Ive been shooting with Nikon DSLRs for like 10 years now, mostly weddings and some event stuff. Ive always relied on my 24-70mm f/2.8 because its a workhorse but lately Im feeling like my portraits are just missing that special look, that really thin depth of field you cant quite get at f/2.8. So I was thinking about finally investing in a dedicated prime. My logic was to go straight for the 85mm f/1.4G because its a total legend for skin tones, but then I started seeing people raving about the 105mm f/1.4E and now Im second guessing my whole plan. The 85mm seems better for the smaller studio space I rent in downtown Chicago, but that 105mm compression looks insane for outdoor work. Ive got about $1200 to spend and Im trying to have this sorted before a big headshot session for a local theater group in three weeks. I even looked at the Sigma Art series but Ive heard mixed things about AF consistency on the D850 compared to native glass. Is the f/1.4 really that much better than the f/1.8 versions in real world use or am I just chasing specs for no reason? Just stuck on which way to go...
The Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 85mm f/1.8G is a more practical choice. Its sharper than the 1.4 version and fits your studio better than the 105mm. Save that extra cash.
> Is the f/1.4 really that much better I love my Tamron SP 85mm f/1.8 Di VC USD! The stabilizer is amazing and it totally saved my hands during a long theater shoot! Its fantastic value, love it!
Saved for later, ty!