I ended up going the other way....decided to skip the af-s, and just got the 85 1.4d used for $700....60% savings over af-s?

Been impressed with af so far on the d3 with the af-d version, color rendition is awesome, and bokeh is of course legendary ....guess one of those cases where getting the old used worked out wiser than new retail?

I also recently had my swm die on my 50 1.4afs at a wedding-took 12 days for nikon to repair, but I missed a lot of shots...that's laregly what inspired me to go old school and rely on the af of my d3 rather than trust the swm again....

Came across a very interesting comparison between the 85mm f/1.4D and Nikon AF 85mm f/1.8D
nikonjin.com/forum/printthread.php?tid=272&page=1

The current UK prices are 85mm f/1.8D £300 / 85mm f/1.4D £1360

+1 on that Admin!

I'm still debating... The bokeh and sharpness wide open is unbelievable.

Hard to imagine they improved the lens that much but they did. If only my pockets were deeper I would get all of Nikon's 1.4s now.

nice job admin on the review page!!

Glad to help make you more confused :)

@Smarterchild - Great link! That just makes everything just harder. :)

Tao, i will link you a great review for the 85 1.4. Isaw it the other day and made me glad i got the new one.

http://www.ryanbrenizer.com/blog/2010/09/85mm_review/

http://nikonrumors.com/2010/10/09/nikon-af-s-85mm-f1-4g-lens-hands-on.aspx

http://www.flickr.com/groups/afs85mmf14g/discuss/72157624844286995/

In my eyes aftere seeing some comparrasion. i noticed the difference easily. Also kenrockwells review of this lens is pretty interesting, He mentioned that this lens has NO coma at night 1.4 shooting. The other lens that does not have any is the 58 or whatever noct 1.2.

I already decided I'm not going to buy the D300 upgrade this time around and focus on glass for another two years. I have been upgrading my glass for 2 years and the 85mm and 24-120 F4 is all I have left that is high dollar.

I am really interested if anyone has tried the new 85mm afs vs the old 85mm afd and if it is really worth it. If the AFS is just marginally better then I'll save the money and get the AFD version.

Here is my glass path so you have an idea what I have tried and am keeping.

Nikon 50mm F1.4 Sell Swap to a 50mm f1.8
Nikon 85mm D F1.8 Sell Upgrade to 85mm f1.4
Nikon 24-120mm F3.5 Sell Upgrade to 24-120 VR F4
Sigma 30mm F1.4 Sell
Nikon 24-85mm ED G F3.5 Sell
Tokina 28-70mm F2.6 Sell
Nikon 180mm ED F2.8 Sell

Sigma 15mm F2.8 Keep
Tokina 17mm F3.5 Keep
Nikon 24mm F2.8 Keep
Nikon 35mm F1.8 Keep
Nikon 60mm F2.8 Keep
Nikon 105mm VR F2.8 Keep
Tokina 12-24mm F4 Keep
Nikon 70-200mm VR F2.8 Keep
Nikon 70-300mm VR F4.5 Keep

Just an opinion: "smartchild" gets my vote. I've always emphatically believed it's first about the quality of the "glass". The most expensive lens/new glass isn't always the best glass! There is some truly great glass and still very useful older lenses out there. Still, try to buy the best glass you can afford...be pragmatic about it, focus and evaluate your needs; not to the needs of others. Excellent "glass" on an "acceptable" camera body, with rare exception, is always preferable to an "excellent" camera body mounted with simply an "acceptable lens. The object is to merge the "excellent" factor of both over time. A lens can be a longterm investment. Attempt to purchase "to your needs" and expanding creativity. Think of next year; will your purchase provide for growth? Best wishes.

Id say wait till you have a FF body to get the 85. I had my 50 for my DX right before i got my FF and i have to say, you get the benifit of the 1.4 fast prime lenses on the FF. Get the 24-120 F4 and pocket money for the D700 and save up for the new or old 85 1.4 and just use the 85 1.8.

im not dissing primes on DX, i just feel to get the whole feel of the 1.4 lenses. the depth of field is MUCH greater in FX

EDIT: I have the new 85 1.4 AF-S ordered and its been about 3 weeks now. Once i get it in 1 or 2 weeks. ill post some examples up

Wow, that 3100 with a 85mm 1.4 is beautiful.

I'd do option C or D and pocket the difference to upgrade to the D400 when it comes out (or a D700 if the price drops even further?).

I have to say I have no experience with either 85 1.4, so I'm basing my suggestion on when I had the 50 1.2. I thought the dof was too thin and found myself usually shooting at f/2 or f/2.8. I would rather spend to have better low-light performance on my camera. I love the 85 1.8, too.

Now there is a ton of sample photos out there:

So I have been saving up and will sell some stuff to either:
A) buy the new 85 1.4
or
B) Buy the older version AND the new 24-120 f4.
or
C) Keep my 85mm 1.8 and get the new 24-120 f4.
or
D) Keep the 85 1.8, Tokina 24-70 2.8, & old 24-120mm vr and just get over it.

Both 85s are great, but is the newer one's image quality worth that much more?

Any thoughts? Been thinking about this for a week and my head hurts.

Background: I shoot mainly available light, love very fast lenses for bokeh, D300, buy lenses to either sell for more or hold forever.

Thanks everyone!

now the 55-300 VR has nice bokeh. . .haha, of course, right?!

Stoked about the 24-120 and hopefully an updated 70-300 VR3 (around the next FX announcement)!

That image from Niko reminds me of a Gee Bee for some reason...

I haven't liked the bokeh I have seen on the new lens either. It seems to create distinct "water droplet" like circles in the background (not around a light source). Seems a bit ugly to me.

shivaswrath said:
yeah the more I look at sample images, the more I don't like the bokeh. .it's in between the nervousness of the 35 1.8 and the 50 1.4.

I think the VR must have been dropped for optical reasons, because I'm sure Nikon tried it out and saw that it wouldn't cut it. . .(only reason I could see why they would do that). . .

Maybe.. but I think if there was a VR version of that lens it would be a totally different lense design and formula so its not a simple thing of just "dropping" VR

yeah the more I look at sample images, the more I don't like the bokeh. .it's in between the nervousness of the 35 1.8 and the 50 1.4.

I think the VR must have been dropped for optical reasons, because I'm sure Nikon tried it out and saw that it wouldn't cut it. . .(only reason I could see why they would do that). . .

No it doesn't so send it to me and I'll bury it for you :-)

Aw no - does this mean that my 50mm f1.4 doesn't work anymore? :^)

not that impressed with the bokeh from the sample images - honestly, the 70-200II has creamier bokeh IMO. . .

It'll be a low-light whore for sure, but I think the older model, though clearly slower in focusing and more prone to CA/flare, might be a steal for budget shooters. . .

I want one, looked today at the sample pictures and they are stunning. Just need to sell kidney to get it with d3x to see the full possibilities this lens has to offer :)

My mind keep Pushing me to grab this baby,
But what I don't understand is..this version no ED , no VR 2 just a tiny piece of nano and afs added, for me is over priced tooo much.
Do u guys think the image quality will be big different?
Hope to see the result as soon as possible , I can't decide

Doesnt look too bad. :-) That could be a fun setup :-)

Instead of recommending the D90 with an f1.8 35mm lens to everyone and their mother that asks "which camera/lens should I get", I will now only recommend the D3100 with an f1.4 85mm lens :^)

Mine is on order from Amazon the second they became available thanks to this site!