As a owner of many generations of Nikon gear I love this style of video. Recently picked up the 35mm f2D and it works beautifully on modern dslr cameras.
I stumbled across your reviews and i have to say, i really appreciate the effort you have put in! You have given me insight into some lenes i have been gifted and also pointed me in the direction of others id like to get in the future! So thank you!
Great comparison. I own the 85 mm 1.4 G lens from 2010, and i would highly recommend it! Its by many considered one of the best portrait lens and have insane smooth bokeh! And the best part is that you can get used ones « cheap» nowadays. It used to cost 2100 USD, but second hand you can get one in the range of 600-700 USD!
Thank you for your comparison video. In 1969, the second lens I purchased for my Nikon F was the 85mm f/1.8 Nikkor pre-AI lens. I used my 85mm in a 35/85/180mm kit, primarily for photojournalism and head & shoulder portraits. Years later, I had Nikon convert the lens to an AI lens. In 2016, I upgraded to the 85mm f/1.4 D auto focus Nikkor. I have never performed a head-to-head comparison between my two 85mm lenses. I will probably never buy the G lens because my Nikon F2 bodies need an aperture ring for proper exposure control. I will probably never buy a Z lens because I will probably never buy a Z body.
Thanks for your informative video. I am considering the 85mm f/2.0 ais. I have so many other Nikon manual lenses, and love using them. Yes, they have their shortcomings, but if you accept them and can work around them, you're not losing much to the newer, more expensive AF variants.
Yep, many share your view that the oldie-goldie AIS lenses deliver all that is needed and hence see no need to jump to newer lenses. Thanks for sharing - much appreciated!
Very interesting. Thank you for comparing! I own myself the D-Version and it makes me happy every time I use it, not only for portrait. I use it on the D700 and D3. Works best together on either of these cameras.
This was a very good review. Thank you for setting up the research and presenting it to us. I got a good deal on the 85mm 1.8 G lens. It was used and in UG-ugly condition. I bought it for around $200.00. The optics are perfect. But the gold paint is worn off the outside of the lens.
I'm about to try a used manual focus zeiss milvus 85mm f1.4 ZF2 (nikon fit) monster. It is reviewed by DXO to be sharp and others to have very low longitudinal CA and smooth bokeh. The Z 85 f1.8 is probably as good and more practical for similar cost though..
I’ve owned the AI and D versions and enjoyed their compactness and general great performance. Moving forward i would have kept the D for use in my DSLRs and purchased the Z version for those cameras. But two aspects; size (primary) and cost (distant second) moved me to buy the G. Very disappointed in these large Z primes to go on smaller cameras. They’re squeezing all the performance possible to match the high mp cameras, but how much is really needed?
Thank you for sharing Gary! Yes, the Z-lenses are much bigger and heavier indeed! I think the 50 mm f/1.2 Z is the extreme example. And fully agree, you have to be very sure you need the outstanding performance of the Z lenses to accept the increase in size and weight!
@@frederikboving It’s notable to me how limited the advantages the Z system provides for my use in wildlife and nature. Great for landscapes and close in wildlife where the silent shutter is invaluable. But my D850 and D500 beats my Z6&7iis for mostly everything else.
Since I didn't think Nikon had a 85mm lens worth buying for my D3 back then, I decided to upgrade my Canon 5D to a 5D Mk II, so that I could continue using the Canon EF 85 f/1.2 L II. 16 years later after I bought that lens and probably until the release of the Z 85 f/1.2 S, it is the same story. So, I'm still using the EF 85 f/1.2 L II on my Z MILC via an EF2Z adapter. The upcoming Z 85 f/1.2 S may very be a longer focal length version of the Z 50 f/1.2 S and it can be an awesome choice for some pros. But I prefer a creamier and softer version for portraiture that is similar to the Canon RF 85 f/1.2 L DS (wish there was a RF2Z adapter) or Nikon DC.
Thank you BFS, I can see you have chosen your 85mm with great care. It actually drove your choice of camera! I have now found peace with the fact that 1.8 is sufficiently fast. I fear the 1.2 will be so heavy that my Kettlebells will seem light in comparison! Well see 🙂
@@frederikboving Fast and/or character may be the driver, but fulfilling the expectation (low or high) or needs often determines my purchases. For instance, the Z 50 f/1.2 S is above my initial expectation of just being a fast lens and right now almost glued to my Z9, taking over the 24-70 f/2.8 G and even the S version. Now, that combo is heavy and big. As well, I wasn't planning to upgrade my AF-S holy trinity, but finally upgraded the 24-70 f/2.8 G to the S version because my non-photographic savvy family members prefer photos taken with the Z glass. 😢 Hence, if some pros said that their clients cannot tell the difference, maybe it is because he/she didn't offer an opportunity for them to compare images side-by-side.
@@bfs5113 Funny you mention pros: the other day I was talking to a pro at a dinner party, and he had been shooting Nikon all his life. He did not want to invest in S glass or ML for that matter. Only if his DSLRs were stolen would he upgrade. His point was that when you print (as opposed to pixel peeping on a large EIZO monitor) you can hardly tell the difference. I do not know if it is true, but certainly an interesting POV. He could also tell some horror stories about the competence drop that happened when printing went from analogue to digital. PS: he found me to be very old school taking images with the S 105mm on my Z6ii!
@@frederikboving Some pro photographers may be living in their own comfort zones and work environments, hence talk about their good old day stories, POV and experiences. No difference from HCB once said to William Eggleston, "You know, William, color is bullshit." What's more, my 24-70 f/2.8 side-by-side comparison was done with prints and that invalidate his observations. As well, I agree that there is a competence drop with printing, from analogue to digital since printing isn't the prime or only viewing or display option. Also, I like to point out that there weren't that many film photographers did their own B&W and especially color enlargements back then. At least, there are more digital photographers doing their own post processing than film photographers. Furthermore, if he was talking about the Z 105 S macro lens and not the 105 DC, then I fail to understand how that make you old school. 🙂
@@bfs5113 I think the old school term was referring to me using a prime. He had expected to see a 70-200 is my guess. Interesting that the comparison was made on printed material and that your family can see the difference. That should end the conversation right there if non-photographers can see the difference on print. I think many pro's have reached a point where their love for photography (and associated curiosity to explore new tech) has frozen a bit. That is why I am a bit hesitant to go pro, as I fear to also go a bit cold and loose the love and fascination of photography.
Given that the focus breathing is basically the same I'm wondering if the optical design for all three lenses are basically the same and it's just the coating that's changed in that time.
In my experience the z lenses are levels above all previous lenses - I think Nikon really took the opportunity to re-design for the mirror less cameras.
Det er en interesant sammenligning Frederik, MEN ingen av disse sammeligninger som egentlig reproduserer den grønne følelse som er i en "dollar seddel". Den som kommer nærmest er faktisk den gamle optikk It is an interesting comparison Frederik, BUT none of these comparisons actually reproduce the green feeling that is in a "dollar bill". The one that comes closest is actually the old optics
I try to stay clear of discussions related to color rendering as there are so many options and emotions in that field that it is difficult to "attack" in a fact based manner.
@@frederikboving Zeiss is a very unfair brand, after you use it, you want to go home and sell all the other optics!! Let's put it this way: you feel you're working with Medium Format Quality when you deal with the Otus Range. Especially if you have a 45MP sensor.
When comparing the weight and length, you forgot the FTZ-Adapter, didn't you? It weighs 135 grams, so the G version and the Z version weigh about the same.
I tested the lenses on a Z6ii, and there the weight is as you describe, but it is also possible to use the AI and G lens on a DSLR without the FTZ adapter. So I guess it depends on your perspective.
@@frederikboving Well, you're talking about the pros and cons of the lenses. The only advantage the G has over the Z is price, not weight. Anyway, have a nice Sunday
It should be constant. Some prime lenses have a little focus breathing but that is usually minor variations. If you're using a full frame lens on a aps-c body, the focal length will be longer and you have to multiply with 1.5 to find the effective focal length- an 85 mm would be 127mm effectively.
