I have always found your videos to be very informative, and this one is no exception. However, I feel it would be easier to tell the difference if the model had maintained the same pose for each shot, and the shots had been presented side-by-side on screen.
I'm becoming a big fan of the Matt Granger videos, and this is a good example. You tackle an important question, illustrating the different considerations in a straightforward and time-efficient manner. You also drop remarks concerning the overall quality of each lens in the process which is ery useful. Not all online reviewers are as respectful of the time, intelligence and needs of the viewer. Well done.
So honest question to people that watched the video. Did you notice any difference in how compression affects the way her body is portrayed? I'm pretty sure the laws of optics say there's a difference, but in these focal ranges, my untrained eyes are really struggling in notincing any considerable difference.
you'd notice more if he kept the post constant. the difference is clearer on tight headshots rather than full body shots as people notice small changes in facial features.
At the end you kinda said it all: invest on a good 70-200mm f/2.8 and you won't need anything else. The only fixed focal lens I invested in was a 50mm f/1.4; my other lens besides the 70-200 is a 24-70mm f/2.8.
the only lens i have right now is two primes namely 35/1.4 and 135 F2, im kind a surviving pretty well with both of these, but sometimes i feel the need to have that zoom but maybe later
João Soares Eh, I have the 70-200 2.8 and the 85 1.8... they're both amazing, but I use them for different reasons. One won't (can't) replace the other.
***** For most stuff, I'll use the 70-200 (nikon 2.8 VRII). Its just amazing. It has a fantastic range, lightning quick AF, ect.. I'd recommend it over the 85 if you're just going to get one, since you can shoot a wide variety of subjects with it.. I use the 85 when I really want to isolate the subject from the background. You really notice the depth of field difference between 1.8 and 2.8. If you shoot at 200mm at 2.8 its pretty close, but you don't always have the room to do that. Another thing that I like about the 85 is the minimum focusing distance is a lot shorter than the 70-200. My 70-200 has a min focusing distance of like 4 1/2 feet, where as my 85 is about 2 1/2. That can make a big difference of you're shooting something smaller and want a shallow DOF. But the most often times that I use it, is when the light is really low.. Theres a big difference between the amount of light you can collect with the bigger aperture. My daughter turned 1 recently, and I was able to take a pic of her just lit with her 1 birthday candle. I think that was at ISO 6400. if I used the 70-200, id be above 12800ISO. I got the 85 on sale for $400 during a nikon rebate. For that price, its worth having in addition to the 70-200.. I wouldn't buy the f/1.4 version, because it sooo much more than the 1.8, and they're so close in performance its just not worth it for me. I hope that helps.. let me know if you have any other questions. Here's a link to my flickr account. you can check out some pics and see how each is used (along with other lenses). www.flickr.com/photos/64392908@N06/
Thanks for the video. For half-length, head & shoulder, and face shots, I use the following prime lenses on full-frame cameras: 85mm f/1.4 Nikkor (my only auto focus portrait lens) 90mm f/2 Leitz (great for photojournalism but my least favorite portrait lens) 100mm f/2.8 Nikon Series E (use as expendable backup portrait lens) 105mm f/2.8 Nikon macro (my personal favorite portrait lens) 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor (similar to lens used by Steve McCurry to shoot famous Afghan Girl photo) 135mm f/2 Nikkor (great for portraits but not sharp enough for landscapes or other distance photography)
Back in the stone ages of film I used 120mm film almost 95% of the time. Depending on if I used the schools camera, Pentax RB67 it had a 160mm lens, my Hasselblad I used a 120mm lens but most people used a 150mm lens. I would always have my subject about 5ft. from my background but the studio was very large also. If I shot a typical "Head & Shoulders portrait 120-150mm would be fine. Outdoors you can go and use whatever is needed depending on your background and how much you want to compress it. Jade, at 4:55 that is a great shot of your perfect Caboose ;-) Great Booty. The 85mm Nikon looks great but I have an old Nikon 105mm 2.5 Manual focus from Old. I would love the newer Nikon 105mm Micro as I could use the lens as a dual purpose lens.
I think it depends on the environment. For me, a focal length of around 85, 90 is going to be better. Japan is pretty crowded, and the only time I can see myself using a 100, 135mm is if I'm out in nature, which is not very often. I'm actually looking at the possibility of getting a 90mm Leica lens right now, specifically for portraiture.
My vote is for the 105mm DC F/2 Nikkor. That lens is positively superlative all the way around, and is the perfect focal length for portraits. And that f/2 is very useful. And did I say it's less than half the price of that Zeiss lens?
I shoot with a Nikon D300s. I love portrait photography as well as landscape and street. A few months ago I purchsed the Nikor 85mm which I love. Crisp for indoor and outdoor portraits. Two weeks ago I gave myself an early BDay present - Nikor 70-200 VRII. Whatever is said about this lens is true. Perfection!
Focal length wise in reference to the subject to camera distance, i love the 85mm. The only thing why i opted to the 135mm is the bokeh in full body shot. the 135 is better in that area. and i love bokeh. half body i'm satisfied with the 85mm bokeh, not at full body. having said that, i should have both of them to use depending on the situations like indoor portrait where space is limited.
For me it is the 135mm because of my professional photographer film days. There were tons of not only OEM but third party also. Great review! I was very surprised to find that the 105 had aberrations.
For single subject portraits, I use the Nikkor 85mm f1.8G, Nikkor 70-200 f2.8 vrII, and I will soon be using the Zeiss 135 apo f2 when it arrives. This video and the one where you compare the Zeiss 85mm f1.4 Otus, the Zeiss 135 f2 apo and the new Nikon 70-200 f2.8 vr really sold me on the 135 so I ordered one that should arrive next week. Thanks for you time in making the video's Matt!
The 85mm is by far my most used lens for portraits, fashion, etc. And I use my 105mm f/2.8 macro for some head & shoulder and half length portraits... and every now and then I'll use the 135mm f2 DC for head & shoulder and half-length portraits. And I use my 50mm f/1.4 for some work, especially when I want to encluded some of my subject's environment. And I also use my 35mm f/1.4 for this type of work as well.
Another good one Matt. Since switching to the OLY system, I really like the 150 equivalent 75 1.8, but in studio I prefer the 45 1.8. On the other hand, since f stop is not an issue in studio, the most comfortable is a 24-70 equivalent zoom that saves me from moving back and forth.
Nice! Once you brought up the distortions I definitely started liking the look of the 135mm. I like to use wide lenses a lot for my shots because I enjoy getting up close and I also like getting more in the photo.
Well since you asked Matt. I am not a huge fan of the 85mm, even stretching to just 90mm gives a more flattering perspective for a head and shoulders frame. The 105mm is my go to portrait lens, and while a 135mm would be nice, I try not to double up on any focal lengths that my 70-200 covers.
It depend on lens sets you want to have. If you want to bring 1 lens it will be 50mm If you want to bring 2 lens it will be 35mm and 85mm If you want to bring 3 lens it will be 35mm 50mm 100mm And so on up to 10+ lens if budget is not problem. As far as single prime goes.
The extra bokeh of the larger f/1.4 aperture of the 85mm, and the fact that your camera to subject distance will be closer for the same framing, seems to offset the amount of blur a longer telephoto can produce. Therefore, I figure it comes down more to working distance. You can always use a shorter lens when you've got more room to work, but not the other way around, so the 85mm is probably the most versatile especially if you do weddings or events and have to work in close, with more light capability and the added shutter speed bonus of a shorter focal length. That being said, I love the 135mm DC, and the 105mm VR, but that Zeiss APO makes me tingle, just wish they made it with autofocus.
135 on full frame and 85 on DX frame. The Nikon 85mm f1.4 is a near perfect portrait lens on a Nikon d7200, d750 or d500. The fast 1.4 lens allows for better control of DOF that is often a problem with DX cameras. In good light or studio lighting I turn to my d7200 with the 85mm f1.4. In fact one of the reasons I still shoot with DX cameras is because of how nice the 85mm f1.4 works on them and I love turning my 70-200 f2.8 into a 300mm 2.8 lens.
I'm disabled so I take my pics seated in my wheelchair. My lower POV is sometimes a con, other times a pro. However: since it's difficult to move forward or backward easily primes are hardly an option for me. On the other hand: my Nikons 17 - 35, 24 - 70 and 70 - 200 give me everything I need. The 24 - 70 is a brilliant lens. For portraits I either use the 70 - 200 or the 105 micro.
For a more fairer comparison, I'd suggest for the model to remain still, and you have your camera on a tripod. Only move the tripod back (with the different lenses) in a straight line back just enough to cover the same subject's area in the viewfinder/LiveView. And yes, putting the images side by side would have in the comparison.
I normally shoot at around f/5.6 or f/8 for studio work while I like a wider aperture of at least f/1.8 when shooting outdoors. I usually have control of the backgrounds in a studio but, often like to blur busy backgrounds outdoors. For head and shoulder portraiture, I like a minimum of 85mm equivalent (usually longer). One of my favorite portrait focal lengths is the 70-200mm. However, the 85mm f/1.8 is great on both APSCand full frame cameras.
Its always been the 85mm for me hands down. It gives the right representation of the model, its light, and you can still talk to the model without yelling.
Nice vid, really covered what the differences were. Just gonna be a bit nitpicky though; When you add another music track in the background for the intro, you have to fade the first one while that's going on. I mean, it could of course work if the pieces were in the same key and bpm, but now it's a bit off-putting for a while. Avantgardists and various sample people have done this up over the years for that exact effect, but background music can't stay in the background if it draws attention to itself. I suspect I might be in a minority about this, but I think little things like that will improve your overall production quality.
Another great video from the maestro. Good work. Reading the comments, it seems there is some consensus but also opinions that differ. I often use a 70-200 mm f4 L or a 50 mm f1.4 lens myself. This is what many would expect to find on a full frame camera. I still feel however that it is a subjective thing and quite dependent on each individual photographer concerned. I actually have a cropped sensor Canon 20D and use a 50 mm f1.4 lens to emulate an 80 mm lens on an FF camera. It simply gives me the type of perspective that I most prefer both for close up head shots or half/full portrait work. In Kenya whilst on holiday I lent my 20D + 50 mm f1.4 lens combination to one of the local beach photographers. They were all working with 35 mm bridge cameras. It was interesting to watch them produce nice quality photos using quite basic equipment. Special for me was seeing them get enthusiastic about changes and improvements in perspective that we managed to make with just a few small adjustments. Just goes to show that it is still the skills of the photographer that are most important, rather than any limitations or special equipment that is used. So by all means do feel free to experiment and try out different combinations of lenses. Discover what perspective you prefer and what really works well for you.
Nice vid Matt. I prefer my Sony Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 indoors or out, and will always use it over the 85mm f/1.4 unless space or weight are issues. That's just for pure portraiture. For more environmental shots, I'll use wider focal lengths, even down to 20mm, with distortion of facial features becoming less flattering the wider you go. But if you keep a particular focal length's characteristics in mind when shooting, you can use them to your advantage artistically.
Nikon 85 1.8G is actually my favorite lens for portraiture and closeup. Really awesome lens. I don't like the compression from 135 and above, I only use the 70-200 for events and sports
Today's glass ain't got no soul. 135mm f2.8 Q-auto, single coated, AI is my go-to. 4 element, 4 group Enostar (proto-sonnar) design. Gorgeous painterly rendering that no amount of computational photography can replicate. Another great one is the 100mm f/2.8 E-series. Another 4-element Enostar design. Gorgeous rendering and a tiny, tiny, weightless lens. Perfect for environmental, natural light portraiture and candids. Last but not least -- the 105 AF-D 2.8 Micro. Because this is a true 1:1 micro lens, there is no constraint regarding close focus distance unlike all other true "portrait" lenses where you have to stand across the street. Hold the lens an inch away from your subject's eyeball if you want -- huge advantage. Take head shots, full body shots, extreme close-ups. Good enough bokeh -- nobody sets there and critiques your stupid bokeh in the real world. That only happens on the interwebs. You want nice subject isolation and a water painting-like background, which this gives you.
I'm partial to the Zeiss 135 1.8...since that's what I have for my Sony and I mostly shoot outdoors. I really like the bokeh and it's soooo sharp even at f1.8, which is what I shoot 99% of the time.
If you have space 200/2-2.8 > 135/2 > 100/2 ~ 85/1.8-1.2. The longer distances give the supermodel look. I own all of them, and that's my impression, however I stuck with the 100/2 makro planar, since it does it all good enough. Really hated carrying around a macro and dedicated portrait lens, now I just carry one. Isolation is great, super sharp, super contrast, hard to complain. EDIT: I'm not into macro btw, just really disliked the minimum focus distance of these portrait lenses. I can do eyelash shots with the 100MP
Thanks Matt. I was surprised to see that gross amount of chromatic aberration from the Nikkor 105mm DC at 5:24. Oddly, out of all the lenses you tested here, the 105mm measures best for CA in DxO Mark. Indeed, DxO Mark ranks the Nikkor 105mm DC top for minimum levels of CA among ANY lens in the 85 - 135mm range! Maybe you had a dodgy copy?
Eh, you can get rid of it with one click in LR. Not a big deal IMO. You can also stop down a little to minimize the CA, and the bokeh still looks awesome.
135 is the best. Perfect portraiture focal length but not especially versatile. 100/105's MACRO (or "Micro" if Nikon) come next. Close focus (macro) opens compositional doors. Problem with the 135 is close focus distance. 85mm is the most popular and the worst. Anything you can shoot with an 85 you can shout with a 50mm. You heard of the, "What's the best wide angle lens cliche? Answer -- "Two steps back".? Anything you can shoot with an 85 you can shoot with a 50 by taking "one step forward". 85mm is the most useless focal length everyone buys. Just shoot a fast 50. Also, don't pay for F2 or greater on the 135s or 100(5)s. F2.8 is perfectly fine. My 135 is a manual Nikon Auto-Q f/2.8 AI from the late-70's.. Perfect 4-element Ernostar (similar to Sonnar, and I actually prefer the Ernostar) design. 3D pop and black and white is "wow". $30. My 105mm is Nikkor 105 F/2.8 Micro AF-D. Straight-up traded the Nikon 85mm f/1.8 G, which you can keep. (The old 105 Nikon AF Mcro 105s go "all day long" for around $150 on eBay). And it wasn't the lens that caused me to get rid of it. It was the useless 85mm focal length. Summary. 135mm portraits only. 100 0r 105 MACRO lenses for max versatility with no close focus constraints. Portraits -- check. Great buttery bokeh -- check. Heashots and extreme close-ups? Check. Actual 1:1 macros -- check. Reasonably priced? Check. You can skip the useless 85mms. Just get a fast 50, preferably a 1.4. And don't pay crazy money for f2 or faster. F2.8 is fine for portraits both 135 and 100/5.
I was actually using a 50mm 1.8g last night in some boudoir photography, and I love my 105mm 2.8 Micro for outdoors or if I have room. Even though the plastic fantastic is a damn fine lens, the 105 just kicks it's ass, but the drawback is that it will show every flaw in your subject which can cause even more work in post.
Old Vivitar Series 1 90mm f/2.5 or Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 @ f/5.6 on Nikon FX/35mm outdoors or location; 150mm f/4 soft focus or 180mm f/4.5 @ f/8 on Mamiya RB67, or 180mm f/4 Sonnar @ f/8 on Hasselblad 500CM in studio.
So what is YOUR go to focal length for Portraiture? I have watched a lot of your videos discussing this subject but you dont really say what YOU prefer.
If you have got to go for a prime and you can only choose one lens to cover nearly everything, it has to be 85mm and then the F1.8G is then a natural for most of us.
I have the 85mm batis and the 135mm a mout zeiss. I would say the 135mm is my favorite focus length. If I feel the couple is having a hard time I will switch to the 85mm.
Matt...interesting comparison (and thanks to Jade for modeling), but since the difference is subjective...and since there really isn't a right answer, maybe the best choice is simply the lens that has the best IQ per dollar for a given budget (within this focal range of course), as that will do more for the image than any difference we might be able to see re: focal length.
I choose 85 when my subject wants to be shot. And I use 135 when I want to "steal" a portraiture or just to keep discret. And actually I prefer a 135 lens most of the time.
I've got an ancient Mamiya 135/1.8 (M42) on a glass-less Nikon adapter I rarely use. On the D7000 I can shoot head and torso before I'm beyond infinity focus. Otherwise I've very little in the portrait range
i'm assuming you are using that on a full frame body ? i'm also assuming most of your viewers are not professional photographers so they probably own crop body cameras and for us a 50mm is actually a 75-85mm, which is what i'm using
The best portrait lens? They are all the best and it is the lens characteristics and the photographers personal preference, not what someone else perceives. The Zeiss 135 is the best there is for a 135mm for sharpness, colour rendition etc (Now replaced with the weather sealed Milvus, similar price alleged and all round improvement) The 105DC out performs the 135DC all day. The 85mm 1.4 is questionable but again personal preference over the 85mm 1.8 Nikon.
I like to shoot the Nikon 85mm f/1.4D, Nikon 105mm f/2D DC and the Nikon 135mm f/2D DC. I have alot of space to shoot for B/W portraits indoor.. The 135mm is my favorite lens but the 85mm is the most i shoot. The 105mm is not a lens for color about the purple fringing.
I use my nifty fifty with my 20D. I love it, but I would like a longer lens, as I realized it's not one of the most versatile when it comes to portraits. The 135 stood out the most to me, but I'm not sure if I would use it on APSC. I would love to get the Canon 85 1.8.
Scratch that. I actually would like to get an 135mm. I zoomed it on my school's tele, and I must say, it's really flattering on the subject. I don't have money for the 135 f2L, but I heard the Canon 135mm f2.8 Soft Focus is pretty good, but at a fraction of the price of the L. Has anybody here use it before? I can't rent one through BorrowLenses or LensRental.
I do have a 50mm 1.8. I honestly really don't like using it for portraits. The field of view is different, but the overall compression of the lens doesn't change. A 50 will always be a 50. Sure, I get background blur due to the wide aperture, but it isn't very flattering when doing headshots. For me, I need a lens that is versatile for portraits. The 50mm for me isn't that lens.
***** What do you mean the compression doesn't change? It does of course. The distortion referred people are talking about with focal lengths is perspective distortion, which is not actually a property of the lens per se. A 50mm on FF is kind of wide for portraits, I agree. Now take a 50mm on APS-C and the angle of view (AOV) is now like that of a 75mm lens (except for Canon's slightly smaller APS-C, in which case the crop factor is 1.6 instead of 1.5 and it's like am 80mm). Now, you still want to frame the same way, (e.g. head filling the frame), but now you need to move further away in order to do that, which changes the perspective distortion to be the same as if you were using a 75mm (or 80mm) on full frame. Saying a 50 will always be a 50 doesn't mean anything, it's the same as saying that a 50 on APS-C acts like a 50 on APS-C, or that a 50 on FF acts like a 50 on FF, but surprise surprise a 50 on APS-C acts like a 75 (or 80) on FF. In other words, the context does matter, things look different when you use polar vs. lineaer coordinates even though your're graphing the same equation. Give this a good read: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28photography%29 Which is different than: optical distortion: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distortion_%28optics%29 If you don't like the look of the 50 on your APS-C, then you probably don't like the look of Matt's 85 on his FF. Which I think is echoed in that the 135 is what you liked most. Just what you said about the compression was wrong. You may actually like an 85 on APS-C as it would be 127.5 (or 136mm in the case of your Canon APS-C). Maybe check out some Canon 85mm f/1.8 images and see if you like those. That's a pretty reasonably priced lens.
I have to say that I love the 85mm 1,8 and my 70-200 L. The 85mm has a crazy sharpness on my 6D and even more so on APS-C and I really like the bokeh, on the other hand the 70-200 is more versatile and at least on full frame, my portraits are rarely under f4, so the f1,8ness is nice, but not my go-to aperture. Yet about half of my keeper-portraits are done with the 85mm, a reasonable number with the 70-200, a few with the 50mm or my Sigma 24-60. If you can afford it and don't mind primes, there is absolutely nothing wrong with buying a 85mm canon, to my eye the optical quality is outstanding and it kicks the [still very good] 70-200 where it hurts. If I had only one lens to choose for portraiture, it would be the 85mm, although I have to admit that I didn't miss it at all until I had one.
***** I'm just about to buy a 90 2.8 macro vc (d7100), I'm hoping this will give good results although I do no studio work (& I'm buying it for the macro). What does yours work like?
***** Yeah, I saw it. Yes, if you look at price, there's absolutely no reason why I shouldn't have it in my bag. Which I have =) Thx for the tip, always nice to see that the internet haven't gone to shit. Yet!
Matt..when you do lens comparisons could you please specify what camera body you are using ie. DX or FX. The reason I ask is because most DSLR cameras sold by far are DX cameras.
I have both the Nikon AF DC 105 f2 DC and the 135 in the same model. Which is worse with chromatic aberration color fringing? I think my 135 is worse being pretty bad from f2 to f4.5. It’s not bad at f5.6.
I am pretty much a newby to the game but I use the 50mm 1.8 for portraiture, but i have a crop sensor so its really like a 75mm. And i guess that's because I'm on a budget and the kit lens 18-105mm just isn't as good.
Matt Granger I know this video is a couple on months old, but I am considering getting the 135 Zeiss f/2 because of the DXO ratings putting it just under the Otus. I would be using it 90% of the time to photograph artwork as in paintings of mine. I have been using the 70-200 VC Tamron for this as the 200mm end stopped down to f/8 for ultimate sharpness and it has been working, but I am wondering if the Zeiss is worth the investment. I saw you take pics with the Otus at text and it was shocking how well it handled that. Being that my artwork is roughly the same thing do you think the 135 will handle it just as well as the Otus. Ok long question over. Hope you come to Seattle soon. Take care.
I have Zeiss 135mm f/2 and i-m using it on D800 (witch is a really demanding camera). It's the best lens i have ever got. I see no downside (i don't understand why people say manual focus is a downsider, if you need auto focus, get a auto focus lens and if you can manage with manual focus, get manual focus. it's simple). In my line of work i use only manual focus lenses. I use it most of the time at f/2, 2-3% of the cases i go to f/2.8 and that's it. It's peak sharpness is around f/4. At f/2 it does some vignetting but that's history, one click and it's gone without image deterioration. Forget about 70-200, even if you are not a pixel peeper you will see that it's a very big difference. This lens is a gem, forget about sharpness, that's top, you get contrast-micro/macro contrast (that people don't seem to understand how important they are), it's sharp from corner to corner. Ah btw, if you care about sharpness, Samyang have a new lens ;) a 135mm f/2 that from the first tests, it shows that it's better than Canon 135mm f/2 L. Better CA handling and much better sharpness than Canon at f/2-f/4. If you don't understand lenses at 100%, you don't need Zeiss 135mm f/2. Wait for Samyang 135mm f/2 and after that, it's your decision. Apart from 24mm f/1.4, Sigma is bringing new lenses so....heads up. It took me two months of research to get this Zeiss and it's worth every penny. It's not expensive for what it's has to offer, only greedy and stupid people say it's expensive and for the last time, for what it has to offer, it's not expensive. You get what you paid. Ah, almost forgot , this is the first and only true APO lens.
Ramon Philippo I had Samyang 85mm f/1.4 but even if it was sharp, it didn't appeal to me. Colors and contrast are not my tipe, and bokeh is wiered. And i saw some test images of samyang 135mm f/2 and trust me, sharpness-contrast-colors-and bokeh does not come near to Zeiss.
Good morning, well it is here in Vernon BC Canada. I enjoy your RU-vid video's quite a bit, thanks. I'm a newbie so go easy. I have a Nikon D610 and 85mm 1.8G ( my best go to lens ) I also have the 135mm F2 DC I was so excited to get the 135 but have been very disappointed it with a lot of color aeration up to f4. And it's not as sharp as my 85mm. My question is, why not use the 85mm 1.8G and when you need the compression of the 135mm use the DX mode in your camera, comes out to 127mm. Now remember i'm a newbie go easy. Thanks.
Matt Granger I see you using the Quadra ranger system now, would you be more prone to using that on location now more that your flashes? For me i think using the 85mm would be the best for me, it keeps me close enough to the client to not have to shout plus its still more than the 50mm lens.
