Thanks for your comparison. I think at most apertures there are no significant differences. Small differences could easily been caused by slight focusing and exposure differences. In fact, I had both lenses and I kept the 85/2, it's very tiny.
Thank you Diy extravaganza for the test comparison. I have the 85mm f/2.0 AI version and was thinking about upgrading to the 85mm f/1.4. Now that I watched your RUclips and read Richard Haw's article on the f/2.0 AI lens, I definitely will not waste the money. Your comparison shows extreme flare with the f/1.4 whereas little to none with the f/2.0. With the camera you used, the whites are far superior, clean and bright with the f/2.0. True, there is slightly more color saturation with the f/1.4 but this can be easily adjusted with the settings, film and or meter compensation. With the little improvement, that requires studying the images for sharpness, the f/1.4 is not notable especially with the amount of flare and muddy whites. Plus, for half the size and weight the f/2.0 is a much better all around lens. I use my 85mm f/2.0 on my FM, FM2n, FM3a and FE film cameras with T-Max and slow speed professional color positive film as well as vintage Scala, Ektachrome VS and the results are amazing. I am always looking to add to and or upgrade my classic film collection with what is considered the best vintage or new fixed focal manual focus lenses but, it will have to make a considerable difference, I am sorry but this one doesn't.
That's the whole point of the video, let you decide whether your need it or not. Don't forget to tell your friends about the channel and drop a like. Cheers.
Thanks a lot, I try to put some effort in my content and try to improve it everyday. Do not hesitate to share it with friends or in your social networks (if any). Best.
@bartwaggoner2000: Funny, I cannot share your result. Now as to sharpness proper, one would have to count lines on a Siemens star or the like, so you might be right. However, the 1.4 at f/2.0 only seemed sharper with the clock face, all other pictures seemed sharper with the 2.0. Please notice I say "seem", because microcontrast comes into its own, and that has little to do with sharpness. Let's say the 1.4 seemed considerably softer (which is a good thing when you come to portraits). Then there's chroma, which is unsharpness when you do B&W. Also the chroma appears on both outsides of the roof in magenta, which makes it a beast to remove in post. So I would conclude that the cheaper lens is at least more bang for the quid. Admittedly that is complaing on a pretty high level. @Diyextravaganza: Really good test/vid. Even where one might disagree, you can at least pinpoint the difference of opinion. Thank you!
In 1969, the second lens I purchased for my Nikon F was the 85mm f/1.8 Nikkor. In 2016, I upgraded to the 85mm f/1.4 Nikkor auto focus. I have never performed a head-to-head comparison. Thank you for yours.
You're welcome, to be honest all of these lenses are really good. The comparison is rather to get to know the lens better and get an idea on which situation one is better than the other. Best.
@@raymondchan3587 I agree, but unless you have a super light camera, the difference is not much. I use a D4s, so difference is barely noticeable. Best.
Thanks for the comparison. After watching this video I can't think of a reason to purchase the f/1.4. The f/2.0 is sharper wide open and at other apertures is nearly as sharp. The extreme border sharpness on the f/1.4 is better, but how often are you shooting something that requires it? If used on a crop sensor camera, it's irrelevant. The f/1.4 displays far less chromatic aberration at every f-stop, and no flare. I find the f/2's color to be brighter and more accurate. The white is white, but this can always a result of poor white balance, which can be easily corrected in post. The f/2.0 is half the size and weight, and heaps cheaper. The f/2.0 looks like a keeper!
Great analysis. This is the goal of the video, to show what these lenses are about and how they behave side to side in the most impartial way, and let people decide whether they need or not the additional stop. Cheers
@@diyextravaganza Hi - yes - I got it cleaned for (140€) here in Lisbon with around 9 months left of warranty. I simply don't use it and its way to good to be left in a bag. I am selling it for 600€
Thanks for this extensive comparison, very informative. I owned both lenses before moving to high-res digital where both started showing their age and I moved to more modern lenses with less of the traditional abberations. You are confirming my own findings. BTW the 1.4 isn't extending its depth of field more to the background: It has a propensity for focus-shift. When focussing manually, the whole of the lenses diameter is used for focussing on the groundglass as you are focussing with the lens wide open. But the light from the outer diameter is focussed a bit closer than light from the center due to the spherical error of the lens. When stopping down after focussing, this part of the light is excluded from the exposure and you end up with slight back-focus. When using AF it works in the opposite direction: The AF uses light via an effectice aperture of 5,6 to 8 excluding most of the lenses spherical error. When shooting wide-open after focussing with AF you therefore end up with front-focus as the light from the outer diameter of the lens makes up for most of the exposure in this case but wasn't used for the aquisition of focus.
Really strange comparison... For me, a simple user... I was practically never using my F 1.4 at 1.4 but mostly for portrait with available light at 2.8. I must say that if I could get something on the focus at 1.4, it would actually be on on focus on the real image at 2.8... And this was so important for a manual focus lens. Even at 2.8 the edge had only soft focus. For portraits mostly quite good! Today my Z 70-200 F 2.8 is just incredibly sharp. So sharp that you might need a bit of electronic soft focus in Photoshop sometimes! I have not seen bokeh comparison also. This is a must be for such lenses!
Hi thanks, yours seems to be a particular use of f/1.4 lenses to do f/2.8, which is quite understandable since you're already two stops away from the maximum aperture and performance should therefore be really good. I haven't tried the Z 70-200 f/2.8 yet but I guess it is a magnificent beast. I have already some material for a bokeh comparison of such lenses but I haven't worked on that video yet, maybe it is time. Thanks a lot for supporting the channel, please tell all your acquantainces about it. Cheers.
…the Nikkor 85mm f1.4 Ai-S is one of the best lenses ever made. I use it on a GFX camera and amazingly it covers the larger sensor without any significant vignetting. Just love it. ❤
![FendiDa Rappa - Clock Dat ft. Shamar Marco [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3NBU8KHdxYY/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for your comparison. I think at most apertures there are no significant differences. Small differences could easily been caused by slight focusing and exposure differences. In fact, I had both lenses and I kept the 85/2, it's very tiny.
You're most probably right and did a very good choice, cheers.
Thank you Diy extravaganza for the test comparison. I have the 85mm f/2.0 AI version and was thinking about upgrading to the 85mm f/1.4. Now that I watched your RUclips and read Richard Haw's article on the f/2.0 AI lens, I definitely will not waste the money. Your comparison shows extreme flare with the f/1.4 whereas little to none with the f/2.0. With the camera you used, the whites are far superior, clean and bright with the f/2.0. True, there is slightly more color saturation with the f/1.4 but this can be easily adjusted with the settings, film and or meter compensation. With the little improvement, that requires studying the images for sharpness, the f/1.4 is not notable especially with the amount of flare and muddy whites. Plus, for half the size and weight the f/2.0 is a much better all around lens. I use my 85mm f/2.0 on my FM, FM2n, FM3a and FE film cameras with T-Max and slow speed professional color positive film as well as vintage Scala, Ektachrome VS and the results are amazing. I am always looking to add to and or upgrade my classic film collection with what is considered the best vintage or new fixed focal manual focus lenses but, it will have to make a considerable difference, I am sorry but this one doesn't.
That's the whole point of the video, let you decide whether your need it or not. Don't forget to tell your friends about the channel and drop a like. Cheers.
For the second time, I have to thank you for producing an excellent video. I often look at good videos more than once
RS. Canada
Thanks a lot, I try to put some effort in my content and try to improve it everyday. Do not hesitate to share it with friends or in your social networks (if any). Best.
Very clear and details comparison. Thanks a lot.
Thanks to you !
Very interesting video. Thank you.
RS. Canada
Hi, thanks! Don't forget to share with your photography inclined friends.
Nice to see the more expensive lens, at f2, is sharper - thank you for this exhaustive test
The opposite would have been annoying I believe. I like both lenses anyway. Cheers.
@bartwaggoner2000: Funny, I cannot share your result. Now as to sharpness proper, one would have to count lines on a Siemens star or the like, so you might be right. However, the 1.4 at f/2.0 only seemed sharper with the clock face, all other pictures seemed sharper with the 2.0. Please notice I say "seem", because microcontrast comes into its own, and that has little to do with sharpness. Let's say the 1.4 seemed considerably softer (which is a good thing when you come to portraits). Then there's chroma, which is unsharpness when you do B&W. Also the chroma appears on both outsides of the roof in magenta, which makes it a beast to remove in post. So I would conclude that the cheaper lens is at least more bang for the quid. Admittedly that is complaing on a pretty high level.
@Diyextravaganza: Really good test/vid. Even where one might disagree, you can at least pinpoint the difference of opinion. Thank you!
f/2 is better
Smaller, cheaper, near as good image quality. I get your point. Best.
@@diyextravaganza i liked its warm tone too
@@myblueandme most important! You have a similar thing with the 105mm f2.5 and the 1.8. the colors of the 2.5 are far nicer. Best.
@@diyextravaganza doesn't it exhibit a similar color scheme as Voigtlander 58mm
@@myblueandme I cannot tell as I've never used the Voigtländer. Best.
In 1969, the second lens I purchased for my Nikon F was the 85mm f/1.8 Nikkor.
In 2016, I upgraded to the 85mm f/1.4 Nikkor auto focus.
I have never performed a head-to-head comparison. Thank you for yours.
You're welcome, to be honest all of these lenses are really good. The comparison is rather to get to know the lens better and get an idea on which situation one is better than the other. Best.
@@diyextravaganza Weight is one main consideration apart from cost.
@@raymondchan3587 I agree, but unless you have a super light camera, the difference is not much. I use a D4s, so difference is barely noticeable. Best.
An excellent review. I wish more lens reviews were like yours.
That means I need to make more lens reviews ☺️. Cheers.
In short , the f/2 is better and cheaper. The 1.4 has chromatic aberration and magenta tint.
That's the goal of the test, to let you make your own conclusions. Cheers.
lol wrong.
Would have been nice to see portrait comparisons.
I'd like to make them, but it is impossible to make two identical images out of a living subject, I'll try with a doll next time.
Thanks for the comparison. After watching this video I can't think of a reason to purchase the f/1.4. The f/2.0 is sharper wide open and at other apertures is nearly as sharp. The extreme border sharpness on the f/1.4 is better, but how often are you shooting something that requires it? If used on a crop sensor camera, it's irrelevant. The f/1.4 displays far less chromatic aberration at every f-stop, and no flare. I find the f/2's color to be brighter and more accurate. The white is white, but this can always a result of poor white balance, which can be easily corrected in post. The f/2.0 is half the size and weight, and heaps cheaper. The f/2.0 looks like a keeper!
Great analysis. This is the goal of the video, to show what these lenses are about and how they behave side to side in the most impartial way, and let people decide whether they need or not the additional stop. Cheers
You don’t see it here but bokeh balls will appear octagonal on the F2 due to the blades.
In comparision f2 he has slightly brighter colours, anyway fantastic lens
colors are as important as sharpness, many people seem to forget that. Cheers !
@@diyextravaganza yes this one is very Sharp. Very good Lens f2 and cheap
@@lesnytropiciel I like both a lot. Only drawback of the 1.4 is the bulkiness. Cheers.
These test's are great.
Thanks a lot
Cheers.
why not compare f/1.8?
I did not have the 1.8, which is think it is slightly more uncommon than the 1.4 or 2, at least where I live. Best.
buena comparacion! gracias por el video
Gracias por comentar, un saludo.
Hello - I am selling my Nikon 85mm f1/4 very good condition - if someone needs it. I am selling it for a fair price!
Can you tell us your asking price?
@@diyextravaganza Hi - yes - I got it cleaned for (140€) here in Lisbon with around 9 months left of warranty. I simply don't use it and its way to good to be left in a bag.
I am selling it for 600€
@@felix_ghost13 very fair price for such a gem.
@@diyextravaganza Let me know if you are interested - if you are in europe I would include the shipping :)
@@felix_ghost13 not really, I have 2 waiting for service.
have you ever encountered the nikkor 43-86mm?
I've have one full of fungus around, why do you ask?
``i'ts possible the F1.4 didn't capture the same focus point as the F2.
I don't think so. I spend lots of time making sure it was not the case. Best.
Thanks for this extensive comparison, very informative. I owned both lenses before moving to high-res digital where both started showing their age and I moved to more modern lenses with less of the traditional abberations. You are confirming my own findings. BTW the 1.4 isn't extending its depth of field more to the background: It has a propensity for focus-shift. When focussing manually, the whole of the lenses diameter is used for focussing on the groundglass as you are focussing with the lens wide open. But the light from the outer diameter is focussed a bit closer than light from the center due to the spherical error of the lens. When stopping down after focussing, this part of the light is excluded from the exposure and you end up with slight back-focus. When using AF it works in the opposite direction: The AF uses light via an effectice aperture of 5,6 to 8 excluding most of the lenses spherical error. When shooting wide-open after focussing with AF you therefore end up with front-focus as the light from the outer diameter of the lens makes up for most of the exposure in this case but wasn't used for the aquisition of focus.
Thanks a lot, a keep commenting on my videos. Everytime I learn something new 🙏
Довольно сложно сравнивать старые объективы, которые долгое время были в пользовании. Что-то могло уже открутиться, расшататься и так далее
true, but I've revised the lenses myself. Cheers.
why didn't you upload at 4K?
Good idea, I'll take a look at that. Best
Really strange comparison... For me, a simple user... I was practically never using my F 1.4 at 1.4 but mostly for portrait with available light at 2.8. I must say that if I could get something on the focus at 1.4, it would actually be on on focus on the real image at 2.8... And this was so important for a manual focus lens. Even at 2.8 the edge had only soft focus. For portraits mostly quite good! Today my Z 70-200 F 2.8 is just incredibly sharp. So sharp that you might need a bit of electronic soft focus in Photoshop sometimes! I have not seen bokeh comparison also. This is a must be for such lenses!
Hi thanks, yours seems to be a particular use of f/1.4 lenses to do f/2.8, which is quite understandable since you're already two stops away from the maximum aperture and performance should therefore be really good. I haven't tried the Z 70-200 f/2.8 yet but I guess it is a magnificent beast. I have already some material for a bokeh comparison of such lenses but I haven't worked on that video yet, maybe it is time. Thanks a lot for supporting the channel, please tell all your acquantainces about it. Cheers.
…the Nikkor 85mm f1.4 Ai-S is one of the best lenses ever made. I use it on a GFX camera and amazingly it covers the larger sensor without any significant vignetting. Just love it. ❤
That's very good to know. Thanks a lot for the info and your comment. Cheers.
I have both and can confirm the f2 works just as well on the GFX.