Nikon 85mm F/1.4D prime lens, retro, portrait — The Non Digital Look - 85mm f/1.4D Nikkor fits the bill. Screen Danger - 85mm f/1.4D prime lens.

Introduction

On this website I have previously written in detail about my ethos when shooting people. The advent of high resolution camera sensors combined with ultra sharp lenses, means we have to be very careful these days otherwise we can easily obtain nasty 'digital’ crunchy looking images; with an unnatural looking feeling to them, too much sharpness and I feel also, strongly connected to this is the general tendency to overprocess images beyond where any sane person would take a still image. Here, I want to go into more detail on this and talk about some of my three favourite lenses I use to achieve this classic look in my shooting style. Why am I still using ancient lenses in this day and age? Well, I hope to show you why. Keep in mind, we are talking portraiture here, and that is often a documentary style, in the moment type of shooting, sometimes with pure available light or speedlights / reflectors. You can be sure that for other genres, for example landscape and astrophotography style shooting, I would be using entirely different lenses, so please bare that in mind. Please also bare in mind when looking at any of the example photographs here, that the images are compressed for websites, and as such, aren’t as sharp and has high quality etc as they will be natively on my 32 inch 4K monitor or in print. This is in order to allow the website to load in a reasonable time for all readers.

135mm f2 DC Prime Lens Portrait — Arcade Girl - 135 f2 DC Nikkor

Vision

When shooting portraiture, generally I do not prioritise sharpness / ultra sharp lenses much at all, and certainly not as much as the average photographer seems to. (No, this doesn’t mean I leave motion blur in images - maybe I am too used to photography forums?). I find most modern primes to be sufficiently sharp for the task of portraiture, so this really is a lower priority on my list. Heck, I find most old primes to be sharp enough. In fact, most prime lenses ever built are sharp enough for me, especially when we are talking about 50mm and 85mm lenses. This is because optically, they are quite simple designs to produce and achieve good results. I have a saying - ‘if the lens feels soft, your light isn’t right.’ It is so true. (Even an ultra sharp lens looks soft if the lighting is wrong for the shot: try it and you’ll see I’m right on this one). I need to reiterate this basic point whilst we are talking about image sharpness, for me, even babies with perfect skin look better with a slightly softer lens that produces some level of spherical aberration at it’s widest apertures, essentially, to be shot with a lens that is tuned to being used for portraits. Spherical aberration is a biggie when it comes to portrait-tuned lenses; over correcting it in a lens design tends to adversely affect bokeh and the focal plane transition. It can also sometimes give a crunchy looking feel. This aberration goes away as we stop down, so lenses that have high correction tend to be very sharp from their widest aperture, and conversely lenses that are a bit softer and have a glow wide open generally are under corrected. With the 50mm lenses that I own: I use them on both full and crop framed sensor cameras, giving either 50mm or 85mm equivalent views respectively. The 85mm lenses of course end up as a much longer FOV on crop sensor cameras, around 135mm in fact. I like a good spacing between the primes I use, so mostly I am at 50 - 85 and 135 in order to get this. (Sometimes on a crop body, but mostly used on full frame).

Why is it that I prefer ‘softer’ lenses to shoot people with? Well, if we consider portraiture we have to remember a few things. Take weddings, which are at their very essence, a series of documentary style portraits / environmental portraits for the most part. Wedding clients tell me again and again what makes a good picture for them, and I hear the same thing from them time after time. That they look good in the picture. Yes, that’s it. Sadly, many will perhaps, at least not at first, notice your masterfully constructed composition, or the way in which you have worked the light; they might note your impeccable timing (because of course, they know it’s a good picture because you caught the moment, and that is a skill in itself) however, this is what the initial impressions of most are, and we must remember and give it weight as photographers’. Make no mistake, they may eventually see a lot more on reflection, however to start with, what they want is to look good. This is where I start.

When we observe people in our daily lifes, our family, our friends, our brains don’t tend to study or labour on their flaws and faults. Their skin, the crows feet they have, the wrinkles around their lips. This is crucial. because in constructing a beautiful portrait of someone, we need to keep that in the forefront of our minds. Camera sensors are of such high resolution now, and lenses so ridiculously sharp (they have their applications, landscape photography, astrophotography), that we start off with something that disconnects from the reality I am speaking about here. Our brains don’t see these things. When we take a portrait, we capture an instant in time. Look at any of the famous 17th and 18th century painters. Do you see what they did? Do you think the people actually looked like these paintings in terms of 100% accuracy of the depiction? Of course not. Most of them, are romanticised viewpoints, and rightly so: they understood their purpose in crafting a beautiful portrait of someone. Of course the resulting painting still looked like them, just them on a very good day, in very look light (for the most part, of course). This is one big reason, I like to start closer to this goal when shooting. I can already hear people mumbling at their screens to simply ‘soften it in post’ or jump through this or that hoop. Yes, we can try to do these things, however, clearly, they have not shot weddings! It just doesn’t work as well, or indeed how they think it will, and it is absolutely not the same as using one of these lenses here that I recommend to get a specific look or rendering. This is where, at the very least, I would if using an ultra sharp lens with a high resolution sensor, consider a mild softening filter at the time of shooting to bring things into line. ‘Prosofton Clear’, or ‘Prosofton A’ (stronger softening effect) are viable options, also useful for astrophotography use to bring out constellations. I use these regularly, however, none of the pictures here have any filters applied and while do have some post processing to dodge and burn the light and whatnot, most are very lightly edited, which is my particular ethos for portraiture.

NB: My ethos in landscape shooting is different. The reason being, in portraiture, we should be able to get the light as we need it, or right for the subject at the time of shooting in a singular frame. If we are using flash, be it strobes, speedlights, and whatever light modifier / diffusion we are using: we have control over that process. Further more, it’s easy to capture the full dynamic range of a portraiture scene most of the time. If we do things correctly when shooting a portrait, we should have much less to do in post processing unless we want to do a very specific type of edit, like for example a fantasy style of editing.. This is not the case with landscape photography, and it’s why those types of pictures require much more input to get them to look realistic to the scene. I don’t know of any stills cameras that can do 24 stops of range in order to do what I am asking, so I take multiple images often and exposure blend them. There is simply no other way to create realism in landscape photography.

Understanding Light and Post Processing

These two are prerequisites which take years to become competent at, and most shooters continue developing their entire shooting career; constantly improving and refining their methods and workflows. This is probably true of all crafts. We constantly learn and evolve, even if we don’t properly realise that we are doing so. I am a shooter that uses mostly available light, however do not think that means I don’t know how to light a scene: I am a dyed in the wool wedding shooter in my beginnings, I used to read a lot of Neil Van Niekerk of ‘Tangents’ and I own many of his books. I love using on and off camera flash, and when needed small soft boxes and umbrellas come out. I think pushing yourself to learn flash photography to some degree really lets you understand available light in a deeper way, and in learning flash photography (even if you just do the basics) will ultimately improve your available light shooting techniques. Sometimes available light sucks, and you have step in and make your own; so you might as well learn the basics of that craft for those situations. As mentioned, available light is something I just use more of, simply because the way I photograph is very much a documentary style when it comes to people, and I mostly like to travel light, without speedlights or other lighting equipment for the most part: their are exceptions of course. (Often, I’ll just take x1-2 prime lenses and a reflector). Generally speaking, I don’t pose most of my photographs’ although there are exceptions to this also.

Post processing is something that most shooters constantly reflect on. Heck, if most of us look back to our post processing from 10 years ago, we might not be happy at what we find! Understanding how to use editing software to the best of our ability to create the pictures we want to create is ultimately a big ticket item, alongside crafting the image at the scene. So let’s get this out of the way: ensuring we have favourable light on our subject and we can process competently for the images we want to create matters more than what lens or camera you are going to buy. Never forget this simple truth, because it’s forgotten time and time again.

* Let me show you a set of lenses that play well together *

50mm f/1.4D Nikkor

This shot of my son is a fairly good example of what I am looking for in a picture of this genre. This was shot at ISO 400, 1/80 at f/1.4 on the venerable Nikon D810. I should have shot this at ISO 64, as I have burned the highlight a touch more than I would like on the hair, however, the moment always trumps perfect settings. If it happens, you shoot, you don’t adjust and play with ISOs.

Do you see the glow in this shot? It’s not added in post. Above that radiator in the background is a large window, allowing beautiful overcast daylight to backlight the scene. Because I have went for the full effect here, shooting at f/1.4, I have a lot of spherical aberration glow going on across the entire image. The process of editing was simple - I constrained it to lightroom. I mildly modified WB and tint, I added some mild global contrast via a curve with no black-fade, I put the shadows and midtones where I like them. I masked and dodged a little (just gently), I very gently upped the vignette to bring out some details and make the image pop more. I think I was maybe fifteen minutes until I got this how I wanted it to look. (sometimes I try different approaches of editing on each image).

Nikon 50mm f/1.4D beautiful retro rendering — Climber - 50mm f/1.4D

The 50mm f/1.4D Nikkor is a lens I fell in love with over a decade ago (must be about 14 years actually). I’ll start by saying that this lens is not optically perfect, and this is no surprise. It was a 50mm lens that pros used in the film days in the 90s and 2000s. What actually attracted me to this lens was the overall look from the files (or as photographers’ call it, the rendering). It is so far removed from how modern lenses reproduce a scene. This lens is pretty well built; yes it incorporates high quality plastics and it has a metal mount. There is no weather sealing, and the barrel extends when focusing close or far. It comes with no lens hood, however it is easy to attach a foldable rubber one if so required. It has several ‘optical flaws’, it being an older design from the 1990’s. It flares much easier than modern 50mm lenses, (and with that, contrast drops if flare occurs), it’s contrast is low wide open, (and it especially looses a fair bit of contrast in contra-light situations as you can see here). It is what many would call ‘soft’ wide open by todays standards. Heck, this is something that has never phased me, because I barely even sharpen any of my work. I just don’t like the look it gives. (Most of my images are left at a very low 40-60 default in Adobe’s Camera Raw, depending on the thickness of / or presence of an anti-aliasing filter in camera). In addition to the softer look this lens provides at maximum aperture, it comes with bags of spherical aberration at it’s first aperture. This literally looks like a glow that runs across the image and can vary depending on the direction and quantity of the reflected light in the shot. It can be controlled by stopping down just slightly and it dissipates quickly in doing so. The lens vignettes fairly heavily at f/1.4, and quickly improves. Most of my work leaves the vignettes’ in from each particular lens. I consider it for the most part, integral to the draw of the lens (rendering). This 50mm lens has quite a lot of of chromatic aberration against high contrast objects in harsh light, which leads to spherochromatism (purple or green coloured glow around the focal plane area). This is an optical flaw that can be controlled in post processing to an extent. It can also be controlled by stopping down, however it can be significant and we need to be mindful of it when shooting. It’s bokeh is gorgeous in the right circumstance, in others it appears to be what some people would describe ‘a little nervous’. It is definitely unique. Everyone is going to have an opinion on this. Most of the time, I like the bokeh. Sometimes I don’t. This is true of mostly every lens I own. Modifying the actual background, or subject to background distance, or camera to subject distance, are fairly simple ways to improve things if you are not happy, however. It gives a fairly nice 3D feel to the image overall. Let’s even dare call it, that it has some 3D-Pop…

The Bridesmaid. A good example of the SA Glow in the 50/1.4D. (D810)

Strengths / Weaknesses of the 50 f/1.4D: For me, this is a lens to shoot people or things with during the daylight hours, although it can be used in other circumstance of course. Consider my thoughts in the ‘Vision’ section of this article and you will see why I like this lens. It’s not too crunchy / sharp wide open. I absolutely abhor that look in modern photography, especially when it comes to portraiture. That crunchy-gritty look does most people no favours. The shots with modern lenses are often highly post processed in order to tone that down, especially if they have shot their subject stopped down a lot. This is a very lightweight lens, such that on any DSLR the combination feels like there is no lens is attached - a definite plus in most shooting environments. In terms of weaknesses, night is perhaps one I would note. At night, this lens has such under corrected spherical aberration (SA), that the glow becomes too much. Combined with the high contrast nature of night time lighting, CA also rears it’s ugly head and it can get a bit much. That said, with care, it can be used, and used well, stopped down. With a speedlight and a stopping down, I really love the retro heptagonal ‘stop sign’ bokeh that we get behind the subjects when we move off of the first aperture. (If you want round, even stopped down, and a more safe rendering at night, look at the 50/1.4 or 1.8G variants). Another potential weakness could be the softness out with the central zone for daylight portraiture; when considering very off axis compositions, such s when using quadrant framing (think ‘Mr Robot’ cinematography), your subject may appear a little softer. I have not personally found this to be a problem however, and find that overall I am pleased with the look I get from the lens. This for me, overrides any concerns. Do note, that I own x3 50mm primes currently. and I have a zoom that also covers 50mm! I can simply switch to a different type of rendering if I really want it for the picture I am looking to make.

Tip: If you are a cheapskate, grab the 50mm f/1.8D. It is quite a bit cheaper, and it’s 85% of this lens and it is another 50mm lens I own and love. And it’s even lighter…

Stop Sign Bokeh when stopped down to f/2.5 here

85mm f/1.4D Nikkor

This above picture, made with the 85/1.4D on a D800, is one that I shot many years ago. I took this picture stopped down to about f/2 because the girl was so close to me. This was an attempt to get more depth of field and detail in both eyes; I should have perhaps considered f/2.8-3.2 area however, since her right eye is slightly soft. For me, this isn’t something that makes this a bad portrait however. I think it almost adds to the melancholy of the shot, a sort of ‘glint in her eye’. I have said previously that, as photographers’ we have to make judgements and when shooting documentary style portraiture as I am showing here, we cannot be missing shots over absolute perfect settings. That of course doesn’t mean we shouldn’t have a serious grasp on exposure and all the rest of it, what I mean is if a shot presents itself, don’t be worrying about slightly lowering the ISO setting to get a bit less noise in the end shot. By doing this, you will just miss the shot altogether. That’s a whole lot less noise you just got! There is a saying, make hay while the sun is shining. It’s never been truer here. Knowing how to meter a scene, and how to expose properly is paramount. These should be intuitive functions to the seasoned photographer, and if you are learning, this should be your ultimate goal.

Bokeh Panorama using a long lens. — A huge Bokeh Panorama built with the 85/1.4D

When I speak about the 85mm f/1.4D, a lens which has been with me for about fifteen years (the same lens, still working like day one), I mean this when I say: there is no other lens like this one; apart from it’s cousin which we will get to next. When it comes to shooting people, the 85 1.4D is legendary among portrait shooters of yesteryear, and it still holds it’s reputation to this very day. This is a lens that was designed for good skintones, bokeh and focal plane transitions and it shows all these years later. Again, this is not one of your ultra sharp modern lenses, however, it never produces soft looking results, providing the light is right as previously mentioned. This lens is built like a piece of military equipment. It is made with a lot of metal, some plastics and a metal mount. It was one of the first designs of it’s type to internally focus (Nikon designate that with ‘IF’ on the lens). It’s never skipped a beat in the around fifteen years I have owned it. I will admit I do baby lenses, so mine still looks as new, despite it being used regularly over the years.

Formal Stair Portrait - 85/1.4D With strobe camera right through large umbrella using manual flash at ¼ power

Speaking about the nitty-gritty…The 85/1.4d has fairly controlled spherical aberration for the standard of it’s time, however it is obviously not as well corrected as modern lenses are in that regard. (A good part of this was by design, in the knowledge that this would help bokeh and the focal plane area to look it’s best for this type of lens - this is still a serious consideration in modern lens design and the top optical designers are aware that correcting too many flaws can lead to other issues rearing their head). The lens does not produce a ‘glowy’ scene, to the same extent that the 50 does wide open, however that look it still there. (This can be both good and bad. If you want out of control glow, switch down to the 50mm f/1.4D prime lens in this article). The 85 has high level’s of coma and chromatic aberration by modern standards. The higher coma, is actually advantageous for bokeh qualities though and is also by design here. The lens has basically zero distortion, at just -0.6%. Not noticeable to the human eye I find. Just what we would want for compositional options when shooting. Vignette is high wide open, and quickly drops off as we stop down. This is a fairly normal phenomenon for lenses around even today. The 1.4D has incredible bokeh - this is of course what it is really known for. Bokeh balls are large, stay rounded throughout the range and look impressively cinematic in images. I’ve never seen any shot that had poor bokeh or anything but buttery smooth focal plane transitions.

I’m not sure I like the cliched modern lens look, for portraits. In fact no, I am sure. I don’t like it. When shooting people, I want a softer approach, a glow, a glorious bokeh, a painterly feel; a characteristic that the 85/1.4D achieves so effortlessly that it really does make the things we photograph appear like a 18th century painting. Why you might ask, do I want something like this? Is this not backwards thinking? Well, ask anyone you can name (let’s start with non photographers for a start), and you tell me if they want to look unique, dreamy and characterful, or do they want to be displayed at 45MP with an ultra modern lens that says it is tuned for portraiture on the box, but really would be better to be relegated to landscape shooting because it resolves so much fine detail that every single line on their face is shown in that single frame? I think for most, the answer is obvious. The reason for using this lens is obvious. It gets me to a finish point with a portrait picture much faster than other kit would. I don’t have to blur everything down, out of the box, I am so close to how I like to display image that I only do very basic edits to get things where I want them. (Very different to astro and landscape shooting - I wish this were possible! Due to huge shifting dynamic ranges and things like tracking - that’s rarely possible).

Strengths / Weaknesses of the 85mm f/1.4D: If you are a portrait guy, or a wedding shooter and know what you are wanting from an 85mm focal length, you may already know if this lens would fit the bill for you. There is also a perfectly capable 85mm f/1.4G version which they made a little sharper and has an inbuilt motor (pros and cons, that motor will wear out one day and paperweight the lens), but IMO Nikon lost some of that rendering I love in the first 1.4D version. (The 1.4D version focuses faster than the 1.4G, just like nearly all G lenses in the short prime arena, most of the AF-D’s beat them at autofocus speed by a long and noticeable way). I’ve also found that despite the marketing speak, AF-S primes aren’t really any more accurate in their focus, for the most part, compared to the older AF-D counterparts which use on-body screw driven motors.

Tip: If you are a cheapskate, (and can deal with manual focus), look at the some of the other 85 options in the Nikon eco system for that analogue look, the 85/1.4 AIS for one.

Giving Her Away - 135/f2 DC Nikkor on a D810 body. Shot at f2 and R0.

135 f/2D DC Nikkor

Nikon’s 135mm ‘defocus control’ nikkor is one that is very well matched to using alongside the 85/1.4. There is a 105mm version of this lens, however it makes very little sense to own it if you already own an 85mm lens. The 135 DC is, much like the 85, a legendary optic, with a unique system of being able to influence bokeh with an additional ring on the lens. (More on this soon). When Nikon brought this lens to market in the 1990s, they developed it with a special consideration for the red channel of light. Through some magic which I will admit off the top of my head I cannot remember right now (edit - must add this part in later), the 135 f/2 just makes skin tones look gorgeous. It’s effortless. It’s made from the ground up to shoot people, and it shows! The Nikon 135mm f/2 DC lens defocus control function works by using a special internal element group that separates from the main lens, controlled by a dedicated DC ring, to manipulate foreground and background bokeh independently, allowing for dreamy, creamy out-of-focus areas that standard lenses can't achieve, creating a distinct subject separation by being able to adjust the lens spherical aberration. Combined with the focal length of 135mm, this allows for some great compression of backgrounds, and much tighter portraits of people. The defocus control side to this lens is often misunderstood, so let’s explore that right now. This ring is independent of the aperture as mentioned, and allows control of front or rear bokeh. Used in it’s normal setting of ‘0’ or neutral, the lens functions like a normal fast telephoto, with a balance to the front and rear bokeh. As expected, the rear, or ‘R’ setting affects blur behind the focal plane. Setting this to ‘R2’ or ‘R4’ for example, will shift the internal elements to slightly increase the blur here, making it softer and more pronounced (it definitely increased the glow we see, which as mentioned we call spherical aberration). The effect is subtle, but noticeable to the discerning photographer. Setting the lens to ‘F2’ or ‘F4’ does what you would logically expect it to do, affects bokeh in front of the focal plane. In oder to use the lens effectively, it’s best to match the DC ring to the aperture, or have the aperture smaller than the DC ring at all times, or you will encounter severe SA and glow to the final picture. For example, shooting at an aperture of f/2.8, ensure you are at either ‘R0’ ‘R2’ or ‘R2.8’, If you set to ‘R4’ while shooting at an aperture of f/2.8, the lens will glow like crazy. You can use this effect creatively as you see fit. Ambient or added light greatly effects how this all plays together, so it needs time and patience to master. This really is the takeaway of this lens. Yes it can be used as a simple fast telephoto, however for those willing to take the time to really master it, the rewards are there for those that do so. Let’s look at a simple example of the DC lens in action with the aperture set to f/3.5 speed on the lens, with the ‘R4’ setting on the DC ring (slightly ignoring my own rules here). Click for a larger view on desktop, or tap, pinch zoom on mobile to see:

If you have not shot with this defocus control lens you may still have a lot of questions. Sadly, many of them won’t be answered until you sit down and learn how to get the best out of this optic. What I can say is there are a few common misconceptions about it. Every photographer knows that using a 135/2 lens on a full frame sensor at average subject to camera distances, shot wide open, tends to render a lot of background blur. So it is reasonable to ask, why even stop down at all and start changing the bokeh with the rear setting? If we want the best bokeh (or most bokeh) why not just use f2. Well. it’s more nuanced than this. Shooting down at f/3.5-5.6 as I do with this lens, then applying some rear effect, gives back that beautiful SA glow that old lenses have. You can really see it on the above image and hopefully the crop gives a better view of the look achieved when doing this. Some will not appreciate this effect and that is fine, the lens can be shot plain-jane too. I use a mixture of settings when using the lens, and have spent many hours with it over the years.

Strengths / Weaknesses of the 135mm f/2D DC: 135mm primes are outdoor lenses to me, or for headshots in doors (usually with additional lighting I might add). There are of course many options nowadays at this focal length. What the 135 f2 DC does differently is that it offers an ‘old school’ rendering, matching the 85 and to some extent the 50/1.4 nicely in this article. it’s major strength would be it’s reproduction of skin tones. On the weakness side, it is an older lens so do not expect it to consistently track fast moving sportspeople (not the right lens for this) however for the most part I find it’s autofocus is competent on a pro level DSLR that I am satisfied. I am not something that will loose sleep over a tiny focus miss now and then either. (Yeah, that used to be me, until I learned what I know now - although we strive for perfect focus, sometimes a picture is slightly out but simply too great to ignore. Is the Mona Lisa completely sharp?).

Tip: If you are a cheapskate, look at the many other 135 options in Nikon land, for example their older 135/2.8 AIS manual focus glass.

Fast Glass - There is No Substitute for Aperture!

I have always been a shooter that appreciated fast aperture glass. From the moment I held a proper camera, as soon as I ditched the ‘slow’ zoom lenses I was happier. This want for aperture has stayed constant for me right until this day. I cringe when I hear shooters on forums tell me that we don’t need fast lenses now because ‘high iso is so good now’. That statement shows a naivety to understanding the properties of light and how they interact to produce good images. I like fast primes for many reasons. Number one on that list is the sheer flexibility they bring to the shooting equation. With 1.4 lenses I have four times more light than a 2.8 zoom has. This lets me be free of flash often and to work solely with available light. They allow me to isolate subjects much easier, and produce more cinematic images as a result. Although I work with available light a great deal, in the past I have spent a huge time and trouble learning to use strobes and speedlights and all the various diffusers available. I encourage anyone to learn manual flash, beginning with on camera TTL flash, right up to a strobe on full manual, in manual shooting modes. Anyone that does so, will become a better available light shooter by nature. Learning to bounce, diffuse, flag and control light and ultimately understand how it interacts with our cameras and lenses is crucial in this game.

I have seen many people in forums talking about how they needed to upgrade from f/1.4 glass to the newer f/1.2 lenses Nikon have pumped out. I used to want 1.2 glass when I was looking at Canon’s offerings from the Nikon ecosystem. Their 50/1.2 used to call to me, as did their 85/1.2. (By the way, these are both legendary optics, however this is not solely because of their apertures!). I fully expected myself to lust for this when Nikon went to mirrorless, as I knew they’ve offer them. (Nikon previously only had a manual focus 50/1.2 because 1.2 glass is a little difficult to get around the narrower dimensions of the F mount, compared to Canon’s EF mount of the time). When the time rolled around and we saw Nikon produce as expected, a bemoth of a 50/1.2 (optically great of course) and in the same vein, an 85/1.2 and a 135 1.8. Consider I already own what works for me - the multiple 50s (at either f/1.4 or 1.8 speeds), the 85/1.4 and the 135mm at f/2 speed. Changing purely for aperture was something I worried I would do on a whim, however when it came about I had a rethink. I was glad I didn’t even want these lenses. (The bank account was also fairly glad about this also). When we look at the difference between f/1.4 and f/1.2 speeds, it’s not as big as a difference between coming from an f/2.8 or slower zoom, down to a fast f/1.4 prime. And, for that half a stop or under extra speed that a 1.2 lens provides over a 1.4, often they vignette so heavily you really aren’t gaining a huge amount anyway, however the weight seems to skyrocket (especially to keep these, optically superior). Although I don’t personally like the shift to these types of lens, I do not have any ill feeling about it. I am glad to live in a time where there are so many options that I can find exactly what fits right for me. You might ask, what if all this stuff breaks one day? Well, we can cross that bridge in time, however, there are so many places that can repair this stuff, and so many copies in mint condition ready to be snapped up on ebay that it won’t matter. And if, which I do not for a moment believe, there are no bodies or lenses that work anymore in this vein and I cannot get repairs, then I will explore other options that best fit my needs then. No matter what system was required to shoot them.

Noise

There are two main types of noise we need to deal with, read noise - which is the noise created internally by the electronic gubbons of the camera, and read noise - the inherent noisiness of the light itself that even our eyes can pick up on, in certain situations. Read noise is something that varies camera to camera. Check out Photonstophotos.net to learn more about which cameras do well in this regard, and to gain a deeper understanding of this topic. I want to talk about shot noise here. Noise, like sharpness, is probably, I would say, the second most discussed, debated, pondered thing on internet photography forums. And heaven’s above is it dull to hear about over and over! From what I am seeing currently, noise reduction tools (AI and otherwise) really kill the realism of a photograph for me. Do me a favour and go back and look at the initial image here. (I can put up a flickr link as it will display a lot better and as intended there). I dislike the way websites compress the natural noise range in an image however this shot, in this case still looks pretty good. I am here to tell you, I barely did anything with the noise in this image. Bit of shot background here: I used the fast 85/1.4D to capture the available light at the scene, being careful to compose so that the background light struck the top of his head, the phone light illuminated from below (to give a mild ominous vibe) and that the background was left dark as it was on scene. My settings where 1/100. f/1.4 and ISO 3200 (it did need a boost in post as all high ISO shots often need, so consider this around ISO 6400). I make sure baby was placed with good separation to scene elements and in a logical place in the picture. I think of bokeh and backgrounds not as something to just lazily ‘blur away’ but something to compose the subject around physically. This always makes for a better image. The resulting final picture looks extremely analog. It could have come off a film camera of yesteryear. By using heavy handed noise reduction, most of what I am seeing online is overdone plasticy skin, no grain structure from the natural noisy nature of the light and it just absolutely kills realism and mood to me. I do wonder why everyone copies each other now. We are all so into our AI denoise stuff - it’s mostly ugly and increases for me, the digital look of the resulting file. That’s a look for the most part, I want to avoid.

Final Thoughts

Shooting with lenses as old as this might sound crazy, and you might feel I am stuck in the past. Perhaps I am! However, the only thing that matters is I feel at one with these lens. I’ve spoke before about my dichotomy between landscape and portraiture / weddings. I use completely different lenses, because I have completely different goals in the pictures that I make with them. We should never confuse these lens types! It must be said, I am also a cheapskate when it comes to considering buying another product when I already have something that works the way I want it to. Buying all these lenses again for mirrorless bodies doesn’t make any sense because of that simple fact, and DSLRs are cheap now, the D800. and D810 are reasonably priced for the amount of camera you get. They drive these lenses well. There is also the more than competent D750 etc.

I am in the slightly unusual situation whereby I am using modern, class leading zooms / some primes (20/1.8S) for landscape photography, and by those standards, ancient prime lenses for portrait with a range of optical flaws that when we correct, the lens isn’t as nice of a portrait lens for me anymore. These principals still govern modern prime lens design. Computer aided lens design allows a lens maker to test many different configurations quickly, whereas in the past this was simply not possible. Many lenses have sharpened right up; however something has been lost in the process to the overall look. I am not advocating that you should blindly follow my way; however if you get where I am coming from, you will probably understand why I am still shooting with lenses like mentioned in this article to this day. I never advocate simply copying someone else. If you feel like trying these lenses make sure your thoughts at least in some way align with mine. I extend this to other lenses I have tried from other systems over the years in the Canon and Sony ecosystems. There is a lot of old glass that is just perfect to photograph people out of the box that we have perhaps lost something quite characterful which old glass tends to bring to the equation, in the quest to achieve that ‘optical perfection’.

If you enjoyed this article, consider following me on Instagram or Facebook.

Steve

Blog

The Non-Digital Look with Lenses like the 50mm f/1.4D, 85mm f/1.4D and 135 f2 DC: Character, Not Specs