«

A Nikon 85mm 1.8 is $400.; an 85mm 1.4 is $1100.

Is the extra stop really worth all that extra expense? Why not just up
the ISO to compensate for those shots that really need the speed?

Am I missing something?

--
m-m

M-M wrote:
> A Nikon 85mm 1.8 is $400.; an 85mm 1.4 is $1100.
>
> Is the extra stop really worth all that extra expense? Why not just up
> the ISO to compensate for those shots that really need the speed?
>
> Am I missing something?
>
Thats a half stop
EJ in NJ

M-M wrote:
> A Nikon 85mm 1.8 is $400.; an 85mm 1.4 is $1100.
>
> Is the extra stop really worth all that extra expense? Why not just up
> the ISO to compensate for those shots that really need the speed?
>
> Am I missing something?

Sometimes I'm already shooting at my top ISO, so I *can't* up it. (And
I'm already at shutter speeds low enough that more than 1/2 the photos
are lost to subject motion.)

Sometimes the noise from a higher ISO isn't acceptable.

Sometimes the twice-as-bright viewfinder image is important.

However, I currently have the f/1.8 of that lens, not the f/1.4 ; not
having had the spare $700 to hand at the time.

M-M wrote:
> A Nikon 85mm 1.8 is $400.; an 85mm 1.4 is $1100.
>
> Is the extra stop really worth all that extra expense? Why not just up
> the ISO to compensate for those shots that really need the speed?
>
> Am I missing something?

You're usually gaining a lot more than the mere half-stop.
You tend to also "gain" superior lens elements...better build
quality...higher quality lens coatings...faster auto-focus...often better
bokeh (smoother quality of out-of-focus elements)...more rounded aperture
blades (related to bokeh, too).

Each of these aren't ALWAYS the case, but they usually go hand in hand with
both Nikon and Canon lenses.

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:38:18 -0800, M-M wrote
(in article <nospam.m-m->):

> A Nikon 85mm 1.8 is $400.; an 85mm 1.4 is $1100.
>
> Is the extra stop really worth all that extra expense? Why not just up
> the ISO to compensate for those shots that really need the speed?
>
> Am I missing something?
>
>

Upping the ISO *always* increases noise. If you want sharp, fine-grained
photos in dim light, you want a faster lens.

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 11:38:18 -0800, M-M wrote
(in article <nospam.m-m->):

> A Nikon 85mm 1.8 is $400.; an 85mm 1.4 is $1100.
>
> Is the extra stop really worth all that extra expense? Why not just up
> the ISO to compensate for those shots that really need the speed?
>
> Am I missing something?
>
>

One other thing you are missing is the rounded diaphragm of the f/1.4 lens;
much more expensive to manufacture, but with much better bokeh..

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

M-M wrote:
> A Nikon 85mm 1.8 is $400.; an 85mm 1.4 is $1100.
>
> Is the extra stop really worth all that extra expense? Why not just up
> the ISO to compensate for those shots that really need the speed?
>
> Am I missing something?

I would suggest three things.

The "quality" of the lenses may not be the same.

Increasing ISO can have other problems like noise

Sometimes you just want less DOF.

--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

"M-M" <nospam.m-> wrote in message
news:nospam.m-m-...

>A Nikon 85mm 1.8 is $400.; an 85mm 1.4 is $1100.
>
> Is the extra stop really worth all that extra expense? Why not just up
> the ISO to compensate for those shots that really need the speed?
>
> Am I missing something?

This usually seems to be the case with lenses. You would have thought that
an extra stop would only double the price if you think logically. It's not
even a full stop either probably more like 0.75 stops (no doubt someone has
the maths on this!). If you look at the lenses you will see that the 1.4
seems to be constructed to a far higher quality, similar to the legendary
28/1.4.

cheers adrian www.boliston.co.uk

On 30 Gen, 21:07, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> Sometimes the twice-as-bright viewfinder image is important.

Be careful on this.
Viewfinder of some new dslr such as my D200 are designed to show f2.8
max, so no improvement on brightness.
This affect only preview brightnes and DOF preview, of corse

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 14:38:18 -0500, M-M <nospam.m-> wrote:

>A Nikon 85mm 1.8 is $400.; an 85mm 1.4 is $1100.
>
>Is the extra stop really worth all that extra expense? Why not just up
>the ISO to compensate for those shots that really need the speed?
>
>Am I missing something?

As others have pointed out, it's not a whole stop difference... it is
2/3 stop.

The 85 mm is often used as a portrait lens (on the old 35 mm cameras)
and for portrait work, the extra half stop can reduce depth of field a
bit. This way one eye can be in focus and the other out of focus...
just what some people want.

There could be quality of construction differences. Plus, the extra
glass requires additional compromises in optical design, usually
requiring extra elements. That increases the cost, and may (or may
not!) improve performance at equivalent f stops.

But in the end, it's only 2/3 stop. IMHO lots of people, especially
some amateurs, buy them for bragging rights. Why spend $400 if you can
spend $1100?

KS