Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.8G lens now shipping in the US

The Nikkor AF-S 85mm f/1.8G lens ($499.95) that was announced with the D4 is currently shipping to dealers in the US. I expect shipping to existing pre-orders to start by the end of this week.

Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.8G lens MTF chart and lens/construction design:

The lens comes with a lens hood and a pouch:


This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • ersta


    • Jason

      Why is this priced nearly 1/4th of 1.4 G ?

      • Greg

        Because it’s significantly cheaper to build this lens than the 1.4

        • Dr Motmot

          The 85mm/1.8 G only has 7 aperture blades (the 1.4G has 9) what effect will this have on the Bokeh?

          • …shape has more to do with it than number. More are generally needed to maintain a nice shape once stopped down from large apertures.

            If it’s anything like the 50/1.4G, it’ll have damn nice bokeh, even closed down.

            I find it hilarious that the lens this replaces had a whopping 6 elements in 6 groups.

  • yael

    Too bad it doesn’t have VR with it, I don’t understand why Nikon isn’t doing that.

    • Ron Scubadiver

      So completely unnecessary. Henri Cartier-Bresson was staunchly against VR, especially at this focal length/speed.

      • CHD

        Ron, Spartacus was staunchly against fuel injection when he raced his horse drawn chariots too….so what’s your point.

        • Collins

          I just wana say that that response was awesome

          • Bondi Beach


            • Ren Kockwell


          • Fabian



          • Heath

            That is in fact the funniest thing I have heard/read this week 🙂

        • Ron Scubadiver

          Also known as a joke.

          Your mother called. She wants her egg back.

          • Ron lubadiver

            Aaah the old pretend it was a joke cop out.

            How is that working out for ya?

            Or if you are being honest then how are the terribly not funny jokes working out?

            • EAJ

              Really – you didn’t know it was a joke?

            • Ron Scubadiver

              You’re joking, right, Lubadiver?

              I feel really bad for you if your sarcasm-detector is that broken and no longer under warranty.

        • Andres

          Best answer ever man 😀

      • Bob from Ohio

        Henri Cartier-Bresson didn’t shoot with a 36MP D800E without a tripod.

        • Calibrator

          Really? Well, one can always learn, I guess…

          • regular

            HCB was not shooting with a normal focal (50mm) rather than a long (85-90mm)

      • tredbily

        Henri Cartier-Bresson is an overrated snob. I’m not sure VR should be in a prime, but it should be in the body.

        • pavel

          Exactly, if IS was in the body we wouldn’t need to have this discussion ever again. I doubt that Nikon will ever listen to his customers that much to put IS in 🙁

          • IS is not in a body of high quality cameras because the type of IS that can work in the camera body alone is the worst one possible. End of the story.
            Best IS is located in the lens itself and typically uses gyroscope of some kind, adjusting the lens around its pivot point, which is located inside the lens. This method is impossible from the camera body.
            Poor man version of IS is located in camera body and attempts to mimic gyroscope driven one either by image sensor detection of the motion or some kind of accelerometer in the body. Correction these systems apply is in software. They can’t mechanically adjust lens itself. Hence the result has delays and approximations causing lower quality. No way around it.

            • Calibrator

              > They can’t mechanically adjust lens itself. Hence the result has delays and approximations causing lower quality. No way around it.

              No, they adjust the sensor mechanically.
              Even compacts from Casio are doing it this way.

              Adjusting the lens (or more correctly a lens group) is also nothing more than an approximation.

            • @ Calibrator
              Yes compact camera’s put it in the body, they’re compact.
              SLR’s put IS/VR in the lens because the lenses on most SLR camera’s are way too big for a camera IS to have any effect. It’s the long lens that shakes and what needs IS/VR built into it.

            • david

              Sony did it with the full frame a850 and a900.

              It works by shifting the sensor. You get a little bar chart in the viewfinder which tells you how effective the stabilising is, so you can brace and then time your shot perfectly.

              Sony might have some problems in the system as a whole, but they did introduce a 2-4 stop VR built into a full frame camera (25 megapixel too)

          • dudemyster

            Idiotic request. In-body VR wouldn’t stabilize viewfinder image. No thanks. Keep it in the lenses.

            • outkasted

              Where are those Sony cameras now? And if this was soo successful why has Sony not put it in the remainder of its other Dslr lineup.

      • Trevor

        What are the downsides of VR from an image quality perspective? Do those downsides only exist when VR is turned on?

        I tend to agree that I would want VR at 85mm. It’s on the 16-35, so the sole argument can’t be focal length anyway.

        If it’s messes up image quality, I don’t see why Nikon would put it on some of their top lenses. If it’s too expensive, I don’t see why Nikon would include it on their cheapest lenses.

        Bottom line, VR clearly has some benefits. Can anyone definitely say it affects image quality though? Thanks for any feedback.

        • Answer is not simple.
          Nikon is placing VR on lenses their experts expect to be used in situations where VR is more desirable than some other engineering aspects. 85mm is assumed to be mainly portrait lens – not a typical situation where you expect need for VR.
          Back to fundamentals of your question: for VR to work elements inside the lens must be made movable. As soon as you introduce movement, ideal precise position of glass elements suffers from some error that would require great cost to be minimized. So, Nikon can introduce it on cheaper lenses by doing it cheaper / with less quality. Nikon also can introduce them to top end lenses, engineering that application with greater cost and care. Even on expensive applications there will be some “cost” in aberrations vs. identical lens without VR. However, as I started with – if the lens is used in situations where benefits of VR are great, VR gain in abilities will be more important to photographer than small inherent quality loss (ie. errors due to the lack of VR would be more noticeable in the final result).

          • Trevor

            Decent answer. Thank you.

          • Ren Kockwell

            Okay, I could swear that I remember a Nikon rep answered the whole In-Body VR versus In-Lens VR, and he maintained quite vehemently that In-Lens VR, while more costly, was substantially more effective because it could be tailored and adjusted to the individual needs and idiosyncrasies of each lens. I’m sure someone has tested this theory at some point. Any links?

            • Trevor

              Just from experience, I would tend to agree with him. I used to shoot Olympus that had IBIS. The body had an annoying menu setting where you were supposed to select the focal length you were shooting in around 15mm increments to match the IBIS to the lens. That was a joke. Using a zoom it would be insane. So, it pretty much just stayed on 300mm (it’s maximum). That typically meant it was the most sensitive to movement.

              Olympus could have (and maybe has) made it so the body at least recognizes the focal length and automatically adjusts, but I would imagine more goes into calculations than just focal length.

              So, personally I think between viewfinder stability and more tuned to each lens, in lens is the way to go. IBIS was good, but there were some drawbacks that I would rather just have it in the lens (and apparently IBIS for video SUCKS). Just my two cents.

            • Sahaja

              Now that’s a stupid system. The camera should be able to pick up the focal length from the chip on modern lenses.

          • Sahaja

            There seem to be all kinds of opinion on IBIS vs VR

            Some of the things I’ve read:

            Nikon naturally say VR is better.

            Someone from Zeiss said IBIS is better and that the VR elements in a lens degrade optical quality.

            IBIS is good for short focal length lenses and VR for longer focal length lenses.

            An advantage of IBIS is that you get stabilization with all lenses (there is a lot of Nikon glass around with no VR)

            According to some, IBIS is worse for video.

            IBIS causes the sensor to heat making it worse for video

            I’m not an optical engineer – do I don’t know what the truth (or otherwise) is in any of these statements.

            Sony A900 and Pentax users seem to think the IBIS systems in their cameras (at least for still photos) is good.

            If you put a stabilized Sigma lens on a Sony or Pentax camera you have a choice – and that might be the ideal both VR & IBIS.

            The Pentax K5 can use its sensor shift mechanism to track stars – which is pretty clever.

        • Roger

          Ever wondered why 16-35 with VR is crap compared to 14-24 ?

          • Gerry

            is it???

            oh wow so it was cos they put VR in it.

            Please tell me….why is it so crap and why does this relate to VR?

          • Chuck N.

            The 14-24 is an overpriced heavy lens that can’t take filters.

            • Ren Kockwell

              You’re only half right.

            • Pub

              It is actually rather cheap for a magic trio lens and is easily the most exceptional as far as performance goes.

              The Zoom is generally considered tO be as sharp and distortion free as the prime

        • Calibrator

          Picture this:

          John Doe buys his first DSLR. A kit lens with VR is included.
          He will stay in auto mode for the first few months and most of his images are sharp. He can explain the blurry ones because he knows that he very clearly wasn’t holding the camera steady. Then perhaps he begin to try out manual or semi-auto modes. He even gets a tripod at some point because he wants to develop his “mad skillz”. He learns that he can switch off VR to get even sharper images when using the tripod. He buys additional lenses and sometime in the future another body from the same company. John Doe #1 is happy.

          Now imagine that John Doe wouldn’t get a stabilized kit lens with his first DSLR (and not a body with stabilization either).
          Lots of his pictures aren’t sharp because nobody showed him how to properly handle his camera. He begins to leave the kit lens at 17 or 18 mm because that’s where most of his images are sharp.
          He begins to lose interest after awhile and doesn’t buy lenses or another DSLR in the future. He will get a stabilized bridge or compact in the future to be happy again.

          What do you think now why even the cheapest kit lens features VR or IS? Because it makes the manufacturer happy.

          • John Richardson

            He switches to Canon?

          • steve

            I started with a D40 and had a crapy kit lens with out VR and then graduated to the 35mm 1.8 DX. I am fine without VR on my short lens and can take way better low light photographs. Maybe if I ever get a long zoom I will want VR but with my 35mm its fine with out it.

    • Do you really need VR in a super fast portrait lens and will you pay 30% more for that feature?
      VR does not freeze the motion so if you subject moves the only way to get a sharp photo is to shoot in faster shutter speeds.

      • nikonmoaners


        aren’t you contradicting things in your statement.

        You pointed out it’s a portrait lens but then say VR is no good cos of the subject moving? Most portraits stay fairly still which makes this an ideal lens for VR. Hmmm, unlike the 400 2.8 used by sports photographers which also has VR

        • Brad

          VR helps with camera shake, not subject motion blur. Fast lens = faster shutter speeds for a given ISO/light level. faster shutter speeds = no motion blur. hence no need for VR

          • vertigo

            Can you read?! No one is arguing they want to freeze the subject, they’re arguing they want to stop camera shake. Just because the lens has a few extra stops does not mean it supplies infinite amounts of light and shutter speeds.

            • brad

              Yes, I can read, shame you cant. I said nothing about infinite light or shutter speeds.

          • Gerry

            quote “faster shutter speeds = no motion blur. hence no need for VR”

            That’s a very narrow minded statement…

            sometimes low light, unable fast shutter speeds….hence the need for VR.

          • “VR helps with camera shake, not subject motion blur. Fast lens = faster shutter speeds for a given ISO/light level. faster shutter speeds = no motion blur. hence no need for VR”


            That’s sometimes or maybe often true, but not always. There are plenty of times you want shoot in lower light but have the option of not having the lens wide open. In those cases VR can allow you either to shoot stopped down more, or to use a lower ISO than non-VR would require.

            I think @dusanmal’s answer probably explains Nikon’s thinking:

            “Nikon is placing VR on lenses their experts expect to be used in situations where VR is more desirable than some other engineering aspects. 85mm is assumed to be mainly portrait lens – not a typical situation where you expect need for VR.”

            Though I’m not a Nikon design engineer 🙂 and don’t know everyone’s shooting style and needs, that explanation makes intuitive, technical and market sense to me.

        • NoFunBen

          well said. There are many times i use 1/40 sec.
          if your using dx you should have 85*1.5 or 1/120 or faster.

        • lolly

          use a tripod … you’ll get much sharper shots than with VR

          • AM

            There are places where tripods are not allowed.

            • Yhannoby

              Use a monopod then. >:D

      • FM2Fan

        In the old days of 100,200,400 or 1600 (pushed) ASA – OK. But now with modern cameras we really don’t need a VR … the beauty of this lens is: high performance wide open (and up to f=8) at LOW cost and LOW weight.

        Ultimately: fewer moving parts is better … the MTF chart is great for something at 500 USD.

        • vertigo

          Who says we don’t need VR? I want it in the body. Just because we can shoot at ISO 1600 doesn’t mean technology is over. I shoot street photography at night and I need every advantage I can get. Moreover, the the smaller the pixels get the more they emphasize motion blur. Canon is adding it to their primes now. I think they should add it to the body too. Nikon is going to be one step behind Canon, as usual.

          • david

            Wait for Sony a900 replacement. I have an a850 and the in body stabilisation is awesome. Works with any lens for about 2-4 stops

            • pavel

              The problem is that Sony sucks in other things. I know, I used to have Minolta and they made great bodies (loved WL flash, UI and in body IS) but AF and availability of lenses was behind Canikon and with Sony, nothing changed. Except their lenses are more expensive.
              I also was using Pentax and again, IS was great. Better than Nikon VR. Not even mentioning the lack of any VR in 5 lenses out of my 7.

              Nikon, we want in-body VR! Much more than 36mp.

          • Sly Larive

            Yes, Canon is adding it to their lenses… Have you seen the price on them though?! At THAT price I’d rather not have it.

            Still, I’ll jump on the bandwagon, Nikon should man-up and put in-body IS. That alone would give them a substantial advantage over Canon. I understand it may not be “as good as” VR tech, and that they’ll lose money on lenses but they’d make a killing on bodies!

          • I think you don’t understand how VR works. It’s not the same as being able to shoot at higher ISOs. I’m not a street photographer (professionally, I do interiours, architecture and landscapes) but I do dabble in street photography.

            I hardly ever shoot static subjects when shooting street. I shoot people, motorbikes, different street scenes. Ok, there are some interesting static subjects, but that many. And for everything that moves, VR doesn’t matter much. For street, I usually need at least a shutter speed of 60 – and that’s because I have relatively good shooting discipline. 80 or 125 is a safer bet. At those shutter speed, camera shake is not a limiting factor. Motion blur due to movements is. VR doesn’t help with that. Wanna capture some motion? You must bump the ISO to increase shutter speed, VR or no VR.

            Your comment about Canon seems fanboyism to me, since both use essentially the same technology. Moreover, in body image stabilization practically has the same weakness – when your subjects move, you need high shutter speed to prevent blur. At high shutter speeds, camera shake is not an issue unless you have Parkinson’s disease or something. VR (or IS on Canon’s lenses) only affect blur introduced by camera shake.

        • John Richardson

          We would have even fewer moving parts when our DLSR bodies include mirror less technology.

          I suspect the D5 will be mirror less in a DSLR body, by moving the sensor forward maybe???

          • If it’s still F mount the sensor position to the lens mount is fixed . . . it can’t be moved.

            • John Richardson

              Yes, it can. All it requires is new internal milling, meaning that only the inside need be redesigned to place the sensor in the proper position. It is simple really, except for the poor guys who have to do the redesign, but more complicated things have been done before….so.

            • Brody

              i don’t think you understand john, If you move the sensor forward closer to the flange, your lenses won’t focus. Optical center of the lens focused at infinity must be 50mm away from the imaging plane on a 50mm lens for example. If you take away distance between the flange and the sensor you will need adapters on all nikon Fmount lenses to use them on this “D5” you speak of.

              On another note, why the hell are you talking about a d5 when the d4 just came out? who cares.

      • JeroenW

        Nikon rumors readers will always complain about missing features. It’s a ground rule for this website.

        • harras

          You are absolutely right! I think this website should be called “Nikonwhining” at least for many of the folks writing comments. I think if they would spend more time in TAKING photographs and not speaking all the time about equipment it would be much better 🙂

        • Greg

          All I can think of right now is: “more cowbell!”

          • jake


            And i also thought VR was for better viewing through the lens. It does not actually stop motion blur or camera shake.

            Flash or high shutter speeds do though.

            • . . . or good panning technique.

        • webtwoo

          this is it. I switch to Canon.

          • worminator

            All I can think of is pneumatically driven focus boost driven by a compressed air cylinder in the lens.

        • vertigo

          What’s your point, that they are therefore wrong? People should complain about the mistakes camera makers are making.

      • vertigo

        Most of the shake at 85mm is going to be the person holding the camera. Most of the blurry shots I have with primes are the result of hand-holding. They should have put VR in the body long ago. I shouldn’t have to pay for it in every lens I buy.

        And the smaller the pixels get, the more motion blur becomes a problem, because the light is going to be moving across more pixels the smaller they are. This has already been reported with the latest camera.

        • Sly Larive


          Totally agree about Image stabilization in the camera body. Sony will eventually put out a 36 MP camera using their Nikon-borrowed sensor. In fact, rumors are they’re targeting a 40MP + sensor for a camera coming out this year. The current A900 works really well with image stabilization. It’s not better than lens VR, but its better than nothing. Doesn’t seem to add costs much as well, Pentax and Sony are favorably priced alternatives to CaNikon.

          Concerning the added difficulty of having sharp pictures with a greater resolution, it all depends on your usage. If you’re simply using the D800 as most would, that is to do medium size prints or if you’re not heavily into cropping, I really don’t see the issue. Sure, if you’re pixel peeping you’ll see the loss of sharpness, but that’s only while zooming in. Compared to the same 12MP prints, NO MATTER WHAT, the D800 will be sharper.

    • nikonmoaners

      I agree with you.

      Dunno why people post such stupid replies.

      Of course it would be nice……look a few pages back about the D800 and how it will emphasize camera shake.

      There are reasons I guess tho why they don’t. Not sure what tho

      • Discontinued

        >> … look a few pages back about the D800 and how it will emphasize camera shake.<<

        36 MP will emphasize any shortcoming. That includes the downsides of VR as well. It has to be turned off for getting the best possible performance from a lens. And that is what you want from portrait lens on a D800, don't you?

        VR is what I appreciate in a P&S cameras or in general walk around lenses, such as a 28-300 or a 24-120 or teles above 200 mm. Apart from that I want VR as much as any other disease.

        • vertigo

          That’s your theory. I’m not so sure about it. Anyway, if you don’t like VR, turn it off.

          • Alan

            You can deactivate it, but you can’t remove it’s components from the optical path. It’s not like autofocus where you can just pretend it’s not there…

            • Calibrator

              Are you sure that VR actually increases the amount of lenses – instead of just moving a lens (group) that would be necessary in any case?

    • gareth

      I wasn’t suprised to see that there is no VR. However I was suprised to see no Nano Crystals !

      • FM2Fan

        NR is not that much important for lens surfaces shown here. The reason for Nano foam is surfaces having high curvature i.e. highly varying angle of incidence aka wide angle front element (2-3 lens)

        • But doesn’t Nikon’s 70-200 have Nano coating? I would think that if they left it off it was to keep the price down.

    • T.I.M

      VR will make the lens more expensive, less reliable, and heavier.

      The main thing about prime lenses is to be SIMPLE, lens junk, more reliability.
      Also, with today’s high ISO and f/1.8 aperture, you can live without VR.

      The only lenses I have with VR are my 105mm f/2.8 and my 200mm f/2.
      I only use it RARELY with my 200mm f/2. (I have to say that I’m very impressed by the VRII on my 200mm f/2 1/30s easy handeled !)

      • Arthur

        Will you please exchange your 200/2.0 for a D300 + 70-200VRII?

        I’m so in love with that 200/2.0… 🙁

        • T.I.M

          You may want to rent it first, it’s a $6000 lens, you have to make the right choice.
          The lens is super sharp but very heavy and not easy to carry (fit in a lowepro case #5 without the hood).

      • nofunben

        you say you dont need vr then say you “very impressed by the VRII on my 200mm f/2 1/30s easy handeled” .

        I want to hand hold my 85mm at 1/30 too.

        • John Richardson

          Try standing still, holding your breath when gently squeezing the shutter etc., you know like we used to do it before VR and IS.

          Old film guys never dreamed of a lens that had some space age electronic gizmo inside to compensate for movement, they simply employed good shooting techniques right? Plus they had less shots in camera ….

          • St.

            on my 70-200mm VRII I can get steady shots at 1/20 and even 1/15 sec. I Do think VR helps a lot for some situations and it is not necessary for other.
            I’m also sure that Nikon’s experts know better where to put and where not to…

    • My Nikkor 18-55mm lens has VR on it, and it is one of the lightest and lest expensive lenses Nikon makes.
      The 85mm 1.8 was designed from the ground up to shoot in low light, cowbells were not. 😉

      • Calibrator

        The 18-55 has VR because it’s mostly a kit lens.
        Putting VR into such a lens is a strategic decision – to not alienate budding photographers (or disappoint people without ambition) and thus having a chance to sell them other stuff in the future.
        In other words: It’s a cost / profit trade-off like so often.

        • steve

          I have the 35mm 1.8 DX lens it doesnt have VR and its fine untill I get to extreams that any lens VR or no VR would have problems. You should try other lenses 35mm is a great learning lens.

          • Calibrator

            Steve, when I wrote the manufacturer puts VR into kit lenses to not disencourage beginners I don’t meant that each and every buyer absolutely needs VR.
            By the way: Two-thirds of my lenses don’t have VR-tech and I do in fact have the 35 mm F1.8 for my D7000. I don’t consider this prime a learning lens, though, and apparently Nikon doesn’t see a market to bundle it as a kit lens…

      • “The 85mm 1.8 was designed from the ground up to shoot in low light, cowbells were not. ”

        Not it wasn’t – it was designed for greater control over DOF, which incidentally yields better low-light performance as well. You’re not gonna shoot a 85mm lens at static subjects in low-light (like in a dim museum, or sth). The 85mm is for studio, portraits (plenty of light there) and it works well for events as well (again, for moving subjects mostly). And when your subjects move, you need shutter speeds over 1/60 (this is the bare minimum, to get sharp images of moving subjects at 1/60 you have to have a good shooting technique). At those shutter speeds camera shake is not an issue at this focal lenght.

        Simply put, this lens doesn’t need VR – it’s not used in situations or type of photography where it would help.

    • Jona in the Whale

      Why in God’s name would you need VR on a anything shorter than 200mm? If you can’t hold a camera with an 85mm prime steady enough to get a sharp photo then you should just quit now. Jesus Christ people, pull your head out of your anus!

      • John Richardson

        +1 x nnnnn

      • Jim

        Could do that too in film times
        but would be interested to see your success rate with 1/60 and below at 36MP

      • -1
        Not every photo can be taken at 1/60 of a second or faster and a monopod is not always convenient or available. No mater how fast your lens is, how high your ISO capability is, there is always an edge to push, something new you now want to try now that you have new capabilities. The 85 was made to be shot in low light situations.
        Last night I was shooting a symphony with my 400mm at 1/60 & 1/30 sec. I WAS using a monopod, but VR still helped. I know because I shot it both ways.

        VR is NOT essential for an 85mm 1.8, but VR does work, and it would have been nice to have that tool available.

        • 1/30 and 1/60 @ 400mm is very impressive, even using a monopod. You need 2-3 stops more speed at that focal length for handheld without VR. However, at 85mm?? Do the maths – it doesn’t matter at all – or the advantage of VR at this focal length is miniscule or non-existent for the types of subject this lens is designed for. Simply put, you need 1/60 shutter speed anyway (well, you can do 1/30 for a musician sitting still with little or no movement). You can’t go below those shutter speeds for a symphony, in fact I’d probably need more. I use 1/80 as the minimum shutter speed for low light events (not sports obviously) and my shooting discipline is average or slightly better than than average (but I’m not an events photographer, I just do a few events as favours or hobby). Camera shake at those speeds are not an issue. It becomes an issue above 100mm. Or below 35 (when there’s a chance you gonna shoot handheld interiours, like dimly lit museums).

      • Finally someone with brains!

        It’s amazing how uninformed people are when it comes to VR. Those demanding VR in a prime at this focal length has no clue whatsoever. They think that VR is like bumping the ISO, only without the noise lol 🙂

        VR does make sense at short focal lengths when there’s a possibility to shoot dimly lit interiours (like museums, for example). It also makes sense at long (certainly longer than 85mm) focal lengths where camera shake can be an issue even at shutter speeds higher than 1/60. 85mm is exactly the kind of focal length where VR makes no sense whatsoever.

        The 85mm VR is used for portraits, studio – plenty of light there. Could be used for food as well. Events with moving subjects, but then you’ll need a shutter speed of at least 1/60 (and that’s only true if you have a really good shooting discipline, 1/120 is a safer bet). At those speeds, at this focal length, VR makes no difference at all.

        Simply put, Nikon made the right decision here. Those who say that Canon or brand X puts VR on primes – yeah, 24mm or 35mm I can understand, but 50-85 – there’s no point. 105 perhaps (for macros, for example). I don’t think Canon will put VR on their 50 and 85mm lenses – if they do, well, good for them. It’s a gimmick at this focal length and the type of photography this lens is designed for.

    • Carsten

      Which f/1.8 lens has VR? The 200/2, yes as a tele lens where shake is an issue even at speed faster than 1/100s.

      VR is also compromising IQ, it works by having a moving element that will never be centered as precisely as with a static design.

      In most situations with low light, light is not the only constraint, so building zooms with VR kills two birds with one stone

  • Peter

    In Canada too…
    I checked and they say they have it in stock now. 🙂

  • NikonAmateur

    Nikon needs to keep supplies up for their other lenses as well, they can’t just release a new lense, focus all production there and forget the rest…I am not buying a Leica, I shouldn’t have to wait months for availabilities :-/

  • DarkCeltDX

    Yay! That’s wonderful news. Hopefully I can get my order soon 🙂
    Nice job Nikon, keep up the good work!

    • Roger D

      Why would anybody want a 85 1.8G when for only an extra grand they can have a 851.4G.

  • Rich in TX

    so… I am reading some pretty negatives about this lens although they all seem to be regarding lack of VR. Is that the only downside to this lens? I have one on order. Looks like a great portrait lens / video lens for the D800 imo

    • Daniel

      Only the morons are complaining about lack of VR in the lens. These people are clueless about lens design and how VR will compromise lens IQ on this focal length, especially given that this lens is used for portraits. This lens will be another stellar performer from Nikon and does not need VR. Only the gear collectors and sub-standard photographers will complain about VR. Real photographers that know how to shoot and can harness light to create beautiful images will be thrilled with this lens and produce stunning work.

      • WengerIsMad

        They want VR on everything, but for free of course 🙂

        • Nicolò

          My wife certainly does not want VR on everything!

          • Peter


            best posting here 😀

        • Jeff

          I wish my car had VR on it

      • vertigo

        I think you’re the moron and I’m the real photographer. See how easy that is to win an argument with special pleading. I’m not convinced VR would harm shots so much. They’ve added it to the 105mm f2.8. But I’d be okay with it in body, where it belongs.

        • bob2

          So just switch already to a brand that has in-body VR and stop crying about it. That goes to all the whiners who want in-body VR–stop crying about it, Nikon (and Canon) are not changing, despite your collective whining!

      • Roger

        “Only the morons are complaining about lack of VR in the lens. These people are clueless about lens design and how VR will compromise lens IQ”


        • Renegade


    • We have to wait for reviews to see how it performs. If it does as good a job as the 50mm F1/8 G, then it’s a brilliant lens.

      The lack of VR is not an issue. Don’t listen to those who harp about it – they have no clue how VR works. VR is important for shooting STATIC subjects in low light for wide lenses. For example, shooting a dimly lit interiour like a museum (you won’t use a 85mm lens for that, you gonna use something wider than 35mm). VR also makes sense at long focal lengths when camera shake is an issue even at high shutter speeds like 1/120 (think anything above 120mm). 85mm is the sweet spot where VR won’t help you at all. VR does impact image quality, but only slightly, with a good lens, you won’t notice. But it’s there. What you gain at 85mm with VR (very, very little!) is cancelled out by this loss. In short, VR doesn’t work the way many people here think it works, and for a fixed 85mm lens is absolutely unnecessary. Nikon knows what they are doing, they are not being cheap here – and pros understand this.

  • Mike M

    VR doesn’t make much sense on fast primes, first the glass elements are very large so the VR mechanism would have to be much more robust and large. Secondly VR degrades image quality to some extent, moreso when it’s unlocked. Adding VR would likely also push this lens’ price point too close to the 1.4 version, and they certainly aren’t going to put VR on that lens. Both FX 85s are really aimed at portraiture where you should be using flash or tripods or both, the DX 85 3.5 macro has VR because the FL is pretty long on DX, but it really isn’t all that long on FX.

    • Gerry

      Try to stop thinking so narrowly minded.

      “Both FX 85s are really aimed at portraiture where you should be using flash or tripods or both” Not true, I bet 90% of pics taken with this use neither. I have NEVER used mine with a tripod and avoid flash as much as possible. It is NOT just for studio. You don’t really need a 1.4/1.8 so much for studio work. I reckon if you got the 10 best Nikon photogs in the world they would say the same thing. They would probably like here be split 50:50 about VR tho 😉

      Also “the DX 85 3.5 macro has VR because the FL is pretty long on DX, but it really isn’t all that long on FX”…..focal length doesn’t change between FX and DX, only apparent focal length. All you are doing is cropping and therefore magnifying. Now take what you have said and relate it to the D800. Camera shake will be much more noticeable on this camera than any DX… therefore shouldn’t it have VR?

      I guess the fact is they want to keep the price down. Fair enough

      • Mike M

        On your first paragraph we can agree to disagree I guess, 85mm indoors is typically used with flash for portraiture in my experience. Outdoors it’s not long enough for induced shake to be that big of an issue if the light is reasonable, so outside of dreary days shooting motionless subjects I’m not seeing that big of a need.

        As for the second, I wasn’t implying that focal length changes, I said the focal length is long on DX, as in this set focal length, in terms of pixel density/magnification/shake an 85mm lens is more of a concern on DX, period. The already available on the market D7000 has the same pixel density as the not yet even shipped D800. Rumors suggest a 24 mpix DX camera may not be far off which will be 50% higher in pixel density than even the D800.

        I also have to wonder if there isn’t a big factor of “diminishing returns” either, the fastest lens ever fitted with VR/IS/Whatever that I’m aware of are all f2.8 lenses, which are still 1 1/3 stop slower than this lens.

        • Gerry

          Hey Mike. We don’t have to agree to disagree. Just realise that this isn’t a one trick pony. It isn’t just an indoor flash assisted lens. I am often taking pics with it at 1/30 sec on a D3s (the 1.4D version). I use this for low light ‘moody’ pics and also as a general low light telephoto. It would be nice to have had VR on it but will never happen I guess.

          I agree with you on the DX stuff 🙂

          Don’t forget the 200 F2.0 VR….also regarded by many as the finest portrait lens around!!

  • Any info on shipment in Europe?

    • Lukas Hladky

      23rd february – Slovakia

  • broxibear
  • NoFunBen

    Canon is working on a 50mm 1.4 with VR (is)
    I would pay more for vr. 85 need this even more then a 50mm.
    This is all Nikons plan to make more money selling us the same lens many times.
    85mm ad-d, 85mm af-s, 85mm vr, 85mm vr2 nano,

    • Joshua Joseph

      Would you please go and shoot with Canon equipment, then? People need to seriously stop whining and groaning about Nikon’s business decisions and deal with it.

      • vertigo

        By paying for equipment we’ve decided we have a right to tell Nikon what business decisions we want them to make and not.

        • Mark V

          Your dollar IS your voice… if you don’t like it, don’t buy it. That sends the clearest message.

        • “By paying for equipment we’ve decided we have a right to tell Nikon what business decisions we want them to make and not.”

          Yup. And Nikon has the right to ignore clueless demands. You don’t know how VR or IS works. For the subjects you shoot at 85mm VR makes no sense at all. Even for events, you need at least 1/60 shutter speed to avoid motion blur (that image stabilization won’t correct!) and at this speed at this focal length camera shake is not an issue.

          But hey, why don’t you switch to Canon so you can use their 50mm with IS? It seems Canon is far more keen on catering to clueless demands, so it may be a better brand choice for you. I’m thankful that Nikon didn’t add unnecessary weight, complexity and potential IQ degradation just to shut up people like you. Because let me repeat what manner others had said here: VR on this particular lens has no PRACTICAL benefit, or at least it doesn’t have any that would outweigh the potential problems.

      • tredbily

        By paying for equipment we’ve decided we have a right to tell Nikon what business decisions we want them to make and not.

      • Calibrator

        Will people please stop whining about other people whining!

        This is Nikon Rumours and neither the Impertinent Nikon Fanboy Society nor Angry Wedding Photographers International!

        • Jim

          + 1 Million
          best comment in this thread

    • Josh

      Then GTFO and shoot Canon. Moron alert!

  • Ed

    A z-shop at Amazon Germany has it also in stock. I’m curious about the first reviews!

  • Gpereir4

    I am looking forward to Cary Jordan’s review of this lens, and 6 other 85s for the Nikon F mount! Hopefully he has one on order arriving soon. If the 50mm 1.8G is any indication, the new 85 should be very good as well.


      That would be awesome. I was seriously looking at the 1.8 AF-D.

      • harras

        I still use a 85mm/1.8 I bought used in 1995 without missing anything. It is such a long time in the Nikon portfolio that you should easily find used ones in perfect shape. So you can spend the saved money for other things 🙂

    • @ Gpereir4 – I should be receiving the 85mm f/1.8G soon. I held out from publishing my 85mm f-mount shootout so I could include this lens! From the MTF chart and the samples I’ve seen, it’s going to be a great lens, similar to the AF-S 50mm f/1.8G, which was my top pick in the six 50mm f-mount shootout. I’m excited to get started; this lens is going to be insanely popular. Stay tuned!

      • Gpereir4

        Awesome! Looking forward to hearing what you think. Thanks for the status update.

      • broxibear

        Hey Cary hope all is good,
        If you’ve got time during the 85mm test could you throw in a comparison with the 70mm – 200mm f/2.8G VRII set at 85mm on just an image or two ?
        I’m always interested to see how the high end zooms compare with the primes, if you get the chance it would be great, thanks.

  • photo-Jack

    wouldn’t need the extra speed of the 85/1.4 for about triple the price.
    But what else is really different??? Ok the 1.8 doesn’t have Nanocoating. (however wasn’t the old 1.8 tested even better in some aspects then the old 1.4.

  • Ken Cole

    A 50mm 1.8 with VR? That makes very little sense. At 50mm, the field of view is relatively wide, so camera shake would have to be rather extreme to be a problem.

    For the Nikon, if they were throwing in VR for free, I’d say why not. It would stay squarely in the off position virtually always, but perhaps it would come in handy some day. However, nothing in life is free. The cost of VR would move this up 25% in price. And that complexity would very likely have impacted sharpness/uniformity/dynamic range to some degree even when VR is off.

    I mean if we’re complaining about lack of VR on this lens, why stop there? I would love if this thing dispensed mocha lattes too – where’s that feature?

  • FM2Fan

    the 1.4 has “bokeh” – once you’ve discovered, how to make us of it: you’ll love it and NEED it. Just remember the comparison to the really old MF 105 2.5 – that was already great, but 25 years ago…

  • JeroenW

    And while we’re on VR…

    I love it on long lenses, say beyond 200mm. On my 16-85 it comes in useful very occasionally, usually when I’m travelling really light. Church interiors without a tripod, that kinda thing.

  • Bintang

    Would somebody be so kind and explain me the resolution chart? What is M10, S10, M30, S30?

    • Josh

      M10 = Mommy when she was 10 years old
      S10 = Sister when she was 10 years old
      M30 = Mommy when YOU were 30 years old
      S30 = Sister when DADDY was 30 years old

      It’s very important to distinguish between 10 and 30.

      Get real and stop being lazy. Do a search on google (you know that little known search engine).

      • tonyc123

        So you don’t know either!!

        • Josh

          I do know, Tranny Poppins. I don’t believe something as basic as MTF curves needs to be spelled out. Now get back to your chores at Snooki’s house!

          • tonyc123

            Still, not convinced. We know more about you now but nothing of your photographic knowledge.

            • BartyL

              It’s the “new people must not be helped to learn anything because it’s an impediment to people who already know everything” attitude. Clearly, it’s the only way forward for everyone.

          • Alan

            For most people, the normal reaction to not wanting to spell something out is to remain silent…

      • Bintang

        Thanks a lot John! You are my man! I hope, you will get the same help forever in your life. 🙂

        • Josh

          No problemo Pootie Tang.

    • tonyc123
    • tonyc123
      • Bintang

        Many thanks tonyc123!

  • Stéphane

    I use this new 85 1.8 on my D700, and the result is awesome compare to my 85 1.8d

    Example at 1.8 (85G left/ 85D right)

    • Gary

      Great, I have 24, 35, 50 & 85 D primes that I was perfectly happy with until I saw your side-by-side comparison of the D and G 85s. This is going to end up costing me a few thousnd. I was expecting to have to upgrade my D lenses to handle the resolution of the D800E, but now I know what I’ve been giving up on my D700. Ignorance is bliss.

    • Dustin

      That’s what I’m talking about! Wondering if it’s worth it to sell my 85mm1.4D and using the difference towards the D800…probably not, but I’m interested in seeing more shots from this thing and hopefully renting it for a weekend.

  • EE

    Why not f/1.2 Nikon?

  • Joe Bodego

    Can someone tell me why would i need this lens as i already own the 85 1.8?

    • MB

      Improved optics, faster and quieter AF with manual override …

    • The 1.8D is loud and kinda a slouch. I used to have one. Great optically, though.

  • D400

    When will this be availible refurbished?

    • Daniel

      As soon as you shut your eyes and drift off into dreamland…

  • T.I.M


    I LIKE:
    – The body size, not too big, not too small, just right !
    – The welcomed 36 mega pixels FX sensor
    – AA filter removed option (D800e)
    – The 2 axis virtual horizon (I was waiting for that improvement from the D700)
    – The magnesium wather sealed body
    – The full HD video (but 60fps at 1080 would have be perfect)
    – The helmet/microphone plugs.
    – The large, bright 100% viewfinder

    – The price (15% less would have be fair)
    – The built in flash (I never use it)
    – The lake of shutter/wheel for vertical shooting (I don’t use a grip)


    • Onyx

      And this relates to the annoucement of the 85mm 1.8G shippping… how?
      There are already lots of D800 comment areas, why not post there where people looking to talk about the D800 will be more likely to look?

      • T.I.M

        Because I’m a pain in a ass frenchy guy.

    • Willy

      I dont like built in flash either

      1 It is for amateur lenses. Shadows with pro lenses
      2 WT800 is much more convenient for commanding flashes
      3 I imagine weather sealing is much more robust without built in flash

      • Fred


        • Willy

          Sorry – SU800

      • BartyL

        I imagine that if Nikon states the camera is weather sealed, it is weather sealed.

        I imagine that the built in flash is useful for the many pro lenses where shadowing is not an issue.

        I imagine that the built in flash will be quite useful in commander mode in some circumstances.

        I imagine there is no such thing as a Nikon WT800.

        (Sometimes I imagine I am handsome and wealthy, and have a pony.)

        • Willy

          Atleast i have a pony.
          (and SU800)
          I use them both every day 🙂

      • Nikon doesn’t plan on you using the pop-up as a flash. They plan on you using as a commander for their CLS system, which is exactly why people with the D700 were asking for it in the D800. So, shadowing with pro lenses is no big deal when the flash doesn’t affect the image to begin with.


    • I like what you don’t like, but only because of the way I shoot:
      I sometimes use my popup flash for CLS commander mode so I’m glad to have it in a pinch.
      I like the feel of the grip and like rotating for portrait shots.

      I grew almost 100% with the “likes” you listed, but I think 36MP is maybe a bit overkill. I’ll probably shoot DX crop mode with a 17-55 2.8 for my private photography. Seriously – But I have a solid collection of DX glass that I want to keep using as I’m thinking of stepping up to FX

    • T.I.M

      This is called SPAM, and you can’t do that on NR (unless you’re French)

    • D400

      Not spam. wow, $1800 for a $1500 lens.
      They are hopeing people will not notice it is the 1.8 version, not the 1.4 version.
      Anyone have any ideas when this will be availible refurbished?

      • D400

        woops. that is $1800 for a $500 lens

  • Anonymous

    This lens will be sweet for the Nikon 1 users. I believe it will “equivalent” to 200/2 on the EVIL system. So, a VR may have helped in that case. In any case, it is a sweet lens and for those who cannot afford the cream machine (85/1.4), this is a close cousin.

    • Calibrator

      > This lens will be sweet for the Nikon 1 users. I believe it will “equivalent” to 200/2 on the EVIL system. So, a VR may have helped in that case.


  • EE

    Will Nikon EVER release a fast 1.2 lens? A 1.2 on D800E is a dream.

    And before the manual 50mm 1.2 is mentioned, it doesn’t count. Optically, and especially considering bokeh, the Canon 50mm 1.2 outclasses it. It really mystifies me why Nikon doesn’t offer an updated f1.2….

    • T.I.M

      It’s VERY difficult to use a f/1.2 lens, the d.o.f is very short and even if you get the subject perfectly in focus the lens show alot of falloff and CA.

      It’s already nice to have good f/1.4 Nikon lenses availables.
      f/1.2 is only 1/2 stop brighter than f/1.4 but for a much higher price….

      • EE

        Okay, fine, why not a 50mm .95 then? I’d kill for a 50mm .95…Leica has a monopoly on these lenses.

        And there is a significant difference between 1.4-1.2, check flikr river (lens explorer) to see.

      • AXV

        But isn’t that what the super good AF system is about?

      • AXV

        And your same statement applies for 1.4 vs 1.8.

    • Anonymous

      Of course Nikon has the Noct 58 1.2. You have to pay premium dollars for premium quality products.

      • EE

        That’s a manual lens, and again, when optically compared to the newer 1.2’s from Canon, the optics are all around better but most importantly the bokeh is better.

        I don’t mind a manual lens at all (id be using an auto-lens manually anyway), but I just want an updated lens with the best bokeh I can get, right now, that’s only Canon or Leica. Would be nice if Nikon joined the party…my question is, why WONT they?

        • Anonymous

          Are you just bitching for the heck of bitching or are you a Canon Troll?

          From Diglloyd’s site, comparing the Noct with the Canon 85/1.2, “The bokeh of the 85mm/f1.2L is not quite as pleasing as the NOCT-Nikkor. The latter produces creamy-smooth rendition, whereas the 85mm/f1.2L produces harsher transitions. ”

          Do a little more digging, and you will find that when the Canon 85/1.2 is compared against the Canon 50/1.2, the 85/1.2 comes out as the better of the two. So, I think the Nikkor Noct has better bokeh than the two Canons. However, I do want Nikon to refresh their 1.2 series. Keep in mind though, Nikon is a small company and I rather they focus their resources on updating the more commercially popular glass than the exotic ones.

          The answer to your question why won’t they is because it does not make business sense.

  • Just bought the 85mm 1.4G

    Please tell me I made a good choice and this 1.8 is not good enough to justify the $1000 savings

    • Anonymous

      The Nikon 85/1.4 is the cream machine. It is one of the best that Nikon makes, so you don’t need to suffer from buyer’s remorse. Enjoy it.

      • Sutan

        good. I have pretty much the whole 1.4G lineup now…. 24, 50,85

        the only one missing is the 35… although I stick my 24mm on my DX body and I get a 35mm. everything else is on my D3s (and soon to be D4 or D800E)

        • Knoxy

          Would you like a coconut? Any other high price items you’d like to name drop on that you’ve purchased? Asking for reassurance on a series of purchases that big smacks of too much money and not enough sense.

          • ken

            +1 gotta wonder all right….’…oh i just bought one of Nikon’s most expensive prime lens…did i make the right choice? ….’ I mean did no research before you bought it?

            Sounds exactly like – too much money, hoarder and no sense whatsoever hoping the camera will make all the pics print and sell…good luck with that..

    • Craig

      So you people just buy stuff without doing any research? People that know photography will KNOW that they want the 85 1.4G. If you need reassurance after you purchase a lens from others, then you are a fool.

      It’s your money, so you are entitled to spend it the way you want to. But please don’t come on these forums and make a fool of yourself.

      • Al

        The same fools wanted VR.

        Next thing they would want is an in-camera art director/photographer program, so they can FINALLY take a decent picture!

        • Craig

          LOL. Yeah that’s true.

        • ken

          you forgot that the picture must come out of the camera mounted/matted and framed with a guaranteed sale (wonder when Nikon will build in this function) for these boyoos who have too much moolah and no sense

      • Alan

        I agree, everyone coming in here making fools of themselves looking for community are just a distraction from Craig’s comments making a fool of himself, and he’s really much better at it…

      • AXV

        Then you are complaining about 96% of photographers (so-called pros included).

        • AXV

          People become photographers because they flunked school… so don’t ask from them what they can’t do: research.

          • Knoxy

            No, you became a photographer because you flunked school. Don’t tar everyone with the same brush.

    • T.I.M

      You made the right choice, better build, better CA correction, better bokeh (fondu) and also your lens will keep it’s re-sell value much longer than the f/1.8.

      • @sutan

        I’m going to stand up for you here and say that Nikon has a habbit of making 1.8 lenses in some ways perform better than the 1.4. On DX the 35mm 1.8 is sharper and easier to focus than the 1.4G. On FX it’s a no brainer, tho interestingly it has almost as much falloff at 1.4 that it can be mistaken for the vignetting of an uncropped DX on FX.

        So it’s not buyers remorse or lack of research, sometimes Nikon re releases a simular performer in a 1.8. Simular is many aspects, but not all.

        Before anyone attacks my comment, please research it first!

    • Roger D

      You made a excellent choice purchasing the 1.4G

    • lolly

      If you know why you need an 85mm 1.4G then you would not be asking for comments. Enjoy your 85mm 1.4G … if you know how to use it 😉

  • What about Canada?

    • Gerry

      what about it? It’s a country sitting on top of the US that is full of Canadians 😉

      • Ya it sure is, and I’m one of them. I’m waiting for this lens to ship from Canada.

        • lolly

          Try Vistek … let’s hope they still have it in stock.

          • I ordered as shown below on Jan 7, 2012. I didn’t order mine from Vistek.

            01/07/2012 – Order created.

            Now Vistek I see is showing them in stock but I’m not sure how that could be if Nikon just started shipping them?

  • FanBoy

    Will this 1.8G cut down the price of insanely overpriced 1.4G?

    • d400

      you can only hope

  • Al

    Why don’t they put a built in an art director/photographer program?

  • mikej

    I love it!

    Only on nikonrumors could you get over 100 comments on a post that is simply letting us know that a lens is available. Seriously, we’ve known about this lens for ages, how much more can we argue about it?

    Of course, once we have the lens in our hands we can start arguing again, but thats another story, over to dpreview for the best of those arguments!

  • Adrifter

    …And where is the D4? Amazon still says It should arrive tomorrow, which is highly unlikely. I just want to know when it is really going to ship…

  • GaryB

    You know I’ve been reading this site for some time because it’s fun – but this thread has pushed me over the edge – I have never seen so much disrespect, arrogance and egomaniacal behavior on a photo forum before – “idiots – morons – stupid” – and we wonder whats happened to civility in this world

    For Christ sakes grow up and try to present a cogent argument supporting your point and allow others to make theirs without resorting to school boy PUNK name calling — I cannot imagine any Nikon representative reading these comments and taking many of you seriously.

    BUT KUDOS to those who’ve expressed a desire to help those less knowledgable – and fear not less knowledgable folks – the most published photographer can’t read an MTF chart – knows nothing about nano coatings – but he makes magnificent images that provide him a dandy living –

    • D400


    • Calibrator

      Thanks, it had to be said!

  • GaryB

    CORRECTION – my last comment should read “the most published photographer I KNOW can’t read an MTF….”

    • Al

      Nikon people NEVER pay attention to these school punks.

      If they did, these school punks would had a D4 @ D7000 pricing, and all lens are free with the purchase of D4. The D4 would be the Nikon 1 size.

      For those self-appointed wedding shooters, the D4 would have 25 FPS speed, the SB-910 would continue to work until the party is over, and only use the same battery that was charged two nights ago.

      They would shamelessly charge fees for 10 frames that was picked out of their junk pile of 15,000 shots.

      All of them would have, a built-in art director/photographer program, that would FINALLY allow these school punks to take decent pictures. This will be the reason to charge a fee.

  • I can’t wait for some reviews and samples!!

  • David

    I have one!

    I wandered into my local camera shop after work yesterday (Campkins Cameras, Cambridge, UK) to ask if they had a delivery date, and they already had it! From a few sunset shots and a party that evening, I’d make the following comments (on DX in the form of a D7000):

    Feels surprisingly lightweight for the size – presumably the usual hard plastic of mid-range AFS lenses. Probably about the same build as a 50/1.4, though with a bit more plastic, and better than a 35/1.8.

    Focus ring normal AFS – smooth, can barely feel the point where it declutches as you run past the limits. Takes about 1/3 of a turn to get from infinity to closest focus (shortest mark is 0.8m) manually, and in terms of AF speed is slower than my 70-200, but significantly faster than a 50/1.4. By sound, it’s got amateur level AFS motors rather than the deeper-pitched pro ones. DoF scale the usual f/16 only.

    IQ: Wide open, it’s very sharp in the centre, with a little bit of a decrease at the DX corners (only really noticeable when pixel peeping); at f/4 it’s razor-sharp across the DX image (and before you ask for FX samples, I don’t have an FX camera – if anyone wants to give me one for “testing purposes”, though, I’d gladly oblige!)

    Bokeh: lovely and smooth, I think, though I’ve only had a chance to look at the shots on the back of the camera at the moment.

    • jorg

      congrats and thanks for the quick review!

  • Kartken
    • Rich in TX

      not to nit pick, but in the first paragraph of this review, he calls it the 85mm 1.8G “VR”.

      This lens does not have VR.

      not sure what else he may have gotten wrong.
      Not hatin’… just sayin.

  • Wolf

    Lens is in Stock at some NPS-Dealers in Germany. Got mine today …

  • Ray

    Really Right Stuff is shipping the L-Bracket for the Nikon D4 starting today. I just wonder if the delay of the D4 was because the XQD cards wouldn’t be shipping until march…I wish I was reading my email from B&H stating my new D4 was shipping today….

  • Brock Kentwell

    Stop with the VR and lens coating insanity!! Nikon has done such a good job selling these features where they are needed that now people think a lens is not good WITHOUT them.

  • Super Mario


    Is that lens compatible with Nikon F4 ?


    • jorg

      should work fine on a F4, check this table:

      VR is not working on anything before F5-era

      • jorg

        whoops, seems like only “P” and “S” is working due to lack of f-stop-ring.
        so “M” and “A” are not working.

  • Jack

    According to the Photography Blog review, the AF may be too slow for action shots. It appears it might not be as fast AF-wise as the Canon 85 1.8. Too bad, at $100 more and 1 aperture blade less, I was hoping it would at least match in that department. (Not Canon-trolling, just bought a D5100 and looking for an action lens)

  • broxibear
  • Eddy

    I’m into theatre photography, and need a fast lens for that. That is why this lens interests me.
    Now I know there has been a battle here about VR, but I would like to ask if it would make more sense getting a slower zoom lens with VR for that? Or is VR not going to help me with action shots?

    • jorg

      when shooting moving subjects, VR does not help you, but fast glass does.

  • Tom

    I got mine today!! it is so nice.

  • Wolf

    … made some Tests yesterday …

    Lens is very light, Quality ist very good, first Pictures look very good too … but AF ist the slowest of all my AF-S-Lenses

  • Does anyone know of any US stores that have it in stock? I pre-ordered with Adorama but haven’t gotten any word from them yet?

    I see tons of people getting them, I just don’t know where from….

    Eddy: Your situation really depends on what sort of theatre work you are doing. VR can get you a couple of stops worth of stability so that the shutter can stay open long enough to make up for a smaller aperture, but that comes with the price of a longer shutter speed, which, depending on the theater work you do, may give you burred faces and/or mouths. The larger aperture would give you shorter shutter speeds by allowing the same quantity of light through a larger aperture in a shorter amount of time, but it comes with the higher cost.

    Assuming a 3 stop advantage for VR @85mm and assuming you would be using some sort of zoom to get that focal range (lets say the 18-200 just for example), you would be comparing f/1.8 against f/5.6. If you were getting 1/100th a second at f/1.8 on the 85, the equiv to this would be 1/10th of a second at f/5.6. Thats the tradeoff you have to ask yourself about….

    • Eddy

      Thank you, Jay.

  • Bill990

    What does Hexagon’s online store for CMM Styli have to do with Nikon Photography?

    AD on NikonRumors: Hexagon Metrology USA’s online store for CMM Styli! is the only name you need to remember for buying styli and accessories for your Coordinate Measuring Machine.

  • wissam hlayhel

    already a review of the new 85 1.8G :

    enjoy reading

    • steve

      I think I found my next lens when I get money. This is a great value. I wasnt sure about this lens but after seeing this review Im a beliver. I think this would be better than getting 50 1.8… maybe get both eventualy to go with my 35mm lens

  • Ben

    For what it’s worth I just received shipping confirmation from Amazon, will have the lens in hand on Tuesday!

  • Okay Ben. Hmm. I pre-ordered on Jan. 6 and Amazon states that shipping will be March 8 though May 8… WTF?

  • Back to top