King of BOKEH - 85mm vs 105mm vs 135mm 

If you wish to compare bokeh ball diameters/sizes for lights at infinity (in the distance), but are keeping the nearby subject size in the photo the same for the different focal lengths, then the thing that determines how large the bokeh balls will be is the ratio of f/A, or focal length over aperture (which is equal to the lens diameter D). Bokeh ball size is proportional to f/A, or D. So, since 85mm/1.2 = 70.833, and 105mm/1.4 = 75, and 135mm/1.8 = 75, both the 105 and 135 will give slightly larger background bokeh balls than the 85. This is how the DOF optics equations work. Love this video.

Things change so fast...remember when the 105mm F1.4E was released? Some photographers felt it was "too sharp". It's funny to hear is regarded as relatively "soft" compared to these two lenses.

Great compare. I recently sold my loved 105 1.4 after I got my 85 1.2. The 105 is fantastic but the new tech is just so much better and the CA/Color fringing on it was bad to me. I just got my 135 1.8 and it is amazing and actually does pair well with the 85. I actually like the 85/135 combo more than the 50/85 combo for me. Shot Dog photos last night with 85 and 135 and even tho they are close, they produced different images. 135 seems much softer blur kinda of like cloud soft. The 85 in similar framing was a little more harsh but not saying bad just different. Im keeping both and 85 in tighter areas adn 135 where there is room. Also still have my 200F2 as well and next is to compare the 135 to it for sure.

The 105mm was designed to be a portrait lens full stop, and they traded absolute sharpness for rendering and size. The Sigma is sharper in scientific tests. I will say it's a nice trade-off because many soften the skin anyway.

Thanks for your comparative video. I own and use the following Nikon F-mount lenses for head & shoulder portraits: 85mm f/1.4 auto focus 100mm f/2.8 Series E 105mm f/2.8 macro 105mm f/2.5 135mm f/2 All produce excellent portraits, however, I have never performed a head-to-head comparison like you did in this video. You have inspired me.

Thank you for samples!

Great video! 85 1.2 might be my favorite lens, but the plena has my attention. Nice to see the comparison if i ever decided to pull the trigger on it.

Wow, the 105mm F1.4 held up well from what I can see here. Thanks for such a nice comparison. I need to download the files to see which one I like best overall, but my 105mm isn't going anywhere for a while.

My Nikon 105mm f1.4 and my Sigma 135mm f1.8 are my last two F mount lenses. Love them both, and think I will keep them for now. Thank you for the review.

Thanks for this video Matt. I really enjoy how your videos have evolved over the years. Also… What an amazing time to shoot Nikon. Glad to see you back. :)

Cool video, thanks! For me the 85/1.2 was the reason to switch from F to Z-mount, even though I loved my D850. It's really amazing and gives me different pictures than with the 105 - and I don't have to sometimes shout this much anymore. After I had the 85/1.2, I then traded in the 105 as down-payment for the Z8 because I did not use it anymore. As for the 135/1.8 Plena, crazy me got the 1st one my reseller got. But not sure if I really made the right decision. A DX-cropped 85/1.2 gives you the optical look of a 135/1.8 (OK, really a 128/1.8) - and with the push of a button, you can change the Z8,... to show just the DX-crop in the viewfinder. Not changing any lens and lugging another one around. So the justification then becomes the bokeh-quality (the 135 is smoother, has no swirl at all) and full resolution images instead of 20Mpix (the 85/1.2 is really good, and mirrorlens enables it to be almost 2 lenses). I will decide in one month, if I got buyer's remorse, or if the difference really matteres to me ...

I did a comparison at my local Botanical Gardens with the Z's Plena 135mm, 105mm MC S, both are great lenses but I enjoyed the 105 more. I almost bought the 85mm f/1.2 but my camera store just got the Plena. Since I had the Z 85mm f/1.8 S lens, I chose the Plena all the way. Cheers!

Thank you for making this video. I have the 105mm with my Z9 and I have been debating about whether to upgrade. This really helped me.

I used the 105 1.4 on my d810 for a while as well as my z7, then stopped using it when I got my 85 1.2. Tested the plena recently and I still think I prefer the working distance of the 85 which gives a similar rendering as the 135 if framing similarly . For a longer look I will use my 70200 2.8s

I have the 85mm. It is of course marvelous in its way. But at the same time, the magnified background look of the 135mm can add drama or more thoroughly obscure the setting. I will add the 135 to my kit eventually, though it won’t get to the top of my kit budget for a while yet.

Great review. I have a Z8 and a D850. I have used my 105 more than any other lens on m D850 and love the combination. I haven’t shot the 105 w/adapter on my Z8, but after watching this review, that is going to change. I’ve really been wanting the 1.2 85, but I have the 1.8 85, and will probably keep shooting the 105 and 85 until my bank account recovers enough to entertain the 1.2 85.

Always loved medium telephoto primes for portraits, for me, the sweet spot outdoors & noisy environment, is 100-150mm. IMO, 12'-15' is the ideal distance to the subject for good subject compression without being too far and losing connection with the model. For quiet indoor studio environment, I like using the 70-200 F2.8, between 180-200mm, for the better subject compression, often shooting ~20' away.

Thanks again Matt great review as always I think I started following you around 2011 I think for Lowe sling shot bag ?and later the Speedlight 910 /900 no heating .

Thanks for the great comparison Matt! I owned the 105mm f/1.4 at one time but sold it along with all of my F-mount lenses. I now own both the 85 and the 135, and they’re both incredible.

I'm interested in a comparison with a Sigma 135mm f1.8 Art.

Thanks Matt, I've been waiting for this review. I would love the Plena, but likely will stick with my 105mm with FTZ.

I would expect the new Z 135 and 85 optics to be phenomenally sharp. What's perhaps more unexpected is just how good that "old" 105 is overall by comparison.

I'd love to get the 135 but several years ago, while still shooting with Pentax, I picked up their 135 (and I have a m42 Takumar) and I just don't use it. But dang, what a nice piece of kit.

ボケの大きさ、つまり被写界深度の長さは同じサイズに撮るならどのレンズで撮影しても、F値から同じであれば同じ被写界深度の長さですよ 例えば縦位置で縦全身の写真撮影する場合、85mmならば撮影距離4.5m、105mmならば撮影距離5.5m、135mmならば撮影距離7mから撮影すると縦190cm×横125cmのサイズに撮れる その際の被写界深度はF1.8なら約28cmで同じ しかし焦点距離が長くなる程、画角は狭くなる 85mmは29度、105mmは23度、135mmは18度と焦点距離長くなる程、画角は狭くなる 背景が写る比率が狭くなる その分、被写体にフォーカス出来る こういう特性を知った上で、もし3本もレンズ持ってるなら、使い分けしたら良いでしょう

I love my 105 - and you are 1000% on point about it being the sweet spot between the 85 and the 135. Also - does your setup guide discuss using the camera with a flash? How to set up ISO etc for on and off-camera applications?

and here I am liking the viltrox 75f1.2 more for fuji (112mm full frame equivalent). The plena color rendittion is makes that lens especial

Great review. Like the shots. Getting better all the time. Never can wait for your next pertinent review. Good range. You struck on something most overlook. Your “softness” quote re: the 105mm actually to my eyes is just a more liquid, film like or cinematic look. I found a greater, more subtle range of colors, also more faithful and accurate to the scene with the 105mm than the others ( have them all ). It tends to my mind give the appearance of a softer image. But as you indicated, a kinder, gentler image. Also, in direct comparison to each other under rigidly controlled conditions, in my case for full body and head shots outside in a green environment, with the models wearing red, white, blue, cyan and yellow, the 105mm had most saturated, greatest, most limpid and most luminescent color of the three. Stands out as more appealing. I found the 85mm & the 135mm have more apparent contrast, actually more than reality. Very snappy and quite exciting. And the 105mm less apparent contrast than reality, though not by as much. I have moved away from the z lenses for the better? Or perhaps greater color quality and luminance and brilliance of the better F mounts. As well as for the less noticeable harshness you pointed out. Z lenses are stark! The only one I still use regularly is the 35mm F/1.8, for it’s closeness to reality and lessor, but still noticeable starkness. It has a great look. Alive with lessor harshness. Love it. But….. This says a lot, as all three of my 35mm F/1.4G F mount lenses, stopped down to F/2.8 or smaller, are perhaps some of the best performers in the Nikon line, with color way surpassing the Z 35mm. Limpid, luscious and colorful by comparison. Still, I love the z one as well. I hate to say this, but for me money is no object, so for many focal lengths, I would and do have both F and Z mount lenses. I shoot a lot of entertainment types and executives where the great color and luminance makes them stand out, which is what it is all about, This helps me command ridiculous fees - which certainly I am not worth! So that is where I am coming from. Your mileage may vary.

Guess I'll just stick with my 105. I love it, and as you mentioned it is not clinically sharp at 1.4 but that's something I wouldn't go for in a portrait lens anyway. If I had wanted this kind of sharpness when I bought it I had chosen the Sigma 105 1.4. In a way your review just confirmed what I suspected.

Hi Matt! Thanks a lot for comparison 😎👍 In a days back I was shooting with a Zeiss Milvus 135mm f2.0 + Z6 it was a fantastic combo but as we now Zeiss it’s manual lens … and I was dreaming about Z 135 from Nikon and now here we are :) so, collecting money 💰… for a hobby it’s money 😂

Love the combination of 850 and 105😍

Neat, thanks. I'm comparing the comparatively plebian Z 85 f/1.8 with what I remember from my rental of the 105 f/1.4 a few years ago. This isn't helping my GAS for the 105! Good thing I have a rental on the way now.

Crazy to see how good the plena lens is in that comparison. The bokeh is so wonderfull and almost perfect to every edges i love it . ❤ Nice video as usual 😊

So happy. I own the 105 1.4 for years. I Will save money for buying à Z8 !

I absolutely love my 105mm f/1.4 Sigma Art on my Nikon D850 and Z7, but it's so massive that I'm afraid I'll drop it and break it. I just picked up a 135mm f/1.8 DG, and it's been pretty amazing. Can't wait to put it through its paces next week in Los Angeles.

Always like your videos Matt. Just my 2c, I have never wanted critically sharp portraits. Pores and blemishes are never flattering, and yes you can fix in post. But in camera is less work and to me more natural looking.

The softness in pores and face of the 105mm might be an actual benefit on glamour type portraits.

Thaaanks for saving me, too. 😅 Still loving my 105mm. 😊

All three seems like incredible lenses but they do give different looks. I think the added compression of the 135 gives the most "professional" or "editorial" look, but I find standing so far away from my subject to be quite impractical. Especially for shoots indoors. I have the 85/1.2 myself (more practical for my purposes) and it is truly an incredible lens. I'm tempted by the 135 for tighter shots, but having two so expensive seems overkill and the 70-200 is also great tight headshots.

135 is the way to go. Would love to see how it handles on z9

I noticed a lot more cat eye bokeh in the 85MM. Could just be a coincidence though. I don't shoot Nikon but I had an old Canon FD 135 MM lens that was a bokeh MONSTER, and it seems to me like this 135MM keeps that tradition alive.

The 105mm 1.4 looks the best balance for me, and different characteristic bokeh in light balls✨

The 135 has my interest. But i already have a 85 1.2. So i currently don't see the rush for me to go and get it. I'll get it one day. I want a 35 1.2 more. So i can have the 35, 50, 85 1.2 trinity complete

I think the background blur is more pronounced on the 105 than the 85 when wide open

I’m good with the 105mm. Amazing lens!

OMG!!!! @4:37 the sharpness of the 105 at f2 is RIDICULOUS!!!

I wish to see a comparision of the Plena with 135 DC. But without pixel peeping and AF contest, result of such a thing is easy to predict. I wish to see Plena put into discussion focused almost completely on "The look" and aesthetic effects you can get, comparing it to very viable vintage lens which 135 Dc is. Both used on the same camera obviously.

Thanks for the decent review. Maybe you guys have some opinion here. I recently bought the z9 (after many years with 3dx, and 850) and bought the Nikon S 14-24mm and the Nikon S 24-70mm. I am thinking of fulfill the kit with either the S 135mm or the S85mm. Shooting fashion and people only. Coming from shooting everything with my Zeiss 18mm, 35mm, 85mm which I used over most of my career I can't decide if the 1.2 85mm would be nice to play around or the 135mm would be a better choice for the other two zoom lenses. Any opinion on this? Thanks. Much appreciated

Would have been nice to also compare the 200/f2 lens, as the pre-own price is now affordable.

The 105 on the used market will be significantly lower than the other two, I'm sticking with mine too

Thanks, you saved me some money too!

Would love to have the latest and greatest but saving cash is important as well. I’m picking up a minty used 105mm 1.4E for $750 today. I’m going to flip a 85mm 1.4G to help fund it. It’s an amazing time to be a photographer. Insanely high quality lenses are available for great value.

Absolutely amazing... The lady was going to throw water, funny and scary... The effort you put into your videos for us... In your opinion... If you didn't have the 105... And you were to get only one lens... Which one would you get???

In terms of asthetics...wish Nikon would have left the gold rings on the lenses...it looks fire compared to just black :/

great comparison that nikon guy! love this video, i know the 200f2 isn't i the same league, but i wonder how that compared to the 135 plena

Great video Matt and Am saving for the 135mm now ,could you tell me your view on filters 82mm I looked and it’s a minefield to know what to choose for the Plena lens uv wise 🤔😊

DxOMark and Matt's remark on the relative softness of the 105/1.4E - there's no direct comparison between the 105 on a D and a Z camera, but we can get close. From a still image quality point of view, all 45.4MP (effective) Nikons are very comparable. In that sense, a D850 would (should) not do less - should equal - than a Z 7, Z 7ii, Z8, or Z9. Something similar will apply to some of the 24MP (effective) Nikons and my(wild-assed) guess is that a D610, Z 6, Z 6ii, and Z f should be comparable. Why bring in the 24MP here? Well, some Nikons have an OLPF and others have not. In DxOMark, assuming my proposed sharpness equivalency at the sensor level, we then can deduce the contribution of MP and OLPF=yes/no. The lens I chose in the camera comparison is the Nikon Nikkor F-mount FX (full frame) AF-S ED 105/1.4E that Matt used in this video. Camera MP OLPF DxOMark Sharpness Distortion Vignetting T-value CA D610 24 yes 38 21 0.1% - 2 EV 1.7 3 micro m D800 36 yes 39 26 0.1% - 1.9 EV 1.7 3 micro m D800E 36 no 44 33 0.1% - 2 EV 1.7 3 micro m D850 45 no 46 40 0.1% - 2 EV 1.7 3 micro m Folk and fluencers are inclined to talk about MP as if magical effects will come from a bit more MP and that's absolutely not the case. Files get bigger in the rate of MP changes, and required processing power needs to get bigger at that rate or better. Detail resolution or sharpness is a perception and human vision thing. We may have 120M cones and rods in the retina but in long lines these share one optical nerve - so there is huge lossy compression. Some animals have one nerve per cone or rod and the optical nerve has a diameter into the brain that they can no longer rotate their eyes. That's owl or eagle-eyed vision. So humans perceive sharpness differences in a linear way. Age old knowledge, foreign to marketers and fluencers. Linear means we have to compare one dimension of resolution, not the area. MP does area resolution, not linear. Simplified, if you want to double resolution of an X*Y=MP sensor, linearly you get 2X*2Y=4MP and so - ceteris paribus - a 96MP sensor has double the sharpness (detail resolution) of a 24MP sensor. The cameras in the numbers I copied for comparison break the "ceteris paribus" condition, however, when the OLPF is dropped. Another problem is that DxOMark measures "after deBayerisation" or "before demosaicking" - the crudest anachronistic form of guessing of missing colour you can imagine that generates loads of digital artefacts that would normally be removed (partially) by "demosaicking". We don't know precisely how DxOMark's algorithm relates to quality differences (or, if there is a ceteris paribus violation in there). We see my point illustrated here in that DxOMark's measurements relate to the "linear" improvement as long as both have an OLPF or both don't have one. The step from the D800 to D800E however shows a shocking impact of the OLPF in both directions. In the Bayer paradigm, the problem with the OLPF removed is that the algorithms used for colour-guessing need to be much better. Adobe just this year improved on that with "AI Denoise" added into Camera Raw - ten years after the D800E version where Nikon Eliminated the OLPF from the D800. Camera - all Nikon models MP - Millions of Photosites (a sensor has no pixels and is colour-blind and a raw file has monochrome - mono=single, chrome=colour - data elements OLPF - optical low-pass filter - disperses light between the colour filter grid and the sensor in order to make raw processing easier Vignetting - fall-off of light transmission from the center of the lens towards the corners of the image (easily corrected in software when not too extreme) making the center lighter and the corners darker T-value - the actual amount of light coming through the lens. The f/number of a lens is just the geometry between focal length at infinity and the diameter of the aperture or the entry pupil at full open. If you replace a glass element by the same shape and almost black, you still have the same f/number. The T value drops dramatically. CA - chromatic aberration the effect that different wavelengths of light are broken differently causing different focal length or different magnification or both (can be very hard to correct, even when post-software offers automatic help)

The original manual 105 f2.5 was already pretty magical, and a good all arounder. Amazing how far they have advanced. Wonder if they’ll do a Z 105.

It’s the 85 for me, but i got the 135 for reach at wedding needless to day, Im booked and busy with those those big boys

Matt I noticed you shooting in auto ISO I feel like bought the Z* to-Z9 in auto ISO seem to be under exposed buy a half to one full stop. Do you see the same?

Matt…Very Good Work..Now let’s do Sigma’s 85mm and 105mm and 135mm ..Against Nikon’s Very Expensive Lenses! Thanks

The 105mm is the most versatile focal length. It is not too long to use indoors as with the 135mm prime. The 85mm is OK but there is more subject compression with a longer focal length and that is more flattering for people's faces. Most people would be better served with the 70-200mm f/2.8 or 24-120mm f/4 zoom lenses. Ignored also is the working distance which varies a good deal between 85mm and 135mm focal lengths. Not everyone wants shallow DOF as when photographing couples where one want both their faces in focus. For portrait work nothing compares to the Sony 100mm f/2.8 STF GM OSS lens that provides with its electronics a similar defocus capability to the mechanical Nikon DC 105mm and 135mm lenses. For hard core portraits it would be worth switching to Sony to be able to use this lens.

An interesting and very useful comparison, Matt! All three lenses are true marvels, and I personally very much liked the portrait-oriented beautiful softness of the older 105 f1.4. However, I was surprised to find the city lights produced by the new 135 f1.8 as a background blur to be crowding your model way too much, causing a lot of distraction and nearly producing a feeling of claustrophobia, obliterating the distance between the model and the background despite the blur. If that's the desired effect, fine, but I found it uncomfortable in this particular set of images as it leaves no breathing space, no calmness. I actually didn't expect that sort of crowded density at that moderate tele focal length. Overall I prefer the rendition of the 85 f1.2 for keeping the background most blurry and far enough away as to not crowd and distract from your main subject, producing areas of wonderful calmness and yet delivering great in-focus sharpness, contrast and pop, in this regard certainly better than the (still most beautiful) 105. I do think that the effects of these lenses also depend on one's shooting style as you mention, but your comparison brings some of these lenses' differences in their rendering fully into focus, despite all of them being wonderful cream machines. For me it would be the 85 f1.2. Btw, I also very much liked the way you worked with the Z 50 f1.2 in a recent comparison with the 85 f1.2. Great job!

Hi matt granger., Did your lens and camera cover with extended warranty or just manufactured warranty for 1 year? I need your advice if i want to buy z9 with plena lens., should i purchase extended warranty with allstate or not? Thanks for reply.

135 Plena I see has perfect circular bokeh balls the other lens no quite perfect a bit more cat eye. I bought the Plena and love it so much.

Nice comparison. One thing missing (and I realize this isn't your style of shooting), but both the 135 and 85 are capable of shooting sports because the AF in them is that good, even wide open (which is impressive for the 85mm because while the DOF is similar subjects are moving proportionally faster as they get closer). The 105mm struggles to keep up with fast action and is a poor choice for fast subjects. The two Z lenses are great portrait AND great sports lenses.

Good job team, 135mm is a beast

How can you leave out the 200mm f2? 😢 Great video as always

Yea I want to get 80 or 110 on gf lens

Shootout Canon 85mm and 135mm vs the Nikons.

I would like to see the 50mm add to this comparison.

So torn whether to buy the 135mm or an M11.

The 135mm 1.8 produces magical photos on group shots....no other lens can do it imo

If I had just one of them I won't need the other

A lot less cat-eye on the 135. Beautiful bokeh. They all look great though.

💞Nikon Z 85mm F1.2💞

Hi Matt which lens would you deem more versatile the 135 plena or the 85 f1.2 i already own the 50f1.2 thanks

would it be too much to ask what EXACT AF settings you used in this video? :(

❤❤❤❤❤❤ nice video

Cool video, but I do not get why are the samples not at f1.2 and f1.4? Plena is 1.8 and others are f2.0.

In my head I always see you as an 85mm guy :)

wouldn't rendering less sharp be desirable for skin and thus a justification for owning the 105?

Nikon 85 1.4 G lens vs Nikon 105 1.4 ED lens body to use Nikon D780 which is better than buying wedding photography and fashion photography

The 135 also compresses facial features and makes people look very flat to me, I don't think it's flattering for thinner faces. The 85 gives a skinnier look than real life but still gives people volume and puts them in place. I love the 135's sharpness and bokeh but I'll pick the 85 perspective for most faces. The 135 is amazing for full body shots though.

❤

"If you move your distance to the subject so that you equalize the frame, the (85mm) f/1.2 will always give you the shallowest depth of field." Not really actually. The 85mm f/1.2 is the equivalent of a 135mm f/1.9 (as opposed to f/1.8) or 105mm f/1.48 (as opposed to f/1.4). That is if you do the math of dividing the aperture between the lenses and then use the same division factor for dividing their focal lengths. The 105 at f/1.4 and the 135 at f/1.8 will give you slightly more bokeh compared to the 85 at f/1.2, provided that you respect the distance to subject relative to the focal length difference.

A lot of super talented comments👍 hope Nikon engineers read these comments😂🤦🏻‍♂️🤦🏻‍♂️

come for the camera review, stay for the ladies

I want to correct one small bit of misinformation towards the end. While you are correct that for the same framing, the 85mm f/1.2 will have the shallowest depth of field, that does NOT mean that it will have the most background blur. Background blur for a given framing will depend on the physical size of the aperture opening, which in this case is 71mm for the 85mm, and 75mm for the 105mm and 135mm. As such, the 105mm and 135mm will actually provide slightly more background blur for a given framing. To make the illustration more clear, let's exaggerate the focal length spread and compare a 50mm lens and 300mm lens, both at f/2.8. If we shoot a portrait of someone at 2m focus distance on the 50mm lens at f/2.8, we get a depth of field of around 0.27m. Now, if we shoot the same framing with a 300mm f/2.8, taken from 12m away at f/2.8, we get the same depth of field (well, 0.26m, but effectively identical). However, the 300mm f/2.8 will clearly show massively more background blur...as we'd expect from it's giant 107mm physical aperture, compared to the 50mm's paltry 17.8mm aperture.

I don't shoot Nikon but for me it's 135mm all day, every day. Been shooting with 21mm, 50mm and 135mm for over a decade now and I don't plan on adding another focal length into my lens set anytime soon - if at all. 85mm is too close to and too similar to 50mm and 65mm, 100mm just looks weird for any portrait/fashion/editorial when compared to 85mm and 135mm, 135mm is just perfect and 180/200mm lenses are just too long to shoot portraits/beauty/fashion comfortably and effectively. I do fashion, mostly, and I can (and do) shoot 95% of all possible compositions and techniques, with just a 50mm and 135mm lens. I have and use the 21mm only for the frog, wide and other wide lens exclusive type shots.

I just don’t understand the hype of the Plena. I purchased it and returned it within a week because the images were way too hazy. Maybe I got a bad copy but I just couldn’t justify the cost when the sigma Art 135mm was too close in comparison.

I wish Matt Granger would come out and tell Nikon to build and sell an FTZ adapter that can screwdrive D lenses. I own the 135 and 105 DC lenses and they are the sharpest things in my bag. Bad thing is they are all screwdrive. There is no point to selling my stuff because I'd have to rebuy everything all new and its just not going to happen in this 17% inflation era. I'm stuck shooting my D4, D4s, and D3x until Nikon makes a screwdrive compatible adapter for guys like me. I'll pay for it! But I won't pay for all this new stuff. I'm no pro. I'm just an enthusiast who needs a guy like Matt Granger to step up for the Nikon legacy customers and tell Nikon not to forget us and get on it. Sony made a screwdrive for their Minolta screwdrive lenses so there is obviously a market. Yet Nikon persists on locking out its own legacy customers from its Z camera platform. Not a good way to treat customers who have been shooting and buying Nikon gear since the early 90s. Mr. Granger please help! You always have told me in previous comment posts to just shoot what you can afford! Thank you!!

Love how Matt never managed to say "FTZ" instead of "FTC" haha! Nice comparaison though, thanks!

200mm f/2 is still my wishlist lens for 15 years 😂

Why Sony captured the mirror less market ,and nikon failed in sales in front of Sony canon these days

200 f/2.0 knocks on door...um, guys? Please, a little respect?!

Ayyy I'm first!!

It’s such a shame that they dropped the gold band even for top notch lenses

The biggest problem of the 105mm is the cats eye bokeh, is way too much 😢

There is no sense using too-shallow dof when shooting portraits. Face must be sharp, not only eyes.

All overpriced