Nikon 50mm f1.8D lens vs. Nikon 85mm f1.8D lens what are the major differences between these two lenses besides the price?
1658027
http://www.5min.com/Video/Portrait-Photography-Tips-72416664The main difference is the working distance from the subject. The video I posted will help you better understand. The 85mm has better bokeh also.
1658028
nobody mention the focal distance? I think that's the most important difference....
1658029
I had this exact question as well. I am trying to decide between the 2 as well. Can you please post a link to the Flickr groups?
1000372
I never used the DA 35mm, f2.4 so I cannot make comparison between the two. I bought myself a DA 50mm f1.8 three month ago for shooting my girlfriend. At the beginning you will find it hard to focus on your target. However, when you get familiar with this len, you can shoot very beautiful picture. My girlfriend love the pictures I took for her. Since it has a relatively large aperture, a slightly move of your camera or your target after focusing will get you unfocused picture. It does not matter if you have a good control on this lens.
579921
It's a better lens. There are video tests on youtube of these two lenses against each other and this lens is considerably sharper. It's sharpness is somewhere between the Canon 85mm 1.8 and the Canon 85mm 1.2 L lens. This is a very powerful lens.
2054212
The 85mm is more zoomed in than the 50. You may want to look into getting a 35mm lens.
39228
It's like apples and oranges. One is a short zoom. The other is prime. So it does depend what you want it to do for you.If you need the faster lens I would go with the 35mm f1.8. If you don't need the faster lens and you like the advantage of not having to move around to compose your shot go with the zoom. I will say I find that Sigma 18-50 a bit bulky and it is basically a kit lens at least and Nikon's newer 18-55 is lighter and better it also does close focus really well. The Nikon f1.8 35 mm is a great lens for general shooting and keeps your camera footprint small and easy to carry. Don't know if this helps or not. Hope you make the best choice for you. It's like apples and oranges. One is a short zoom. The other is prime. So it does depend what you want it to do for you.If you need the faster lens I would go with the 35mm f1.8. If you don't need the faster lens and you like the advantage of not having to move around to compose your shot go with the zoom. I will say I find that Sigma 18-50 a bit bulky and it is basically a kit lens at least and Nikon's newer 18-55 is lighter and better it also does close focus really well. The Nikon f1.8 35 mm is a great lens for general shooting and keeps your camera footprint small and easy to... » Read More It's like apples and oranges. One is a short zoom. The other is prime. So it does depend what you want it to do for you.If you need the faster lens I would go with the 35mm f1.8. If you don't need the faster lens and you like the advantage of not having to move around to compose your shot go with the zoom. I will say I find that Sigma 18-50 a bit bulky and it is basically a kit lens at least and Nikon's newer 18-55 is lighter and better it also does close focus really well. The Nikon f1.8 35 mm is a great lens for general shooting and keeps your camera footprint small and easy to carry. Don't know if this helps or not. Hope you make the best choice for you. « Show Less
1346883
I have the 50mm f1.8 and love everything about it. My only problem is the focusing speed. I don't mind spending $340 for the 1.4 but I read alot of people had problem with it and have to send it in for repair. This made me very nervous. Anybody familiar with this problem? One more thing, if you want to choose between the 50mm or 85mm, check the crop on your camera first. Ex. T3i have a 1.6 vs 5D have a 1.0 meaning a 50mm on a T3i is equal to a 80mm on a 5D.
678606
Well, the f/2.8 is a much newer lens and is superior to the f/4 in many performance aspects (AF speed, accuracy, etc). Don't get me wrong, though. The f/4 is still a solid performer. Sometimes, the f/4 captures better photos in the f/4-f/5.6 range than the f/2.8 does in that range.Now, since you stated that weight is a concern for you, I'd point out that the f/2.8 is a whole two times heavier than the f/4. The f/4 is also half the price of the f/2.8.If you shoot in low-light or indoor, then the f/2.8 is for you. If you shoot outdoor and have plenty of light, then the f/4 is just as good. Well, the f/2.8 is a much newer lens and is superior to the f/4 in many performance aspects (AF speed, accuracy, etc). Don't get me wrong, though. The f/4 is still a solid performer. Sometimes, the f/4 captures better photos in the f/4-f/5.6 range than the f/2.8 does in that range.Now, since you stated that weight is a concern for you, I'd point out that the f/2.8 is a whole two times heavier than the f/4. The f/4 is also half the price of the f/2.8.If you shoot in low-light or indoor, then the f/2.8 is for you. If you shoot outdoor and have plenty of light, then the f/4 is just... » Read More Well, the f/2.8 is a much newer lens and is superior to the f/4 in many performance aspects (AF speed, accuracy, etc). Don't get me wrong, though. The f/4 is still a solid performer. Sometimes, the f/4 captures better photos in the f/4-f/5.6 range than the f/2.8 does in that range.Now, since you stated that weight is a concern for you, I'd point out that the f/2.8 is a whole two times heavier than the f/4. The f/4 is also half the price of the f/2.8.If you shoot in low-light or indoor, then the f/2.8 is for you. If you shoot outdoor and have plenty of light, then the f/4 is just as good. « Show Less
448719
i dont have the 24 85mm to truly give you a comparison. but according to a few reviews and test i saw the 24 85mm has a slightly better sharpness wile the 24 to 120 has more focal length. so it depends on what you are going to be shooting and what you want to pay for your lens.and fyi if you go for a 24 to 120mm i dont reccomend this version of it as its one of nikons worst modern lenses . get the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-120mm f/4G ED VR its the revised version and supost to be a better lens. or if you really want focal length the 28mm to 300mm hope this helps
735066
I have both lenses. Are different lenses for different uses. With the 50mm 1.8 you can get a great bokeh to 1.8. (In my opinion the great problem for this lens is the quality of imagen is not good in the edges at 1.8). The 50 mm 1.8 is perfect for begins in the bokeh. Personally, I bought the 40mm 2.8, because is the smallest lens in the market. I can carry my camera with this lens every where. This lens (40mm) has a great quality of imagen from 2.8 to 22. If you look for a lens for portrait, buy 50 mm. If you look for a compact lens with excelent quality, I recomend 40mm.
709666
The difference between the two lenses is the focal length. I personally have both lenses in my arsenal because they are NOT the same or even that similar, as some have said. The nifty fifty, as it's known, is great for portrait close-ups. It produces creamy bokeh that is absolutely gorgeous. The 35mm can also be used as portrait lens but it won't give you anything near the beauty of the composition of a 50mm shot. Also, it's a wider angle (the smaller the number the wider the lens) so basically if you were to stand at the back of a room full of people with a 50 on and look through your viewfinder, then stand in the same spot but change your 50 to the 35, you'll find that you can see more of the room (hence, wider angle) through the 35. I recommend buying both but if you're just getting started and looking to save money, definitely go with the 50mm.
1183540
I've never used the canon 85mm but the there is almost no difference in sharpness with th Sigma lens. The price difference is only justified by the lower F stop.
735071
I'd have to say it comes down to what your purposes/needs are. As others have noted, the 50mm is more cheaply-built, but less expensive and will give you shallower depth of field if that's what you need. That said, if you can deal with a stop less of lens speed, the 40mm is better-built, half the size, focuses more closely, operates more quietly, is at least as sharp, and is overall more versatile.
735074
For starters, the 50mm 1.8 is all plastic. It just doesn't have the same quality feel.Secondly the size is very different. It feels like there isn't even a lens with the 40mm on.Most important is the speed and accuracy of auto focus. The 40 is L quality. It is silent and fast whereas the 50 is slow and loud. Image quality is near the same. Wide open the 40 is clearer, but the 50 is 1.8, so that makes a diffence. Hope this helps.
464456
No comparison. Ability to go to F1.4 makes the depth of field control so much better. These two lens are in completely different class.
1330640
The big difference is image size on your cameras sensor. With this lens you can get a one to one size reproduction. With your 50mm that image size is going to be much smaller and with less detail.
838886
I find the 85mm a bit faster in focusing *if* you're a fair amount of distance from your subject, as is intended with what's essentially a portrait lens. If you try to squeeze a macro shot out of it, the auto-focus just grinds back and forth trying to get a lock. That said, I have an older model 50mm 1.4 and never found the speed of focus (with a D3S and D800) to be outrageously slow, so take that into consideration with my answer.
767676
This lens and the Pentax 18-55 II are not really comparable. The 18-55 is a zoom, and the DA 50mm f1.8 is a prime, meaning, of course, no zoom. It's fixed at 50mm. Also, the 18-55 II will only open up to f3.5, so you really won't get the lovely narrow depth of field that you get with the 50mm f1.8, which is what makes this lens so attractive and seductive. So I guess it depends on what you want. The 18-55 would make a better walk-around utility lens. The 50mm f1.8 is a specialized, portrait lens that will give you a fantastically blurred background when shooting subjects up close. Personally, I think you should have both in your lens collection.