| Ryan ( @ 2007-04-20 15:32:00 |

Introduction
If the point of this series of reviews is to look at the equipment that I am
most familiar with, tools that are recommended by the simple fact that they're
what I grab when I need to do a job, then we might as well start with my
favorite: the Nikon 85mm f/1.4. Pure and simple, this lens makes things
beautiful. That's not always a good thing -- the world isn't always beautiful,
and so my documentary work tends to lean away from the lens -- but when I want
to present a slice of the world in a romantic light, this is usually the first
thing I go for.
The most important thing about this lens is right in its name -- it's an
incredibly fast telephoto (a short tele on 35mm film, and a moderate tele with
a 1.5x digital crop). This has a few immediate and important implications,
whether it's an 85mm f/1.4 made by Nikon, Pentax, Minolta, Zeiss, or whomever.
First, the focal length fits squarely inside the "portrait range" -- usually
about 75mm to 135mm. I dislike this phrasing, which is really mypoic in its
definition of a portrait, but it basically means that you can take a
head-and-shoulders picture of a person without getting distorted facial
features, but without having to shoot at ludicrous working distances, making
them bread-and-butter studio glass. The 85mm lenses may have actually become
more important in the time of digital crops, because even when you crop it by
1.5x, it's still in the traditional portrait range, acting more like a 135mm
lens. No, you're not going to get full-body shots of people with this unless
you're working in a giant space, but now you can take tightly-cropped
headshots without worrying about enlarging subjects' noses.
The second part is the f/1.4, which is photographer-speak for "really freaking
light-sensitive." Canon makes an even more sensitive 85mm, but it makes
trade-offs to reach the bleeding edge -- mainly slower focus, worse
close-focus distance, a less wieldy size, and twice the cost (similar to the
trade-offs you get from going from an f/1.8 to an f/1.4). The wide aperture
makes it a great choice for available-light portraits and also gives you an
incredibly shallow depth-of-field when you want it -- if having just one eye
in focus is your style, this is the lens for you.
This photo shows both qualities -- while the light was of good quality, there
wasn't very much of it. A fast lens kept the picture from being grainy. At the
same time, the background is blurred into a pleasing pattern.
So does that make this a portrait-only lens? Of course not. Lenses are merely
tools with a collection of characteristics. While this lens's characteristics
apply well to portraiture, I use it for all sorts of different purposes. But
let's get more into the details of this model.
Why the Nikkor rocks
I've never heard of a bad fast 85mm design, but there's more than that to why
the Nikkor is my favorite lens.
1. It pops, even wide-open: What's the point of paying for an
f/1.4 lens if you always have to use it stopped down? While contrast and
sharpness increase slightly at f/1.8 or so, the difference is negligible in
practice -- it starts out awesome and goes from there. When needed, I never
worry about shooting this lens at f/1.4.
2. Bokeh: I hesitate to use the word bokeh, as
it's a hot piece of jargon, but the 85mm really does render
out-of-focus parts of the frame, from highlights to color transitions to light
contrast, darned near perfectly. This is a critical thing for a fast 85, since
the focus is so selective. It goes beyond simple numbers -- the older,
manual-focus 85mm f/1.4 Nikkor renders things in a noticebly choppier way.
While this is subjective, from the 85mm f/1.4 AIS to the Zeiss to the Canon, I
like the Nikon AF bokeh the best.
Ups-and-downs
1. Focus speed: This lens is an older-designed
screw-driven AF lens. So on cameras with weaker AF torque,
it focuses fairly slowly. It's a joke on my F80, and won't focus at all
on a D40 or D40x. On a D2X, though, it zips right along. It's slower
than a lot of other lenses, because it has more glass, but on a
decent body it's fast enough for action, if you know how to use it.
2. Build: Yes, it's metal. Yes, it's sturdy in
most circumstances. But again, there are usability problems with the older
design. There's an extra switch-ring to slide from manual to AF focus modes
that's a bit annoying, if you do that a lot. A lot of models have what is
apparently a screw problem so that unscrewing the lens hood can actually
unscrew the lens in half! This has happened to me; luckily you can just screw
it back together and it works.
3. Size: I would put this in the positive category, since
it's so much smaller than most of my other lenses -- I can pack it and the
Sigma 30mm in the space where one of my other lenses go. But old-time
photographers used to portrait lenses like the 105mm f/2.5 AIS tend to think
this is a monster.
Things to worry about
1. Purple fringing: Especially wide-open, there is noticeable
purple fringing on very sharp light-to-dark transitions. In some cases, this
can show up on even small prints. Luckily this is really easy to take out in
post-production, but you still lose contrast around the edges, and it requires
the time of cleanup.
2. The lens hood: I hate the lens hood, and I'm not alone.
Not only do you stand the chance of breaking your lens when unscrewing it,
having to unscrew it in the first place is annoying -- the turn-and-click
modern hoods are much better. Furthermore, there's no way to turn the lens
hood around and fasten it for storing, and don't even get me started on how
the lens hood interacts with the lens cap. Nikon's come a long way. The hood
for the recent 105mm f/2.8 VR seems to do everything right, but this one does
most things wrong. At least it's metal and sharp, so you can stap anyone who
tries to steal your expensive lens.
3. It doesn't zoom: With the quality of digital ISO allowing
smaller f-stops, primes seem to be falling out of favor. Lots of fantastic
photographers have kits that never go wider than f/2.8, because they want the
versatility. Personally, it works well for me -- it has a point-of-view, and I
know what it is. I don't even need to be holding my camera to know what shot
the 85mm would take if I were holding it up to my eye, so I can zoom with my
feet beforehand. If you're strong at previsualization, prime lenses can work
well. If not, they can be a pain.
When I use it
Although it's not a very well-kept secret, I still consider the 85mm f/1.4 my
secret weapon. Because I'm confident in my previsualization, I use it where a
lot of other photographers would be using a 70-200 f/2.8 -- fast action,
rapidly-changing scenes, etc. This lets me get images with a unique look and
to capture fast shutter speeds in lower light. If I'd had my 70-200 mounted, I
never could have gotten this shot:
I even use mine in weird ways. I use it at f/1.4 with flash and a high ISO a
great deal, which seems extremely counter-intuitive but which lets me bring a
lot of ambient light into the picture for a natural look, even in dark
rooms.
But that only works when I can move about freely. The less you can move, the
less you can set-up a shot to meet your previsualization, and the more I'll
reach for the versatility of the 70-200.
Recommended to:
Rich people, professionals who work in nasty light all the time,
bokeh-fanatics, sharpness sticklers.
Not recommended to:
D40 and D40x users. Casual users who would be better served by the also-great
85mm f/1.8.
The cost dichotomy isn't all that great on the Nikon side. $400 versus $1,000.
Certainly a big difference, but there are lots of people for whom the extra
cost is worth it. In contrast, the (amazing) Canon 85mm f/1.2 is about
five-and-a-half-times the price of their great f/1.8. There are very
few people for whom that is a smart buy. My friend who's shot a
stack of covers for Vogue uses the f/1.8. So, if you want to justify
picking one of these up, you can always use the cost of the Canon to make
yourself feel better. It works for me.
See hundreds of samples I've taken with this lens here.