$350 for Nikon 85mm 1.8 - good deal?

dickelfan

Senior Member
Someone here is selling a pristine 85mm 1.8. I've got a 35mm and 50 mm along with a 55-200 and 18-105. I've heard this is a great lens for portraits which I would eventually like to get into, but is it that much better than using the 50?

I'm either going to get this lens or the Tokina 11-16 for landscapes, just can't make my mind up.

Any thoughts?
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Someone here is selling a pristine 85mm 1.8. I've got a 35mm and 50 mm along with a 55-200 and 18-105. I've heard this is a great lens for portraits which I would eventually like to get into, but is it that much better than using the 50?

I'm either going to get this lens or the Tokina 11-16 for landscapes, just can't make my mind up.

Any thoughts?
The 85mm f/1.8G is a $500 lens bought new, the D variant is $650 new; so assuming it's in as good a shape as advertised, yes, I'd call that a good deal.

As for using the 50mm f/1.8G for portraits, no... Stop doing that.

...
 

Pretzel

Senior Member
The 85mm f/1.8G is a $500 lens bought new, the D variant is $650 new; so assuming it's in as good a shape as advertised, yes, I'd call that a good deal.

As for using the 50mm f/1.8G for portraits, no... Stop doing that.

...

What's wrong with the 50mm 1.8G for portraits? I use it... a LOT... and folks love their shots. ;)

As for the 85mm, YES, it's worth adding to the mix. The 85mm 1.8G is (or was recently) one of the sharpest lens listed in dxomark's database, gives great bokeh, yada yada.
 
Last edited:

Eyelight

Senior Member
What's wrong with the 50mm 1.8G for portraits? I use it... a LOT... and folks love their shots. ;)

As for the 85mm, YES, it's worth adding to the mix. The 85mm 1.8G is (or was recently) one of the sharpest lens listed in dxomark's database, gives great bokeh, yada yada.
70mm plus is more flattering as it diminishes facial features that are sometimes enhanced at shorter focal lengths.
 

weebee

Senior Member
I've been looking at this lenses for awhile now. I was thinking it would be a good lenses for things like museums, zoos, and some portrait, I'm not much into that. I really want something for capturing buildings, store fronts. Normal range shots. I have thought about the 35 or 50. But perhaps this would be better.
 

Pretzel

Senior Member
I'll refer you, and anyone else who might be interested, to this rather epic thread on the topic of using a 50mm as a portrait lens. I'll go ahead and tell you now, as you'll see if read far enough in, Wayne_F is correct.

....

Yup, I've read the thread, learned a lot, and stayed out of it because I can't even begin to get anywhere near the technical levels of some of that discussion... but telling someone to "stop" using a lens they have? BLAH! On a DX camera, the 50mm works well, especially in the hands of a good photog, and I'd be willing to say it can be put to good use on any camera, DX or FX.

Is the 85mm better for portraits? I'd say yup, and the 85mm 1.8G is on my short list with the 105mm macro for which lens I'm going to buy next, but don't stop using a tool that works! If used correctly, most folks aren't going to see the huge difference. Again, just my .02, which is usually worth about .00000001.
 

hark

Administrator
Staff member
Super Mod
About a year-and-a-half ago, Nikon ran a sale on the 85mm f/1.8G lens. The cost was $395 new--it is very rare to find a new one at that price, but $350 used isn't too bad especially if it is in pristine condition.
 

rocketman122

Senior Member
The 85mm f/1.8G is a $500 lens bought new, the D variant is $650 new; so assuming it's in as good a shape as advertised, yes, I'd call that a good deal.

As for using the 50mm f/1.8G for portraits, no... Stop doing that....

$650 for the AFD? is this a typo? only thing id give the AFD is lightning quick AF compared to the sluggish G and better build quality.

What's wrong with the 50mm 1.8G for portraits? I use it... a LOT... and folks love their shots. ;)

As for the 85mm, YES, it's worth adding to the mix. The 85mm 1.8G is (or was recently) one of the sharpest lens listed in dxomark's database, gives great bokeh, yada yada.

50mm is fine for half body shots to full body. meaning, right under the arm but not a chest torso shot or closer. I wouldnt shoot face even at 70mm of my 28-70 AFS unless I didnt have a choice. its much more aesthetically pleasing with an 85 and up. plus youre not close up in their face so they are more relaxed. its a different image altogether.
 

Eyelight

Senior Member
Since portraits were mentioned in the OP, I'll ad one of the main things with portraiture is being aware of a subject's features and the effect your choice of lens will have on those features.

There are times that a short lens/distance combo may well be the one that provides the right look, and some faces could benefit from a bit more depth, but the average face will thank the average photographer if they go long rather than short.
 

rocketman122

Senior Member
About a year-and-a-half ago, Nikon ran a sale on the 85mm f/1.8G lens. The cost was $395 new--it is very rare to find a new one at that price, but $350 used isn't too bad especially if it is in pristine condition.

they had the 85mm 1.8G on sale two months ago for $400, and before that they had this same "lenses only" sale sometime around february or so. nikon is not in a good situation and you can see last 3 quarterly revenues were not good and their stock being the lowest in 3 years, theyre doing everything they can to move gear.

now they have something new. a sale of all sales. buy a FF D810 with DX lenses. and not really good lenses. all crap lenses they must be overstocked with.
 

Pretzel

Senior Member
50mm is fine for half body shots to full body. meaning, right under the arm but not a chest torso shot or closer. I wouldnt shoot face even at 70mm of my 28-70 AFS unless I didnt have a choice. its much more aesthetically pleasing with an 85 and up. plus youre not close up in their face so they are more relaxed. its a different image altogether.

Yup, no head shots with the 50, no matter how nifty it is. If I've gotta do a head shot, even though it's not the best, I pull out the 70-300 and dial it in somewhere between 85 and 100mm, as space allows, then PP to work with the DOF as needed.

Have a friend loaning me the 85mm f1.8G for a senior photo session this weekend, though, and can't wait to put it through it's paces!
 

rocketman122

Senior Member
Yup, no head shots with the 50, no matter how nifty it is. If I've gotta do a head shot, even though it's not the best, I pull out the 70-300 and dial it in somewhere between 85 and 100mm, as space allows, then PP to work with the DOF as needed.

Have a friend loaning me the 85mm f1.8G for a senior photo session this weekend, though, and can't wait to put it through it's paces!

there you go man! enjoy using the 85mm!
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
Have a friend loaning me the 85mm f1.8G for a senior photo session this weekend, though, and can't wait to put it through it's paces!
I hope you have money put aside for one of your own then... The 85mm f/1.8G on a D7100 is going to knock your socks off.

Assuming you *wear* socks, that is... I mean, when you try the 85mm at least because if you're not then they can't very well... Well... You get my point.

Socks!

....
 

crycocyon

Senior Member
That's a good deal. 85mm on DX would be like using a 135mm on FX so it would be a fine portrait lens, but too narrow a FOV for buildings/exteriors. The 85mm 1.8G is an incredible lens for the money. It compares favorably with the 85mm 1.4G and in a more light-weight and economical package. If I didn't have the 1.4, the 1.8 would be my absolute favorite lens to get or own. When you compare it, on an FX or DX camera, to a 50mm f1.4, for example, you'll see a BIG difference. It is like the difference between the 50mm and a kit lens like the 18-55mm....that much of a jump in image quality. So for portraits there is nothing better. 50mm if fine for portraits if you want to include more context or background but I find I notice the distortion more in people's faces even if I'm several feet away. You can see this after field correction of the 50mm in Lightroom. I don't care who you are, what you shoot, or what Nikon DSLR you have, the 85mm 1.8G is a landmark lens in terms of image quality and bang-for-buck. I even contemplated getting one for my wife to use on her D7000 or as a smaller portrait lens on my FX cameras for when I'm traveling lighter. But try one of these lenses and everything else will be secondary in terms of preference for the best image quality.
 

rocketman122

Senior Member
I hope you have money put aside for one of your own then... The 85mm f/1.8G on a D7100 is going to knock your socks off.

Assuming you *wear* socks, that is... I mean, when you try the 85mm at least because if you're not then they can't very well... Well... You get my point.

Socks!

....

I think for many though 135mm might be tight. I love it though. I try to shoot full bodies at that FL if I can. nice compression, small dof, nice isolation.
you can shoot at 2.2 but also stop down a little to f/4 because it might be a little shallow for your taste or your shooting habits.
 

dickelfan

Senior Member
Thanks for all the input everyone. Renting one here in Houston for $37 for a week to try it out and see if I'll like it before buying.
 
Top