Nikon 35mm f/1.4G AF-S FX SWM Nikkor Lens
I'm a wedding photographer who shoots in dark conditions often. This lens performs great in these conditions. I use this lens on a D3 body and the AF is good. It doesn't seem to be as fast at my zooms (24-70 2.8 or 70-200 2.8) but it's still pretty accurate when focusing in low light. The image quality is AMAZING. Certainly an upgrade from the older 35 f/2 version . Images has more contrast & are sharper. I also own the 24 1.4 G and I would say that the IQ on the 35 is about the same. Over all, I'm very impressed and satisfied with this 35

<LINK REMOVED>

Topic is already covered here.....please do a forum search .....the 35mm f/1.8 beats the pants off the kit lens...thanks

http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=1928

I've just done a real world comparison of these 2 lenses and thought some of you on here might be interested.

It's here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/djedmonds/7752139512/in/photostream/

Also gave me an excuse to finally get around to registering. Thanks for all the information everyone has provided over the last few months.

golf007sd said:
you will glad that you did...

Yup!

The 85 1.8G is absolutely amazing specially if you like taking portraits.

RakK said:
*Update* Hi everyone...

Here is the latest..

I couldnt wait for a refresher and opted to buy the well reviewed D7000 and just start shooting with it!

Also, I ended up getting the 50mm for two reasons:

1. 85mm 1.8G sold out!
2. with the dx crop factor I am pretty close to 85mm.

Thanks everyone!

Nice choice on both. While you are getting familiar with the D7000 & the 50mm, do yourself a favor and back-order/pre-order the 85 1.8G from your favorite store...you will be glad that you did...Period!

*Update* Hi everyone...

Here is the latest..

I couldnt wait for a refresher and opted to buy the well reviewed D7000 and just start shooting with it!

Also, I ended up getting the 50mm for two reasons:

1. 85mm 1.8G sold out!
2. with the dx crop factor I am pretty close to 85mm.

Thanks everyone!

Once again, Thank you everyone for your advice and input.

I think I am going to wait for the D7000 refresher and continue to use my D3100 until then. In regards to lenses, you have shown me that having a 35mm and an 85mm is good partnering! I am going to head out later this week to pick up the 85mm F1.8G (which is effectively 127mm on my DX).

Thanks again from this newbie!

Sato: All those lens are amazing...enjoy them. With respect to the 105 Micro 2.8, should you like more reach, get the 1.7x Teleconvorter and you will be able to put that lens to even more use. I really like this flexibility it offers me.

Lastly, all these lenses...35mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4/1.8G, 85mm 1.8G (1.4 if you are after the best bohek and don't mind the softer edges @ 1.4), 105 2.8 Macro....should be in everyones camera bag; you will not be disappointed owning them....I'm not.

Cheers...

RakK said:
Hi Forum.

I am a newbie (photographing for 2 years) and have already fallen in love with it! My main photo subjects are my family.

I currently have a 35mm and an 18-200. I use the 35mm a lot and love it. The 18-200mm is my general lens that I take when I go on vacation or just out and about with the family. I find my 35mm is very 'in your face' as you have to be somewhat close to the subject. Would it make sense to get the 85mm?

BTW I am shooting on a D3100 (Which I will be upgrading to a new D7000 when it is announced).

Your thoughts and suggestions please!

The 'in your face' quality of the 35mm is why I love it.
The 85mm is a fine lens, but it has a min focus distance of almost 3 feet.
You will get a much truer image 1/1 when shooting FF when a 85mm is used, but I love the 35mm I have. It allows you to move in on your subject and get that truly intimate feel to an image that the 85mm just doesnt get.

The 85 F1.8 vs the 105 F2.8 They can both be awesome portrait lenses. The 105 is a macro lens so it has a dual use and has VR. The 85 is cheaper and F1.8.

I really think either would be great choice for portraits and medium telephoto work. I use my 105 all the time and it is my favorite lens I own. I think the 85 F3.5 is even another great choice for a dual use macro and portrait lens...although it is dx. Most never talk about it, but it was my second choice for a macro lens (I actually ordered it and returned it unopened because I found a used 105 instead).

Warning, A lot of text will follow that might not have all that much to do with the topic Starter's question but is more to ease my own doubts. And therefore a bit aimed at msmoto

msmoto said:
Actually, the 35/85 combination is such an excellent match, maybe only exceeded by a 24 or 28/85 combination. Again, what one really needs to understand is exactly what one wants to photograph and the personal preference for doing this. The 24mm can be used to shoot portraits, although one must exercise a great deal of judgement in composition.

Ah no, Now you make me (slightly) doubt my decision.

After trying to decide between the 85 1.8G and 105 2.8G VR Micro for a long time,
I recently ordered the 50mm 1.8G and 105mm 2.8G VR Micro to add to the 35 1.8G I already got for use on my Nikon D5100 (18-55 kit-lens was replaced with the 35mm)
I ordered these when a local store had a sale (Tax-Free Shopping, Takes 15,97% off the list price) So I got the 50mm 1.8G for €150,- (Normally €179,- or more) and the 105 2.8G VR Micro for about €640,- (€759,- or more) Thinking they'd be a great addition to what I already had (the 35) and give me more reach and usability(VR/Macro) VS the 85 1.8 which I initially wanted to get.
Though it's too late to get the 85 1.8G with that discount, I could still cancel the 50 and 105 and get my money back.

But as I said, I decided on these two lenses to go along with the 35mm for a reason and shouldn't change my mind now because I read something I already know: The 85 1.8G is a great lens.
But so are the 50 1.8G and 105 2.8G. Right?

Besides, This discount will come again (usually twice a year.) So I could (and probably will) buy the 85mm 1.8G then. (Together with a new camera D7000/7100 or D600.)
Unless I really don't like the 105 Micro, Which I'd then be able to sell within 6 months and not lose any money on it due to the discount I had with my purchase.

Totally forgot to mention: The reason I got the 50mm 1.8 together with the 105 2.8 Micro is because I wanted something in between the 35 and 105 that wasn't too expensive and the 50 1.8 only cost me the savings I had on the 105.
Even though 50/55mm was something I rarely used when I was using the 18-55 VR to find out if I wanted the 35 or 50mm f1.8, It's so darn cheap and better suited for portraits (And probably general outside(forrest) photography.) I decided on getting it anyway.

msmoto said:
Maybe you can do an experiment. Take your 18-200, zoom to 85mm and tape the zoom, so it is "fixed" at 85mm. Then walk around and shoot a bunch of photos, family, neighbors family, etc., and see how it works. Then, adjust it to 105mm, do the same thing. It is important to tape it at the zoom you want, so as to force you to work with this "fixed" focal length. Incidentally, use either a painters masking tape or gaffer's tape, not duct tape or regular masking tape which could offset the adhesive to your lens.

The above will help you to understand the limitations of a specific fixed focal length. It may help you to avoid buying something you later decide you do not want.

Now here's a thing I'd like to admit, The mistake I made in getting the D5100 with the 18-55 VR. While it's a great lens (depending on your expectations.) in my case it didn't offer much as a 'find out what you need/want' lens.
I should have gotten myself the D5100 18-105 VR kit, But whilest on the subject why not make that: I shouldn't have been so tight with my money and gotten the D7000 18-105 VR kit to start with.

-----

Anyway, I got a call yesterday, My 50 1.8G and 105 2.8G VR Micro have arrived and I'll go and pick them up tomorrow. (Depending on when you read this and what your time zone is, Tomorrow could be today.)

Thanks again for all the info and just to clarify, I started thinking about the 1.4, but now (thanks to your advice) realize that the 1.8G is probably my best buy.

@TaoTeJared - I really want a lens that will let me take more candid photos of my kids and family. I absolutely love the 35mm and would use that anytime I can, but sometimes I just want to catch the kids playing or my family interacting. Those are the moments that I am trying to capture!

Thank you again everyone!

Just my 2 cents worth - for the last two weeks I have been shooting 22mm (Fuji x100), 35mm 1.8, 85mm 1.8 and have yet to be disappointed. 80% are with the 24 (35mm equiv) and the 85mm (128mm equiv). The 85mm has lived on my D300.

I could not tell how far "in your face" equals for you as it differs from region to region across the globe, as well as how familiar you are with people. The one thing no one has quite mentioned - what you have stated you shoot, the 85 may be too long. Instead of feeling "in your face" (in the midwest that could = 10ft away) but the 85mm may only get just the face and nothing else. It is designed to be more of a top 1/3 of the body or just headshot type lens. The 50mm tends to be 1/2 body shots. 85mm at 5ft is really only the head of the person. 50mm is top 1/3-1/2 or two people in the photo.

The 85 and 50 are great lenses but I believe your question is more focused on what would work best for you. For that you need to state how far away you want to be from people in Feet or Meters and how much of the person you want in the photo.

golf007sd said:
Opps I must correct myself: I got the 85mm 1.8G not the 1.4. Sorry about that.

Lol yeah I was looking at the thread again and realized I was also talking about the 1.8 and not the 1.4. Seems like a big jump from the 18-200 and 35 f1.8? I personally would recommend the 85 F1.8G and not the 1.4 unless you plan on do professional portrait work and even then I am not sure it is worth it. For the price difference you could spend a lot of money on another lens or two instead.

golf007sd said:
RakK I took the plunge and bought this lens last week (should be here today) and from what you have shared with us, you will find this to be a great fit for you. I personally have the 35 1.8 and the 18-200 as well...in addition to a lot more. I have no question this lens will serve us both well.

Cheers....

Opps I must correct myself: I got the 85mm 1.8G not the 1.4. Sorry about that.

shawnino said:
If OP is considering Nikon 85mm f/1.4, test out the D-version before buying the G-version. I shoot DX and could not see any worthwhile difference between the two and the D is roughly $500 less expensive.

The D is a lovely lens, but being able to take instant manual focus control with the AFS lens, was worth the extra outlay for me, even if the optical performance was identical.

RakK said:
PS - on a side note, is there a place where an amateur like me can post pictures and get them critiqued? I am not afraid of criticism and believe this will help me become a better photographer!

Yes there is.......right here in the 'photo a day' thread or PAD for short. If you post some of your work there, and mention that you're looking for constructive criticism, I'm sure you'll get some 'opinions'. I use the word opinions because you must remember that's all they are. Whilst it's true, there are established 'norms' in photography, it is an art not a science. Just because one person doesn't see merit in a photo, or would have shot or cropped it differently, doesn't mean to say they're right. I've seen many examples of so called experts knocking a magazine contributors work around in Photoshop, and thought "I much prefer the original!". Just my rant for the day. Hey, now that's an idea, how about a 'RAD' thread?! :-)

Thanks for the clarification, Godless--I never knew that.

shawnino said:
Equal? Isn't the Sigma 1.4 and the Nikon that's under discussion a 1.8?

Supposedly yes, but sadly, and according to DxOMark, the transmission of the Sigma is 1.8 as well as the Nikon 1.8G

tcole1983 said:
Have you tried the Nikon yet?

Yes.

tcole1983 said:
I personally would go with the Nikon. Can't go wrong for $500.

No argument there. Keep in mind, though, that the Nikon 1.8G was not available when the Sigma hit the shelves. I had to have a very good 85mm for a few odd jobs and the Sigma has served me well. I am thinking of replacing the Sigma with the 1.8G for weight and size reasons.

tcole1983 said:
I have always found the Nikon G primes to be fast focusing...I wouldn't really worry about that.

I would. I have found that in situations with very fast, erratically moving targets, the faster the AF the better the results. For ordinary ppl shooting non-ADHD kids / family happenings / weddings / rock concerts this would probably be no matter at all.

tcole1983 said:
There really is no reason to get the Sigma...and as I say when in doubt, get the Nikon.

Now there isn´t, when the 85mm 1.8G is finally out. A year ago the situation was completely different.

Godless said:
The Sigma focuses faster (fastest focusing 85mm I have come across since Canon 85/1.8 USM). The Sigma weighs considerably more as well (726 grams vs. 350 grams). The Sigma has a 77mm filter thread while the 1.8G has a 67mm thread.

Both are very sharp.

The Sigma produces smoother bokeh on small apertures (1.8G oof highlights become polygonal beyond f/4). Both are nice on large apertures where it counts.

Sadly, the lenses are equal in transmission (both are 1.8), so there is no advantage to either in the aperture department.

Have you tried the Nikon yet?

I personally would go with the Nikon. Can't go wrong for $500. I have always found the Nikon G primes to be fast focusing...I wouldn't really worry about that. You won't notice the difference in the 1.8 vs 1.4. Sigma are really hit and miss with QA/QC. Bokeh and sharpness look great on the 1.8G. There really is no reason to get the Sigma...and as I say when in doubt, get the Nikon.

Actually, title of OP's thread is the 85mm 1.4. Never mind me, I think?

If OP is considering Nikon 85mm f/1.4, test out the D-version before buying the G-version. I shoot DX and could not see any worthwhile difference between the two and the D is roughly $500 less expensive.(A better tog might coax out differences!) I don't think the D autofocuses on the D3x00 bodies but if OP is upgrading to D7x00, the D-version should autofocus fine and it's a lovely lens IMO.

Godless said:

Sadly, the lenses are equal in transmission (both are 1.8), so there is no advantage to either in the aperture department.

Equal? Isn't the Sigma 1.4 and the Nikon that's under discussion a 1.8?

RakK said:
Just to confuse matters a bit more and perhaps taboo on a site like this...how does the Nikon 1.8G on a DX compare to the Sigma 85mm 1.4EX DG HSM?

The Sigma focuses faster (fastest focusing 85mm I have come across since Canon 85/1.8 USM). The Sigma weighs considerably more as well (726 grams vs. 350 grams). The Sigma has a 77mm filter thread while the 1.8G has a 67mm thread.

Both are very sharp.

The Sigma produces smoother bokeh on small apertures (1.8G oof highlights become polygonal beyond f/4). Both are nice on large apertures where it counts.

Sadly, the lenses are equal in transmission (both are 1.8), so there is no advantage to either in the aperture department.

Just to confuse matters a bit more and perhaps taboo on a site like this...how does the Nikon 1.8G on a DX compare to the Sigma 85mm 1.4EX DG HSM?

Thanks!

Thanks again! I really appreciate it. For a newbie like me, its great to get honest opinions.

MSMOTO - I did try that already and liked the focal length a lot.

I believe that everyone on this forum has pretty much confirmed my thoughts! Now I can't wait to pick up my 85mm 1.8G!

Thanks again!

PS - on a side note, is there a place where an amateur like me can post pictures and get them critiqued? I am not afraid of criticism and believe this will help me become a better photographer!