this or Nikon 85mm D is better? Why?
1773126
Nikon 85mm f/18.G is really a great lens . I really enjoy , specially in low light condition . It gives so much details . In this price its really good. I'd say its one of the best lens of Nikon if we consider Quality:price .
1773127
Massive difference on the bokeh side - the 85/1.8D has a (subjectively speaking) nasty rear defocus rendering. The G OTOH seems to have quite a pleasing bokeh.
1773128
Well if your camera has only supports AF-S lenses then you might take one. If your camera has a autofocus driver motor then you can choose between the two (assuming you WANT autofocus). I haven't ever used the D version but many like it. Right now the G version is on rebate so if you want it get it SOON before its over (probably done March 1st). The G version will hold its value as it is highly regarded and one of the sharpest lenses Nikon makes. If it were me I would probably go with the G version while it is on rebate.
1773129
This is too easy! Check Camera Labs or DxOMark. Camera Labs declares the 85mm f/1.8G's Bokeh to be superior to the D at full aperture, which is key for portraits. While the lens has many plastic parts, the lens elements themselves are high-grade glass-and the lens itself is weatherproof, making this a great choice if you are looking for a relatively affordable telephoto prime lens with excellent optical performance. DxOMark Measurements: Sharpness 15P-Mpix Transmission 1.9TStop Distortion 0.1% Vignetting -1.7EV Chr. aberration 4m DxOMark score:35 (Higher than many more expensive lenses in the same range) In other words, just buy it!
713052
Not apples to apples. L lenses are designed for serious photographers who understand that they will need 4 or more lenses. That is why they have such a short range. The 15-85 is wider and still has twice the zoom. I would rather have one lens that is very good quality, that a bag full of pro lenses sitting at home. In other words, in my opinion, the 15-85 is one of the best walk around lenses out there (and I have gone through a bunch.) If you are a pixel peeper and have no regard for money, go with a couple of L lenses. Also look at the 24-105mm L. That is more of fair comparison. Value wise the 15-85 is hard to beat.
1346986
d80 offered a bit more but i don't is worth it unless budge is not your problem. D80 has same spec as d40x in most area except that older lens life the af and prime lens that can do auto focus in d80 while d40/d40x only manual, which is important if you wanted shoot in portrail then d80 might have advantage since it can use more lens in auto focus. Also d80 has better body has metal material mix with plastic but result more heavy. Also i think shuttle speed is longer in d80 then d40/d40x. U shoud invest lens like 18-200mm vr over d80 body because it does more for your bucks.
749846
It also depends on the camera the 85mm will allow a closer shot. But the 35mm will be wider angle.
1114925
The 15-85 is a BETTER lens for optical quality and IQ. The fact that it is wider is a bonus.
408569
85mm 1.4 would be an amazing lens. It IS a great lens for portraits. It would be a great addition to any camera. One caveat to keep in mind. It is FX format lens so if you use it on a DX sensor like the D5000 or D7000, D7100 etc, then it no longer is 85mm it is around 127.5mm. Just so you know. If you are upgrading to a D600 or any other full frame then you are good. Hope this helps.
1780601
One other option for you might be the 50mm 1.2L. It's just as superb (and erratic) as the 85mm 1.2.
2054212
The 85mm is more zoomed in than the 50. You may want to look into getting a 35mm lens.
1183537
I have tried both and frankly I actually prefer sigma version. Why? Price and speed. 85 is very temperamental, it has to be perfect for it to work good, and do we have perfect clients who dont move? I work with children and do travel photography, sigma is my perfect friend. See photos on my blog at larissakphotography.com/blog
1736484
I have both the 18-200 and the 85 mm f/1.8 among others. These two are the lenses I most use (I photograph people and places). The 85 mm is great for head shots, particularly indoors without flash. If $450 is a reach, try eBay where you'll see lots of them.
659562
The 85mm lense is a DX lense and the 105mm is a regular (FX) lense. The DX is not suited for full frame cameras. Also the 105mm is faster at 2.8f and has the nano coating to reduce glare. Myself having a D700 went with the 105mm.
506468
In same boat, Bob. I'm buying the D80. Cheaper, and less weight/bulk. I test drove a 30D and did not like the ergonomics. Have been waiting for a D70s replacement, and it's here!
760811
Hi xynobis. Both those lenses are excellent. The 17-55 likes to flare when a light source is in the frame, so a hood is a must. Other than that, they both have great AF, IS and produce equally awesome pictures. So I think it's a matter of what you'll be using it for. The 15-85 is ideally suited for sightseeing, and outdoors. It's usually bright outside, so a narrower aperture is fine and this lens is much more civilized when it comes to flare. It also has more reach, and a little more breadth. The 17-55 is much better for indoor/event and evening shooting. I love having both, but I only ever use one at a time, depending on where/what I'm shooting. If I could only have one, it would be the 15-85. I find I can never have enough focal length, and I'm willing to up my ISO a stop or two to get the shutter speed I need.
423679
If you are going to stick with a DX sensor Nikon for a while, then I think the 18-300mm is your best value. The image quality is going to be very comparable to the 28-300mm, plus the 18-300 has these advantages for the DX shooter:- It starts at 18mm, so you have much wider coverage for landscape shots or tight spaces- It's smaller and lighter. Since this is going to be an all-purpose travel lens, this will be very helpful- It's about $150 less- If you ever go up to FX / full-frame, you can always sell this lens down the road and recoup about 65-75% of the original cost Enjoy! If you are going to stick with a DX sensor Nikon for a while, then I think the 18-300mm is your best value. The image quality is going to be very comparable to the 28-300mm, plus the 18-300 has these advantages for the DX shooter:- It starts at 18mm, so you have much wider coverage for landscape shots or tight spaces- It's smaller and lighter. Since this is going to be an all-purpose travel lens, this will be very helpful- It's about $150 less- If you ever go up to FX / full-frame, you can always sell this lens down the road and recoup about 65-75% of the original... » Read More If you are going to stick with a DX sensor Nikon for a while, then I think the 18-300mm is your best value. The image quality is going to be very comparable to the 28-300mm, plus the 18-300 has these advantages for the DX shooter:- It starts at 18mm, so you have much wider coverage for landscape shots or tight spaces- It's smaller and lighter. Since this is going to be an all-purpose travel lens, this will be very helpful- It's about $150 less- If you ever go up to FX / full-frame, you can always sell this lens down the road and recoup about 65-75% of the original cost Enjoy! « Show Less
1324617
Thanks Gav, I appreciate it. I've been leaning more towards the 15-85 because of the extra focal length too. Do you know if the glass quality is the same?
241543
Both should be optically excellent, and I like the 1.4 aperture to keep away from flash, especialy around newborns. My preference would be the longer lens, because I prefer to get a closer image while maintaining my distance. The quality of high end Nikkor zooms has gotten to just about stop using primes but back in the day, my preference for this was 105mm 2.8 Nikkor lens. You would get about the same reach mating the 85mm to a DX chip, but with FX I would even think about a slightly longer lens, smaller maximum aperture and kick the ISO up a little bit. My favorite thing about this camera, compared to the D300 it replaced, is the superiority of images shot in low light. Both should be optically excellent, and I like the 1.4 aperture to keep away from flash, especialy around newborns. My preference would be the longer lens, because I prefer to get a closer image while maintaining my distance. The quality of high end Nikkor zooms has gotten to just about stop using primes but back in the day, my preference for this was 105mm 2.8 Nikkor lens. You would get about the same reach mating the 85mm to a DX chip, but with FX I would even think about a slightly longer lens, smaller maximum aperture and kick the ISO up a little bit. My favorite thing about this... » Read More Both should be optically excellent, and I like the 1.4 aperture to keep away from flash, especialy around newborns. My preference would be the longer lens, because I prefer to get a closer image while maintaining my distance. The quality of high end Nikkor zooms has gotten to just about stop using primes but back in the day, my preference for this was 105mm 2.8 Nikkor lens. You would get about the same reach mating the 85mm to a DX chip, but with FX I would even think about a slightly longer lens, smaller maximum aperture and kick the ISO up a little bit. My favorite thing about this camera, compared to the D300 it replaced, is the superiority of images shot in low light. « Show Less
41290
I have both lenses and prefer the 12MM. It is faster, and produces a sharper image. I especially like the depth of field markers that appear when the focus ring is snapped back into manual mode. I use both, and favor the 17MM when I want to carry the camera in my pocket, but tend to keep the 12MM on the camera most of the time.