About expensive lenses

"M-M" wrote in message ...

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

Is the extra stop really worth all that extra expense?

No. The 85mm f1.8 AF is a superb lens, sharp to the corners
even wide open, at all focus distances.

Why not just up
the ISO to compensate for those shots that really need the speed?

Am I missing something?

No. A little bump in sensitivity (just when would this *really* be
needed...?) should be fine, *if necessary* - but the difference
can also usually be made up with a slightly lower shutter speed
(with repeated frames to assure a sharp one).
--
David Ruether


http://www.ferrario.com/ruether

David Ruether wrote:
"M-M" wrote in message ...

Why not just up
the ISO to compensate for those shots that really need the speed?

Am I missing something?

No. A little bump in sensitivity (just when would this *really* be
needed...?) should be fine, *if necessary* - but the difference
can also usually be made up with a slightly lower shutter speed
(with repeated frames to assure a sharp one).

Sure, if you're in a brightly-lit studio or something it's easy, no need
for fast lenses.

I'm often shooting at my maximum aperture, maximum ISO (or max usable; I
haven't tamed the 1600 settings on my D200 yet), and a shutter speed
so low that I lose about 2/3 of the photos to subject motion (not camera
motion, subject motion). Slowing down the shutter another stop would
probably raise the reject rate to 99%, so that's not really a choice.
Buying a whole new system where I could shoot at ISO 3200 has its
atractions, though I haven't seriously considered it yet. So I like
fast lenses a lot.

Though I did settle for a used 85mm f/1.8 rather than paying for the
f/1.4; I know I can get by okay at f/1.8, and and I got mine for $250
(an AF, not the newer AF-D); the jump to an f/1.4 was not really
something I could afford at the time. I've got the 58mm f/1.2 NOCT for
the *real* emergencies.