I've recently sold my 1.8 and purchased a 1.4. Can't put my finger exactly on it, don't know if it is the colours but the 1.4 has more satisfying images than the 1.8. It's not just about the bokeh, the optics are a higher class.
Coatings, lense count, groups, barrel length, optical formula, glass types... there is more to a lense than just 1.8 to 1.4. And some cant be seen on paper. You have to try it for yourself.
There are some benefits to the f/1.4 that were not mentioned in the video. As with most lenses, their widest aperture setting is often not the sharpest. In make cases, a decent f/1.4 lens, stopped down to f/1.8 will have better edge to edge sharpness than a lens where the widest aperture is f/1.8. You can see this in the test results from DXOmark. Beyond that, you also tend to get less vignetting with them when stopped down, which is very useful if you plan to correct for vignetting in post while also shooting at high ISO, since higher ISOs offer less shadow recovery, correcting for vignetting at high ISO, often causes the noise to become more visible in the corrected areas. It is overall a small improvement, but if you have the money to burn, it could be useful, even if you do not plan to shoot at f/1.4 (whether it is worth the large price increase, depends on how many oil companies and diamond mines you own).
And also the lense formula is different and can sometimes even have premium coatings. Lense count and groupings. There is more to a lense than the differece from 1.8 to 1.4 that you cant see on paper.
Of all the focal lengths that really don't require a f1.4 aperture the classic 85mm portrait lens has to be one of them. Such wide apertures can be justified where a lens is likely to be used in low light or where the photographers creative vision is to utilise that very shallow depth of field. With portraiture you'll want most of the face and absolutely the eyes in sharp focus. Doing this at f1.4 is quite difficult. Consider also that you'll be using strobes/flashes off camera during portrait shoots and that f1.4 becomes less significant. On a personal note I tend to shoot portraits at much higher f stops anyway so even my f1.8 85mm Nikkor is overkill. 😊
I’ve owned both the 1.8 from new and the 1.4 used. I think the 1.4 lets in approx 1/3 stop more light which is quite nice and the bokeh is a fraction creamier (especially on background lights). Unfortunately, the 1.4 model I bought second hand gave a green hue to every second picture I took. Obviously this can be fixed in post but for the additional ball ache and cost I chose to get my money back. I would LOVE to see a Nikon 85mm 1.2! The Canon 1.2 is a stunning lens!
Ed Thorne Rhythm & Sound Nikon can’t make 85mm 1.2 due to F mount limitation. Even on Canon 85mm 1.2 the chip is literally sitting on glass covering it ... so you are not getting full performance from 1.2 Canon. There is Speedmaster for Nikon , 85mm 1.2 .. obviously manual focus ... obviously because of F mount limitation. You know at 1.2 the hole 🕳 is so freaking big so you don’t have space to implement a chip. On the contrary Z mount is a whole another story. Nikon made 58mm f/0.95
Nikon 85mm 1.4 advantages, its faster so you get 2/3 of stop more light and slightly blurrier background, its also made better and has more advanced optics. Nikon 85mm 1.8G advantages, its smaller and lighter, MUCH cheaper. Why get the 85mm 1.4G ? well if money isn't a problem then its worth getting the 1.4 other then that the 1.8G model does about 90% of what it does and its much cheaper, lighter and smaller...….oh wait if money isn't an issue then why go for the Nikon 85mm 1.4G ? get the Nikon 105mm 1.4E - arguably the BEST portrait lens in the world!!!
Yes if money were not a problem I would buy the 105 macro lens or that one you said, I would like to have the 105mm f2.8 macro lens, I think is awesome
I had thr 85mm 1.8 and I sold it and bought the 85mm 1.4 and I do see slightly more bokeh and but overall it's not an overwhelming difference.. I agree with your post
Fully agreed. It all depends or the needs of the photographer. If someone requires to squeeze the maximum light gathering at f1.4, then by all means f1.4. Otherwise the extra price and bulk is not worth it (there is negligible difference in bokeh; according to some there is very slight difference in color, depth-of-field nd sharpness, but that is nit-picking).
The Nikon 85mm f/1.8 was the second lens I purchased for my Nikon SLRs. After many years of use, I eventually upgraded it to the f/1.4 version because I needed the extra light gathering when shooting under low-light conditions with no flash and for exposure consistency, I preferred the maximum aperture being a full stop instead of a fraction of a stop. For example, f/1.4 instead of f/1.2 or f/1.8. For example, f/2 or f/2.8 instead of f/2.5.
I think the point that all these videos never mention is that one is for pros and one is not. If you make money from your photos and extrapolate that over the life of the lens (10, 20, 30... years?) the 1.4 is a no brainer. Higher IQ (however slight), better build quality (however slight), more reliable (however slight), wider aperture (however slight) means added flexibility, etc, etc.
Absolutely! Get what fits your needs. I came from colour slide film & love the creaminess soft of f1.4 on my main Nikkor's 28, 50 85. Indoor lowlight w/ soft balanced fill. However, if you earn money off this & like the look, go for it, it's a write off & it pays for itself in no time. If it's your style or look & it's what the clients like. For anyone else, 1.8 is fine as said.
Typically the 1.4 versions from the big manufacturers are a step up in terms of glass, focusing speed, bokeh, C.A. corrections, weather sealing etc. The decision factors isn't just simply F1.4 VS. F1.8. Just my opinion. Rest well brother💙
It also allows smoother tones as you can lower your iso to very low ranges with lens wide open and tones are smoother and creamier. That is why people buy this lens - along with the shallower DOF.
I think I subscribe only after he passed away....not knowing he had died. He had such a gentle spirit. I hope we see him again on the other side. I learn so much from his videos, so I'm glad they still have them up.
Fast glass is where us pro's make our money, and is the reason I buy fast glass. The "look" of the images is what separates your work from the pack. I bought a Nikon 400mm 2.8VR for this reason as well, instead of say a 300mm f4. When I shoot NBA and NFL or any other assignment I find more clients buy my images because they stand apart from what they are used to with other photographers and same goes for portraiture. The color and saturation, micro contrast is usually better as well with the 1.4G lenses.
@@patricksmith2553 exactly how I feel after selling 1.8 vs 1.4. After following an artist who uses a 1.4 there was just that something more. Hard to explain exactly what but it is there. You don't have to hunt for it, it's noticeably more pleasing. The 1.8 is great value though
I've had the 1.8 and the 1.4 and you're blind if you think the bokeh is the same. And that's not even mentioning the colors. That's not to say the 1.8 is a bad lens, it's very good. And I'm not saying the 1.4 is a LOT better, but it IS better, beyond the speed. Hoser!
I would go with the Nikon f/1.8g because I would have to say the biggest difference is the price. I think anyone would be satisfied. I've tried both the Sigma and Tamron 85mm lenses and was disappointed. The Sigma had trouble focusing and the Tamron was soft on the person.
Exactly my sentiments! I couldn't have said it any better! Excellent answers, thanks for sharing Matt! I own the Nikon 20mm 1.8G even with my D5500 crop sensor... still an excellent lens great bokeh and color rendition. Zero flare even in direct sunlight coz of Nikon's ED and Nano Crystal coatings.. I have owned sigma 20mm 1.4 art in the past and compared both, short of it is, if you can afford it easily, go for it! otherwise not worth the extra gain in light... sigma 1.4 did have softer backgrounds coz of razor thin focal plane.
You're not "just" paying for the speed. This answer is applicable to enthusiasts and not to prosumers. But I suppose professionals wouldn't ask that question in the first place.
I have the Nikon 1.8G 50mm FX. Using it on a DX camera. Best lens I have. Love every image. The 1.4 lens was more, but it is only a few stops. Do I need it? No. Not now.
What to choose ? I bought the F1.8 Why ? I could not justify spending an extra £1,000 on on the F1.4. No point. My 85mm F1.8 is my favourite prime lens. The images on my Nikon D610 are simply stunning. The 1.4 would have made not one jot of a difference to my photos.
Thanks. Tho' the reviews of AF-S 85 g's are better for 1.4. And are better for 50 1.8 G than the 50 1.4g. So I am sorry I have the 5 1.8 and 50 1.4 Nikkors.
I agree with Matt. Nikon 85mm f1.8 is still better than 1.4 n you don’t have to spend that extra money to get .4 less as you can improvise n use smart photography tricks n settings to get better quality pics. Better off getting 135mm f2 defocus lens if I had to go for 85/1.4 much better lens n good extra reach. It’s your money n your need think wisely!!
I will probably look for a good used one of the 85 1.4G... i must be patient but i guess with a bit of luck you can pick up a piece for about 700€, i think at that pricepoint its probably worth it.. maybe i can sell my 85 1.8G for 250-300€ and upgrade..or you keep the 1.8G and if the 1.4G isnt worth it you can resell the 1.4 again for probably even more money .. Anyway, talking about buying new the 1.4 is never ever worth it, you should get the 1.8 if you want to buy new 😅
Michael Wagner 700€ is a bit low for 85mm 1.4G . The condition must be bad. Or owner changed glass elements due to fungus. Good 85mm 1.4G will cost 900-1000€ . Got mine for 930€ from Germany. Awesome one!
jose2883 pv maybe they have improved in the last 2 years which I heard they have...but a friend who is a lens repairman always said to stay away from Sigma, he said that he got 5x as many Sigma's in for repair than Nikon or Canon
I've recently sold my 1.8 and purchased a 1.4. Can't put my finger exactly on it, don't know if it is the colours but the 1.4 has more satisfying images than the 1.8. It's not just about the bokeh, the optics are a higher class.
Coatings, lense count, groups, barrel length, optical formula, glass types... there is more to a lense than just 1.8 to 1.4. And some cant be seen on paper. You have to try it for yourself.
There are some benefits to the f/1.4 that were not mentioned in the video. As with most lenses, their widest aperture setting is often not the sharpest. In make cases, a decent f/1.4 lens, stopped down to f/1.8 will have better edge to edge sharpness than a lens where the widest aperture is f/1.8. You can see this in the test results from DXOmark. Beyond that, you also tend to get less vignetting with them when stopped down, which is very useful if you plan to correct for vignetting in post while also shooting at high ISO, since higher ISOs offer less shadow recovery, correcting for vignetting at high ISO, often causes the noise to become more visible in the corrected areas.
It is overall a small improvement, but if you have the money to burn, it could be useful, even if you do not plan to shoot at f/1.4 (whether it is worth the large price increase, depends on how many oil companies and diamond mines you own).
And also the lense formula is different and can sometimes even have premium coatings. Lense count and groupings. There is more to a lense than the differece from 1.8 to 1.4 that you cant see on paper.
Of all the focal lengths that really don't require a f1.4 aperture the classic 85mm portrait lens has to be one of them. Such wide apertures can be justified where a lens is likely to be used in low light or where the photographers creative vision is to utilise that very shallow depth of field. With portraiture you'll want most of the face and absolutely the eyes in sharp focus. Doing this at f1.4 is quite difficult. Consider also that you'll be using strobes/flashes off camera during portrait shoots and that f1.4 becomes less significant. On a personal note I tend to shoot portraits at much higher f stops anyway so even my f1.8 85mm Nikkor is overkill. 😊
dunnymonster excellent answer
I don’t know... I’m a Nikon shooter, but I used to shoot Canon and the 85 1.2 wide open might as well be magic. Nikon 1.4 is pretty close too.
I’ve owned both the 1.8 from new and the 1.4 used. I think the 1.4 lets in approx 1/3 stop more light which is quite nice and the bokeh is a fraction creamier (especially on background lights). Unfortunately, the 1.4 model I bought second hand gave a green hue to every second picture I took. Obviously this can be fixed in post but for the additional ball ache and cost I chose to get my money back.
I would LOVE to see a Nikon 85mm 1.2! The Canon 1.2 is a stunning lens!
Ed Thorne Rhythm & Sound Nikon can’t make 85mm 1.2 due to F mount limitation. Even on Canon 85mm 1.2 the chip is literally sitting on glass covering it ... so you are not getting full performance from 1.2 Canon. There is Speedmaster for Nikon , 85mm 1.2 .. obviously manual focus ... obviously because of F mount limitation. You know at 1.2 the hole 🕳 is so freaking big so you don’t have space to implement a chip. On the contrary Z mount is a whole another story. Nikon made 58mm f/0.95
Nikon 85mm 1.4 advantages, its faster so you get 2/3 of stop more light and slightly blurrier background, its also made better and has more advanced optics. Nikon 85mm 1.8G advantages, its smaller and lighter, MUCH cheaper. Why get the 85mm 1.4G ? well if money isn't a problem then its worth getting the 1.4 other then that the 1.8G model does about 90% of what it does and its much cheaper, lighter and smaller...….oh wait if money isn't an issue then why go for the Nikon 85mm 1.4G ? get the Nikon 105mm 1.4E - arguably the BEST portrait lens in the world!!!
Yes if money were not a problem I would buy the 105 macro lens or that one you said, I would like to have the 105mm f2.8 macro lens, I think is awesome
I had thr 85mm 1.8 and I sold it and bought the 85mm 1.4 and I do see slightly more bokeh and but overall it's not an overwhelming difference.. I agree with your post
Fully agreed. It all depends or the needs of the photographer. If someone requires to squeeze the maximum light gathering at f1.4, then by all means f1.4. Otherwise the extra price and bulk is not worth it (there is negligible difference in bokeh; according to some there is very slight difference in color, depth-of-field nd sharpness, but that is nit-picking).
The Nikon 85mm f/1.8 was the second lens I purchased for my Nikon SLRs. After many years of use, I eventually upgraded it to the f/1.4 version because I needed the extra light gathering when shooting under low-light conditions with no flash and for exposure consistency, I preferred the maximum aperture being a full stop instead of a fraction of a stop. For example, f/1.4 instead of f/1.2 or f/1.8. For example, f/2 or f/2.8 instead of f/2.5.
I agree with Matt, get the f1.8, if you listen to most people with super fast lenses they will not shoot at max aperature anyway
Agreed. I have the 35mm 1.8G and mainly shoot at 2.8 anyway.
I'm a hobbyist and have the older 85mm 1.4D.. Is it better to get the 1.8 new model? The newer 1.4 is too expensive.
absolutely not worth it. 1.4D is a beast although it is noisy.
I think the point that all these videos never mention is that one is for pros and one is not. If you make money from your photos and extrapolate that over the life of the lens (10, 20, 30... years?) the 1.4 is a no brainer. Higher IQ (however slight), better build quality (however slight), more reliable (however slight), wider aperture (however slight) means added flexibility, etc, etc.
That's more than a slight advantage.... lol.
Absolutely! Get what fits your needs. I came from colour slide film & love the creaminess soft of f1.4 on my main Nikkor's 28, 50 85. Indoor lowlight w/ soft balanced fill. However, if you earn money off this & like the look, go for it, it's a write off & it pays for itself in no time. If it's your style or look & it's what the clients like. For anyone else, 1.8 is fine as said.
Typically the 1.4 versions from the big manufacturers are a step up in terms of glass, focusing speed, bokeh, C.A. corrections, weather sealing etc. The decision factors isn't just simply F1.4 VS. F1.8. Just my opinion. Rest well brother💙
It also allows smoother tones as you can lower your iso to very low ranges with lens wide open and tones are smoother and creamier. That is why people buy this lens - along with the shallower DOF.
Great video Matt. I miss you my friend. Rest in peace sir.
I think I subscribe only after he passed away....not knowing he had died. He had such a gentle spirit. I hope we see him again on the other side. I learn so much from his videos, so I'm glad they still have them up.
Don't let anyone fooled you. The 1.4is not worth it. Just get the 1.8 and you will be fine.
Fast glass is where us pro's make our money, and is the reason I buy fast glass. The "look" of the images is what separates your work from the pack. I bought a Nikon 400mm 2.8VR for this reason as well, instead of say a 300mm f4. When I shoot NBA and NFL or any other assignment I find more clients buy my images because they stand apart from what they are used to with other photographers and same goes for portraiture. The color and saturation, micro contrast is usually better as well with the 1.4G lenses.
Patrick Smith well said.
Patrick Smith you might have a look at the legendary 200mm F2.0 . Gorgeous .
@@patricksmith2553 exactly how I feel after selling 1.8 vs 1.4. After following an artist who uses a 1.4 there was just that something more. Hard to explain exactly what but it is there. You don't have to hunt for it, it's noticeably more pleasing.
The 1.8 is great value though
i've owned both, but most of the time I only use 2.5.
I don't see typos until after is posted. Having the AFS 50 1.4 and AFS 85 1.8 G's.
You can get the 85 1.8 which is very good and a Tamron 70-200 G2 as well.
I'd love to get the Tamron 700-200 G2.
Gizmo87 I have the G1 and it is 98% as good. I can track birds in flight with the AF and the center is acceptably sharp wide open.
R.I.P Matt.
Just thought I'd watch this once again.
I wish you were here to see the z mount
Hi Mat, I love this article, Kindly let me . know. is it worth to get a nikon d3s or d750 for low light church photos
The 1.8 vs 1.4 can be more of a question of price to controlled environmental shooting. Lighting
I've had the 1.8 and the 1.4 and you're blind if you think the bokeh is the same. And that's not even mentioning the colors. That's not to say the 1.8 is a bad lens, it's very good. And I'm not saying the 1.4 is a LOT better, but it IS better, beyond the speed. Hoser!
What about the 24mm 1.8 vs 1.4?
I would go with the Nikon f/1.8g because I would have to say the biggest difference is the price. I think anyone would be satisfied. I've tried both the Sigma and Tamron 85mm lenses and was disappointed. The Sigma had trouble focusing and the Tamron was soft on the person.
Thomas Page at the same time, you could get two lenses for the price of the 1.4
Andrew Riddell you could actually buy three 85mm f/1.8's for the same price as the 85mm f/1.4.
My Nikon 85mm F1.8 is my favourite prime lens. Image quality is second to none. Another £1000 for the F1.4 ? Not a chance, no point.
Exactly my sentiments! I couldn't have said it any better! Excellent answers, thanks for sharing Matt! I own the Nikon 20mm 1.8G even with my D5500 crop sensor... still an excellent lens great bokeh and color rendition. Zero flare even in direct sunlight coz of Nikon's ED and Nano Crystal coatings.. I have owned sigma 20mm 1.4 art in the past and compared both, short of it is, if you can afford it easily, go for it! otherwise not worth the extra gain in light... sigma 1.4 did have softer backgrounds coz of razor thin focal plane.
You're not "just" paying for the speed. This answer is applicable to enthusiasts and not to prosumers. But I suppose professionals wouldn't ask that question in the first place.
I have the Nikon 1.8G 50mm FX. Using it on a DX camera. Best lens I have. Love every image. The 1.4 lens was more, but it is only a few stops. Do I need it? No. Not now.
100% agree with you. He should also rent both and see if the extra $$ is worth it to him
What to choose ? I bought the F1.8 Why ? I could not justify spending an extra £1,000 on on the F1.4. No point. My 85mm F1.8 is my favourite prime lens. The images on my Nikon D610 are simply stunning. The 1.4 would have made not one jot of a difference to my photos.
I disagree. The Nikon 85 f1.4G has better color, it’s sharper and has nicer bokeh than the f1.8G
Thanks. Tho' the reviews of AF-S 85 g's are better for 1.4. And are better for 50 1.8 G than the 50 1.4g. So I am sorry I have the 5 1.8 and 50 1.4 Nikkors.
I agree with Matt.
Nikon 85mm f1.8 is still better than 1.4 n you don’t have to spend that extra money to get .4 less as you can improvise n use smart photography tricks n settings to get better quality pics. Better off getting 135mm f2 defocus lens if I had to go for 85/1.4 much better lens n good extra reach. It’s your money n your need think wisely!!
Couldn't have said it better.
Skip the f 1.4 and but the f 1.8 and invest the money saved in a decent lichting rig, be flash or LED, problem solved!
Short answer, NO.
I will probably look for a good used one of the 85 1.4G... i must be patient but i guess with a bit of luck you can pick up a piece for about 700€, i think at that pricepoint its probably worth it.. maybe i can sell my 85 1.8G for 250-300€ and upgrade..or you keep the 1.8G and if the 1.4G isnt worth it you can resell the 1.4 again for probably even more money ..
Anyway, talking about buying new the 1.4 is never ever worth it, you should get the 1.8 if you want to buy new 😅
Michael Wagner i just got one for 850. Very expensive used😔
The ComicExplorer oh yes.. way too expensive..
Michael Wagner 700€ is a bit low for 85mm 1.4G . The condition must be bad. Or owner changed glass elements due to fungus. Good 85mm 1.4G will cost 900-1000€ . Got mine for 930€ from Germany. Awesome one!
Buy a good ....used......Nikon 85 1.4d. If on a tight budget.
I've owned both. 1.4 is absolutely NOT worth it.
You get what you pay for with nikon
i had a sigma 17-50 and it was trash.
Fabfour Wtf you serious?
Sigma while optically excellent their build quality is questionable
I have 18-35 F1.8 and I think its build quality is excellent...
jose2883 pv maybe they have improved in the last 2 years which I heard they have...but a friend who is a lens repairman always said to stay away from Sigma, he said that he got 5x as many Sigma's in for repair than Nikon or Canon
CastrejonHDTV yes. noisy, bad focus.
Can only talk on the Canon 50mm but Bokeh on the F1.4 is a mile “better” than on the 1.8!!