Nikon released not to long ago a Nikon 40mm f/2.8G AF-S DX Micro that would make it a 60mm on a 35mm body. Surprised that no one has mentioned this option. I think it could make some nice portrait shots and its under 300$. This is just speculation because i have never used this lens before just a thought.

Let's open the thread and bring to the table the new AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.8G. In my opinion the winner here at $500. See examples on PAD and elsewhere..........

Well, I have at least handled all of the lenses. A close friend of mine has the 85mm 1.8D so I have gotten to play with it a lot. The Sigma and Nikkor I've handled in stores although the Nikkor a bit less so I do have the least experience with it.

I'm making a total non-issue out of this. I'll just get a 50mm 1.4G; it's bokeh to me is more pleasing to me than the 85 and I don't want to take a risk on getting a Sigma.

Thanks everyone for all the opinions and putting up with me.

People rarely if ever mention autofocus performance when describing lens; for me, $#%$ the quality if you can't get a damn shot because the autofocus is horrendous.
Autofocus is critically important, particularly in my work (documentary/photojournalism in a lot of low light). Out of the lenses that were mentioned by the OP, I've used the 50 1.8D and 50 1.4G, (I know a lot of people have strong opinions in regards to these lenses) but I've found the 1.4G to be useless for my work; the autofocus speed was horrendous. It may have been my copy, but it was by far the most disappointing Nikon purchase I had ever made (traded it in for the new 24mm 1.4 recently). The 1.8D, on the other hand, is a fantastic piece of plastic; the autofocus is quicker and the lens is generally, in my experience, sharper (bear in mind 1.4's aren't generally sharper, it's a tradeoff for a wider aperture). I don't use it much, I used it once in the field last month, and I'm making an exhibition 24x16 print from that shot which will be used for a show here in Manhattan...it's this f'n good, that shot is the opener for my entire documentary project. At the end of the day, no one is going to say, "wait, you shot that with a $130 lens..."

I have had the three lenses that 'enthdegree' brought up and I'm not sure if I agree with all that they described on each lens. The 50G and 85 1.8D are much better IMO than described. It didn't sound like there was extensive use either and some descriptions sounded very close to a few well known reviewers. Personally they are 2 of the most used and trusted lenses in my bag and perform extraordinarily.

There is noting wrong with being happy with a purchase but I certainly didn't find it to be the best of the three at all. The Sigma 50mm 1.4 HSM is a good lens, but is the one I got rid of due to having the highest CA and purple/green fringing out of any lens I have owned and deemed it unacceptable. I also went through 5 in a shop to find one that actually focused accurately. It is also huge and heavy for a 50mm. The 77mm filter size is handy though.

There is a lot of splitting hair arguments used in general about all theses lenses by many reviewers and after using them, I do feel they are trying to fill words in an article than really showing any difference.
(Applied to this grouping)
-Distortion - Unless you shoot test charts for a living all are the same: Un-noticeable.
-Bokeh - Is objective and is more artistic expression than anything else. Chromatic Abrasions can cause this to be very busy though.
-Chromatic Abrasions - With Nikon lenses, cameras do help correct this and becomes a non-issue. 3rd party lenses do not have this advantage.
-Resolution - Again, Unless you shoot test charts for a living all are the same: Un-noticeable. All improve as you stop down.
-Manufacturing quality - never to be underestimated. Most do not have the ability to buy 5 copies for $2000 to test.
-Portrait Length: Rubbish I say. I use 105-200mm just as much as a 35, 50, 85 on DX. I use my 105vr and 50G just slightly more.

Regarding the Sigma 50 1.4: "» Inconsistent manufacturing quality. Even so I don't think it's as bad as it used to be. "

If that's the truth than it must have been bad. I bought one a couple months ago and had to send it back three times before I found one I liked. With that said, I prefer it to the Nikon when I got one that worked. I wish it wasn't so much of a pain, but I sold the Nikon soon after.

If you've got $500 in your budget, get either the Nikon 50mm f/1.4D or the Nikon 85mm f/1.8. If your camera is a D80,90,7000 or above it auto focuses with these lenses. The lens can also change aperture using the camera wheel if you don't want to use the ring around the lens.

DaveO

Ok, yes. I was uninformed about G lenses at the time. They're not bad after all. (:

Anyway, now I have the money to buy in my hand. Beforehand I was kind of leaning towards a Nikkor 85mm 1.8D but now I am torn between it and a Sigma 50mm 1.4 HSM. Here is an evaluation of the lenses that were most discussed:

Nikkor 50mm 1.4G:
» It has the most consistent quality of all the lenses discussed.
» It is the newest of all the lenses discussed. I don't think anyone cares about that though.
» It has the ugliest bokeh of all the lenses discussed.
» It appears to have the lowest resolution wide open of all the lenses discussed but also has the best resolution stopped down. Really consistent from edge to edge.

Nikkor 85mm 1.8D
» It has the least barrel distortion for all the lenses discussed.
» It is a longer focal length, better suited for portraits. People say it is a bad lens for portraits on DX because of sensor crop, suggesting a 50mm instead because it would be closer to 'portrait length'. I don't think that is a valid point. A primary reason is this> As I already kind of hit on, the other lenses have more barrel distortion. Mounting a 50mm lens on DX will not magically get rid of the flaws pertaining to that focal length. Even if the focal length looks like 75mm, the pictures were still taken with a 50mm lens. It's like taking a cell phone picture. Does cropping the picture make the photo more 'zoomed in'? no...
» It has fairly nice bokeh.
» It is slower than the other two.
» It lacks higher-end features like AF override and a reversible hood.
» Looks like if you get a bad egg then there's bad chromatic aberrations.
» Resolution appears to be great (even wide open) but still not as good as the others.
» This is really the main reason I am questioning this lens: I would eventually end up replacing it. The 85mm 1.4s produce better images but for now are out of my price range. Basically I'd sell the 85mm 1.8 once I had enough money to get the 1.4. The other two are great at what they do and would stay in my kit even if I did buy an 85mm 1.4 later on.

Sigma 50mm 1.4 HSM:
» I am getting a lens for portraits. After looking at a lot of portraits taken with all these lenses, I have come to the conclusion that the Sigma has the nicest bokeh of the group. People say "if you can cope with sub-par out of focus elements...' Unfortunately I cannot.
» It has more noticable barrel distortion than the others although I don't think this is relevant for any of the lenses because BD is correctable through postprocessing.
» Great center resolution wide open, edges catch up as you stop down to 4 or 5.6.
» Chromatic aberrations are more of a problem but still not too bad. More than usual for a 50mm prime. Varies depending on how good of a copy you have.
» Inconsistent manufacturing quality. Even so I don't think it's as bad as it used to be.

I'm kind of biased against the 50mm 1.4G. It seems like more of a general purpouse lens than a 'take pictures of my cat and use them as my profile pictures' lens. Regardless, they're all great lenses. My creativity would stiple image quality more than the technical ability of any of these lenses would.

Maybe this will help someone make their own desicion in the future.

well there are only two that are new and have an MSRP below $500:
50 1.4G
35 1.8

The 85 1.8 is older and below $500 (I think), but rather tight for a portrai. . .

the 50 1.4G is your best pick.

enthdegree said:
Nikkor 50mm 1.4G
Same as the Nikkor 50mm 1.8D except for the cheap part. It is also newer and renders OOF areas slightly better. Unfortunately it is also a G lens.

So what is wrong with a "G" lens.

Unless you shoot older cameras that need an aperture ring, then it is actually an advantage as you adjust the aperture and see it displayed in the view finder without moving your eye form the camera.

[yes my F3 did display the the F stop in bright light.]

Also, you do not forget to set the lens to its max.

I use both and G is easier as there is one less thing to think about.

enthdegree,

the 105mm/2.5 is a great lense for low $ but it really requires some distance for more than head shots and few DX bodies meter with it. Between that and the lack of AF, i don't know it is very practical as an only prime. It's cheap enough it's a good lense to own anyways, but I'd be hesitant to recommend it.

I have the 50mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.8; both of which I have used on DX cameras for portraits. They work ok but they are not my favorites. My favorite is an old AF Nikkor 28-85mm f3.5-4.5 shot wide open at 85mm (which is actually equal to 127.5 mm in 35mm). Very strange, I know. Wrong mm (most people recommend 105mm in 35mm format size which equates to 70mm in DX format unless you are including more than the head and shoulders in which case they recommend 50mm in 35mm format which equates to 33mm in DX format). My preferred lens has the wrong f stop (most people seem to think you need larger than 4.5). But to me the image from my lens has just the right perspective for a head and shoulders portrait, just the right depth of field, and just the right sharpness (or softness?). Plus the bokeh is great as long as you keep the background at least 3 feet behind the subject and the warmth of the glass is just right. In fact, I love that old lens so much I just purchased another old used one I found on-line used in case my lens ever breaks. I would be sad without it. Who would have thought? So try all the lenses you have, including the zooms, from 50mm up to 85mm and you may be as surprised as I was about which you like the best.

Yep, I'm taking a look at some pictures on Flickr, it looks like wide open at 40mm the OOF elements are pretty doughnut-shaped and there's quite a bit of purple fringing as well as lack of clarity throughout the image. (It appears pretty well focused BTW)

OFC, that might be where it preforms the worst and this is by no means scientific.

That's an interesting suggestion. How is the handling on that lens? Seems like it would be pretty hard to handhold at 105mm esp. on DX. It's ok though, I don't mind MF just as long as handling is good.

In other news, I also just found out about this Sigma zoom lens: 20-40mm f2.8 which looks like it sells in the limit I set of below $500.* It's a little wider than the other ones but I thought it would be worth mentioning as it might provide a viable step up from variable-aperture baseline zooms like the 18-55mm VR (too bad there is loss of 2 mm on the wide end where it makes a difference) Unfortunately there is not too much info on it floating around the internets. Does anyone have any experience with this lens? On paper it looks almost too good for it's price range to be of very high quality, esp. for a Sigma lens.

*In some places anyway

If you're into manual focusing and older lenses, I'd suggest Nikkor 105/2.5 AiS. Some may say it's long, but the bokeh and DoF distribution is wonderful. Plus some 50/1.8 for a little more angle and you're set. :-)

Some sample photos:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/designingreen/5434833166/in/set-72157626021002474/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/designingreen/5434829392/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/designingreen/5422961056/in/set-72157625886944797/

My favourite lens so far, and you can get it really cheap! (I'm getting cash for either N85/1.8 or Leica Summicron 90 next..) ;-)

I agree the 50/1.8 bokeh can be ugly, but it cleans up really nicely about f/2.2-2.5. In fact it can be nice wide open provided there aren't any highlights in the frame. Windows in otherwise badly-lit buildings tend to catch me out in this respect (I use mine for indoor martial arts a lot).

Depends also which of the lenses above you are comparing to. Zooms designed to pass through normal perspective on 35mm cameras are relatively cheap since they don't go wide enough in most cases to serve a similar purpose on DX. The 35-70 I mentioned is a pro Nikkor and I saw it for <$400 used through B&H with good quality rating-- For that price I'd go with B&H rather than eBay, but eBay is another place to look. Re: Comparisons, my friend with a 35-70 also has 2 other 2.8 pro zooms to cover 18-200. When he bought the 105/2.0DC that became the 1 lense he always carries. If he carries 2 it's the 105/2.0DC and the 18-35. I have the 105/2.5 AIS and the bokeh, colors, and sharpness is addictive so I can imagine where he is coming from.

The 35-70 has to me a more pleasing, smoother bokeh I mentioned better than the 35 and 50/1.8 lenses and equally sharp (I own those 2 lenses). There are as someone mentioned 3rd party lenses that are cheaper but I am not sure about the bokeh. I have a Tokina 28-70/2.8 and it is a solid lens which is nice and sharp but bokeh is not it's strongest point (maybe it's similar to the 50, maybe little worse) and there is no reason to buy Tokina if that Nikkor is <$400.

enthdegree said:
FWIW, are there any zooms around the same price range that rival the primes discussed in this topic?

Depends what you mean by Rival. Sharpness - yes. Bokeh- No.

enthdegree said:
FWIW, are there any zooms around the same price range that rival the primes discussed in this topic?

My tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (non-VR version, purchased Dec 2007 for $400) is pretty close, IMO [ducks incoming boos and rotten fruit]. It is DX, though.
Here are a few samples:
at 40mm and f/4
50mm and f/4
50mm and f/2.8 (shows bokeh in OOF lights—not as uniform as a prime would be)
50mm and f/2.8 (ditto above, with light filtering through leaves)
Even though the bokeh isn't quite as pleasing, I don't think it's disgusting or even too distracting and you can be at 17mm in one second.
17mm and f/2.8

I do love the 50 1.8 and 85 1.8, as well, but the 17-50 is my go-to lens for most things.

FWIW, are there any zooms around the same price range that rival the primes discussed in this topic?

Hi MRPhotoau,

"My suggestion was only that an inexperienced shooter could get a macro lens for $5 that way they could 'try before you buy' so to speak. This $5 option would also work with both the 1.8 D lenses."

I think you're exactly right, and I didn't mean to contradict your intent, just to comment on the experience of it. I've done a lot of it with the reversing ring and enjoyed with it enough to get into macro work and buy the lenses for it. (And I still use a tripod for it, too.) ;-)

Your comments were well reading.

My best to you.

Mike

I love reading peoples different views on things. Especially the more experienced writers.
Just to clarify what I have said earlier. I have used both 1.8 and 1.4 versions and they both give very nice OOF backgrounds/foregrounds but in my experience (though, from what I perceive, this is no where near some of the other people here. Only approx. 15 years, a number of others seem to be at least twice that) the 1.4 is creamier than the 1.8 at the same stop and I did not get the same results on DX as on FX. I may be very wrong there, and of course given your budget you could almost get the 50 and 85.
I also shoot macro but with macro lenses. My suggestion was only that an inexperienced shooter could get a macro lens for $5 that way they could 'try before you buy' so to speak. This $5 option would also work with both the 1.8 D lenses. It is also for myself no harder to use than a macro lens as 95% of my macro is on a tripod and 100% is manually focused.

KenRC51 said:
I got the 50 1.4G. My friend got the Sigma 50 1.4 and his pictures comes out great.

Are you inferring that the 50 1.4G does not take great pictures?

The 85mm 1.8D is looking so fly.

The ability to reverse the 50mm 1.8 and 1.4 D's is certainly useful but IDK if I would use them, as I am really mostly taking pictures of people.

What I think I'm going to do is buy an 85mm 1.8D and a 50mm 1.8D and see which one I like best, then if I like the 50mm 1.8D sell everything and get a 50mm 1.4 G or D. If not then sell the 50mm 1.8D and either get a 35mm 1.8G or replace my crummy 18-55mm 3.5-5.6 G VR with an 18-70mm but that is a different thread. (c;

Thank you everyone for your input!

Hi,

For the budget and bokeh and quality, I'd put my money on the 85mm F1.8 Nikon.

It might be a bit of a stand off, but it hasn't been much of a problem. The clarity and color are terrific. It is a standout in both value and delivery.

The 50mm is a winner, too, and I use it for closer quarters.

I would comment on using it with a reversing ring. I've done it, too, in my leaner years, and it certainly works well. It isn't a convenient method as one has to manually stop down to shoot, perhaps use a tripod, or grow a third arm. Micro lenses have a better design for close up, but I'm really commenting on the user experience of shooting close up than the quality of the images.

Which leads to another question. Do you do close up? If so, and this is just in budget, but not the 'best' portrait lenses, but will is the 60mm F2.8. I have an older model and use it for portraits and it works great.

Outdoors, you'll like stop down a bit anyway, so the the f1.4-1.8 to 2.8 will be rather unnoticeable - but there will be times that you'll really yearn for it and miss it. If you don't don't do _any_ macro work, it might be something that will be lost on you, but on the other hand, close up is in a class by itself.

My best,

Mike