85mm is really tough indoors - you have to stand across the room and then you likely will only get a little more than a face in the frame. I don't own the 1.4, but I'd guess it would be better for a lot of tight indoor shooting over the 85mm 1.8 on a crop camera.
1908363
The focus on the copy I had was really slow and was too slow for chasing kids around. If you need a fast focusing lens you might look at the 50 1.8g. I found the 85 to be a little long on a cropped sensor camera and like the 50 better. The optics on this lens are amazing and you will be thrilled in that area. It is a great lens especially for the money and the focus speed and focal length are mostly personal preference. If you are looking for a lens where you can stand back a ways and still get the shot or want to fill the frame with a headshot this is a great lens.
990747
depends on your usage, i'd say the 35mm f1.8g because its a better all rounder and is a lot sharper than the 55-200 ( i have both of these ) the 35mm is great for indoors i chose the 35mm 1.8 over the 50mm 1.8 because its wider. The build quality is not that great on the 55-200 and the vr motor gives a noise also the focusing speed is slow on the 55-200mm
1150052
Yes, it worth it. Have far less chromatic aberrations, more definition across all the frame, and weights far less. This lens is very good starting F1.8, but at the range F4-F8 it shines, even better than Nikkor 105 mm F1.8, which was my previous sharper lens
48833
I would consider the 85mm 1.4 or 105. The 35mm is great but not my main portrait lens.
241544
I have the 85 f1.8D and 35 f2D and they are fantastic. The two lenses you mention should be even better. The 35 is such a versatile focal length, I have been using as my all purpose lens.
323361
I don't have the 28mm 1.8 but borrowed it before my purchase of the 24mm 1.4. It's a very good lens that is much lighter and obviously cheaper than the 24 1.4. The advantage of the 24 is obviously the extra stop of light or so. The 24 also was somewhat sharper than the 28(to my eyes), especially stopped down equally. You can't go wrong with either. Just depends on your price point and needs.
1919508
I'd say yes. Tack sharp, fast focus. Of course you don't have the ability to zoom like the 70-200mm f2.8, but the 85mm 1.4g will be 4 times faster wide open, which is important indoors. Meaning that if the 85mm were wide open at f1.4, and the 70-200mm f2.8 were wide open at f2.8, the 85 mm would utilize a 4 times faster shutter speed to freeze action. This makes all the difference when we're talking about 1/60th or 1/250th of a second. Blur vs. crisp.
1773126
Nikon 85mm f/18.G is really a great lens . I really enjoy , specially in low light condition . It gives so much details . In this price its really good. I'd say its one of the best lens of Nikon if we consider Quality:price .
1919509
This is an awesome lense but it is not as wide as the Nikon 35mm f1.4 or the Nikon 50mm f1.4 which would give you more room in your picture. it is a good lens but more for portraits. The 70-200mm f2.8 is the best for sports and all around pictures, but a bit more money and worth every penny. I personally would not get the 85 for any sports even with how great the shots are your picture would crop in to small to catch a full play.
838886
I find the 85mm a bit faster in focusing *if* you're a fair amount of distance from your subject, as is intended with what's essentially a portrait lens. If you try to squeeze a macro shot out of it, the auto-focus just grinds back and forth trying to get a lock. That said, I have an older model 50mm 1.4 and never found the speed of focus (with a D3S and D800) to be outrageously slow, so take that into consideration with my answer.
427331
are you upgrading the camera? D600 is great, the 85 mm lens 1.4 is beautiful for portraits and i would definitely recommend it, you can get a very shallow depth of field and very sharp images.
1780601
One other option for you might be the 50mm 1.2L. It's just as superb (and erratic) as the 85mm 1.2.
736774
Given the high ISO capability and the noise-handling of current softwares (LR4!), I see no compelling reason for the extra stop, weight, bulk and expense of the f 2.8 version. It is NO sharper than its little brother. And you already have the 85 f 1.8.