Opticallimits

Full Version: Next PZ lens test report: Nikkor AF 85mm f/1.8 D (FX)
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
[quote name='oneguy' timestamp='1305649737' post='8419']

Yes, it's still sharper from F2.8 and up than both.[/quote]



Can we maybe agree to a more practical conclusion: all three are great at f/2.8 and beyond.



[quote name='oneguy' timestamp='1305649737' post='8419']

They don't have a cheap F2.8 85mm lens.

[/quote]



Interesting. When the 85 SAM was introduced, a question you heard quite often was: who's supposed to buy this? Mainly because it is so slow.



Canon and Nikon both have quite affordable f/1.8 primes. Sony has an even more affordable f/2.8, but no f/1.8



Where's the whole again?



-- Markus
[quote name='AAC7man' timestamp='1305644157' post='8415']

Note typo: 'expensiveand' needs un-glueing. Intro, 4th line

[/quote]



Thanks, corrected.



-- Markus

Guest

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1305650420' post='8421']

Popo, I suspect this boy is comparing 85mm f1.8 on full frame from Canon and Nikon to 85mm f2.8 on APS-C <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/laugh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':lol:' />

[/quote]



No, they are not. The borders are in "good" category on both Canikon, not excellent



Canon 85mm

[Image: mtf.gif]



Nikon

[Image: mtf.gif]



Sony

[Image: mtf.png]



So both canikon has a hole that they don't have F2.8 lens that's twice cheaper.
[quote name='oneguy' timestamp='1305649737' post='8419']

Yes, it's still sharper from F2.8 and up than both. Cannikon still has a hole. They don't have a cheap F2.8 85mm lens. That's a hole. twice expensive. You have to pay twice more to get F1.8 lens even though wide open both are inferior.

[/quote]

Since what I want to write is really too off topic for this thread I'll continue in a new one.

Guest

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1305651552' post='8424']

Interesting. When the 85 SAM was introduced, a question you heard quite often was: who's supposed to buy this? Mainly because it is so slow.



-- Markus

[/quote]



You didn't hear that from me obviously.



Most regular consumer who buy extra lenses (other than the kit lens) buy 50mm F1.8 instead of 1.4 because F1.8 lenses are twice cheaper. That same principle applies here. 85mm F2.8 is twice cheaper, twice smaller, and sharp wide open. $500 for 85mm F1.8 (which is about the same cost as entry-level cams like D3100) vs $250 for F2.8



A person who buys a camera like D3100, do you think he would rather spend $500 on a lens or $250?
[quote name='oneguy' timestamp='1305654111' post='8436']

A person who buys a camera like D3100, do you think he would rather spend $500 on a lens or $250?

[/quote]



Would such a person consider a portrait prime at all?



-- Markus

Guest

[quote name='mst' timestamp='1305654867' post='8439']

Would such a person consider a portrait prime at all?

[/quote]





Yes, if you tell them about it. I have a contact on YM. She bought 550D (a blunder anyway given crappy liveview that she uses). She bought 50mm after I told her about DOF. She now wants a cheap prime in 30-35 range, but Canon doesn't have a very cheap 35mm F1.8. Another "hole" she found out.
[quote name='mst' timestamp='1305654867' post='8439']

Would such a person consider a portrait prime at all?



-- Markus

[/quote]



I know a few who bought a Canon 50/1.8 after being disappointed of not having the "SLR look" (blurred backgrounds) with the kit zoom.
[quote name='youpii' timestamp='1305657244' post='8449']

I know a few who bought a Canon 50/1.8 after being disappointed of not having the "SLR look" (blurred backgrounds) with the kit zoom.

[/quote]

I know many who really dislike the 50mm f1.8, for its neither fish nor meat "qualities" on APS-C... Not wide enough for indoors use, bokeh and blur not upto real portrait lens needs..



And I know few who dislike the 85mm f1.8 on their APS-C cameras, and none who see that lens as "expensive"....



One can think of all kinds of odd perspectives, but the 85mm f1.8's are very affordable little gems in their line ups, giving a reasonable 135mm f2.8 full frame equivalent.



The Sony is a 135mm f4 equivalent, not really a dream for people specifically looking for a portrait lens.



Of course, some might find the very low price more important, but that does not make the Canon and Nikon unaffordable by any means...
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1305659207' post='8451']

I know many who really dislike the 50mm f1.8, for its neither fish nor meat "qualities" on APS-C... Not wide enough for indoors use, bokeh and blur not upto real portrait lens needs..



And I know few who dislike the 85mm f1.8 on their APS-C cameras, and none who see that lens as "expensive"....



One can think of all kinds of odd perspectives, but the 85mm f1.8's are very affordable little gems in their line ups, giving a reasonable 135mm f2.8 full frame equivalent.



The Sony is a 135mm f4 equivalent, not really a dream for people specifically looking for a portrait lens.



Of course, some might find the very low price more important, but that does not make the Canon and Nikon unaffordable by any means...

[/quote]



It depends on your perspective. A 50/1.8 is only around $100 and it's capabilities are great compared to it's price, and a big step compared to a kit zoom.



The 85/1.8s are also of great value and I said I'd like one in the Sony land too, it's in my budget (I have a A900). But I can also understand that for many people who spend $600 for an entry level DSLR, $400 for a 85/1.8 might be too much. Just remember your student life <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='Wink' />
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5