Would you consider the Nikon 85mm f/1.8 over the 1.4?

Put aside the crazy price difference, there isn't much difference in f-stops.  The f1.8 is much lighter.  From what I can see, the reviews are pretty solid on both.  From the reviews I've seen, many speak about the f/1.8 is about 90-95% of the lens the f1.4 is. 

But the 1.8 isn't the best, the 1.4 is.  But the 1.8 is a screaming deal.   

Would you go with the 1.8 or 1.4?  

Yes.  It is cheaper, smaller, lighter and plenty fast.  You can make up 2/3 stop of lens speed with the ISO control.

fmw wrote: Yes.  It is cheaper, smaller, lighter and plenty fast.  You can make up 2/3 stop of lens speed with the ISO control.

That makes good sense, of course…
though, for tax purposes, I went for
the ƒ 1.4. It was "spend it or give it"
as my accountant said.

There's more to it than the above suggests.

That extra 1/3 stop changes the bokeh. IMNSHO significantly.

I had the f/1.8G and sold it to buy the f/1.4D. If you can live with slower focusing, and have a body with a motor, get the older lens. It's IQ is just as good, and the bokeh is very, very nice. I'm quite happy with mine. It does slow me down, but that's not a bad thing.

If money was no object, I'd probably get the G lens (now that I know the difference) but alas, such is not the case.

On the upside, I had some money for a 135 F/2D

Nikon Shooter wrote:

fmw wrote: Yes.  It is cheaper, smaller, lighter and plenty fast.  You can make up 2/3 stop of lens speed with the ISO control.

That makes good sense, of course…
though, for tax purposes, I went for
the ƒ 1.4. It was "spend it or give it"
as my accountant said.

So if you didn't have the tax bucks to spend, would you have bought differently?  

IMO, what you are paying for is the rendering. The 1.8s are sometimes sharper, but lenses have gotten to the point that it's getting more and more difficult to tell.  When stopped down to 1.8, the 1.4s are generally quite sharp. 

So you have to ask yourself if the rendering is "worth" it to you, because the 1.8 still gets the job done quite nicely. 

The 85mm f/1.8 is a crazy good lens!  I've used both, but think the f/1.8 is the better buy.  Seriously save your $$ and go with the f/1.8.

Tim Wiener wrote: So if you didn't have the tax bucks to spend, would you have bought differently?  

Then, I would have got the ƒ 1.8 version I needed.

I own a 1.4 D and enjoy it but if I bought one today it would be the 1.8 G I'm guessing or the Zeiss Planar T.

f/1.8 is a bad a$$ lens!  I don't have, however a good friend of mine does and it's an incredible lens.  

Reading this post, a member sent me the link to a video
where an american wedding photographer was answering
is own question: "Why do I shoot with the ƒ1,4?… because
I can."… very helpful!

Newbie question: 

Would the 85mm be a better portrait lens than the 105mm?

I'm still building up my collection of gear.  

Alfonso Camil wrote: Would the 85mm be a better portrait lens than the 105mm? 

No. If you can go for a bright 105 mm, you'd get a bit of flattering
compression. If you don't have much room in studio, then the 85.

Alfonso Camil wrote: Newbie question: 

Would the 85mm be a better portrait lens than the 105mm?

I'm still building up my collection of gear.  

105mm is a fantastic portrait lens if you have the working distance available. The 105mm 1.8 lenses are gorgeous and I see people passing up the 85 1.4 for the 105mm quite a bit now. I use an 85mm as my main lens outside of macro because I wanted a bit more distance since I work with animals more than people. It's a bit lighter and smaller than the 105mm, but for my purposes, its a good place to be. The only other lens that I could consider getting (again) is the 200mm 2.8, which also has some fantastic renderings/compression. The 2.8 aperture is still quite fast for it's focal length. This is a fantastic indoor arena lens, but the 2.8 aperture and 200mm focal length requires the use of a monopod in some situations. I have never needed a tripod with the 1.4 or 1.8. 

Troponin wrote:

Alfonso Camil wrote: Newbie question: 

Would the 85mm be a better portrait lens than the 105mm?

I'm still building up my collection of gear.  

105mm is a fantastic portrait lens if you have the working distance available. The 105mm 1.8 lenses are gorgeous and I see people passing up the 85 1.4 for the 105mm quite a bit now. I use an 85mm as my main lens outside of macro because I wanted a bit more distance since I work with animals more than people. It's a bit lighter and smaller than the 105mm, but for my purposes, its a good place to be. The only other lens that I could consider getting (again) is the 200mm 2.8, which also has some fantastic renderings/compression. The 2.8 aperture is still quite fast for it's focal length. This is a fantastic indoor arena lens, but the 2.8 aperture and 200mm focal length requires the use of a monopod in some situations. I have never needed a tripod with the 1.4 or 1.8. 

(I believe that) He shoots Nikon, and Nikon only makes an f/2.8 and f/1.4 in the 105, as well as an older f/2 D version (no motor).

Truism: longer is better. If you have the room. That applies to the full range of focal lengths. You want beautiful backgrounds, try a 300 f/2.8.

That said, define "better". Each lens will have its own characteristics. I have both a 105 f/2.8 and an 85 f/1.4, and I'll keep both. I use the 85 more because of distance to subject and magnification.