I have had the 105 1.4 E lens for about 4 years and the 85 1.8 S lens since it was released ( a couple years now) and I use both professionally. The 105 1.4 E is an astounding lens - it is (currently) the best portrait prime lens that is made by Nikon - with the exception maybe of the 200mm F/2 lens (but this is a $5500 lens). The 105 1.4 E lens is one of the last F mount prime lenses made and it is a very solid optical design and extremely sharp. "Ricci talks" does comparisons on it to the modern Z glass and it fairs very well. It the center it is just as sharp as the 85 mm 1.8S - maybe slightly softer at 1.4, but at 1.8 it is right there. Note that softness of this kind (which is not very soft to be sure) is actually good for portraiture. But make no mistake this is a very sharp lens - stopped down in rivals any lens you want to put it against in sharpness. With respect to this being an F mount lens and needing the adaptor, this lens actually works better on the Z cameras than it ever did on the DSLR's - I have used it extensively on both. On the Z camera it gains from 3 axis stabilization that it did not have on the DSLR and of course there are now focus points across the entire frame not only clumped in the middle. The AF is as fast as it ever was before and it is more accurate being that the AF is on the sensor and there is no issue with AF sensor calibration problems as there sometimes was on the DSLR. The only downside to this lens is that it is large and fairly heavy although it does balance well on the camera (both DSLR and Z camera). This all said, the 85mm 1.8 S lens is also a great lens for what it is and competes very well considering it is an $800 lens being compared to a $2000+ lens (at the time of release). The 85 is extremely sharp. It lacks a little in character as compared to the 105mm, but it is a great lens and a photographer could certainly 'get by' with this lens in any circumstance that another would be shooting the 105mm - it's just the 105 has a little more of a 'special' look that is hard to put into words. I have found that I am using the 105 1.4 E for portraiture shoots where I am not lugging the camera and lens around all day. In these scenarios, this lens produces magical results and the clients are always pleased with what they get. On the other hand, when I shoot weddings and events, I bring the 85 1.8 S lens as it is much smaller and lighter and as such much easier to lug around for 8-10 hours straight and the results are excellent - certainly good enough for this type of shooting. So this really comes down to use case (as most issues in photography do). If mobility is not a factor, the 105 1.4 E is the better lens - there is little doubt about this once you have used both in all circumstances and compared them. However, the 85 1.8 S is very close and is much better when having to carry a camera and lens around all day. I am keeping both lenses as I use them for two different use cases. The real question will be what happens when the 85mm 1.2 S is released? It will also be big and heavy, so I will likely continue to use the 85 1.8 S for event photography. But, will the 85 1.2 S replace the 105 1.4 E lens for portraiture. My guess is that it will not - but I will use both. I find that I like 85mm for certain types of shoots and angles and 105 for others and so having both will likely be my decision. I will not get rid of the 105mm 1.4 E until they make a Z version 105mm 1.4 (or maybe 1.2) - even then, I would want to compare the new and old 105 to see what the character of each lens was. Conclusion: All of the aforementioned lenses are excellent - they all have a place depending on use case. Although the 85 1.8 S and the 105 1.4 E have similar use cases, they are not the same - so each photographer needs to determine what their use case is in deciding between them. In my case, I have need of both use cases and as such I have both lenses :)
Everyone is saying that specific lens is THE BEST OF THE BEST for whatever :D There is no "best" lens, stop saying that... All lenses have their positives and negatives. Good photographer will make amazing portraits & landscapes with whatever lens is on his hands and don't start which lenses distort faces and stuff. It's subjective matter. :D
@@dicekolev5360 Yeah we do say they are both great lenses as are most are now. But it's nice to get into the intricacies of different lenses too for the fun of it :-)
I also have both lenses since they came out. I agree with your conclusions. The 105is probably the best portraiture lens Nikon has made. I think the advantage lies with its focal length, the.same as the iconic Nikon 105 f 2.5. I am looking forward to the arrival of the Nikon 85 mm f1.2. I still suspect there will be a cry for a Z 105 f 1.4!
outstanding review for us Nikon folk... I think the 105 is worth getting even with added expense, weight, and lower contrast. The only thing that goes against it is if you were constantly running out of room to back up from subject... but this comes down to individual. thanks again for review.... very helpful
I moved to Nikon Z with the release of the Z7II. Ran a pair of them for a while and I exclusively ran the 105 1.4E and Tamron 35 f/1.4 on my cameras with FTZs. I rented and tested the Nikon counterparts and while their performance was better, the character of the images was just... not. The 105 1.4E is, without a doubt, the most amazing lens I've ever used. It was extremely hard for me to part with the 105 1.4E when I made the move to Sony. No adapters are worth a damn for F to E mount, so I ended up selling it absolutely last, well after the rest of my Nikon stuff, in hopes a good working adapter would've launched. I settled for Sigma's 85 DG DN, which is a stellar lens, but I'm hoping beyond all hope that Sigma releases a 105 DG DN. I'll be the first order for one from my local camera shop if so.
Wedding and portrait tog here... I love your videos, thank you for the information and the great effort. You're missing a very important point here with these lenses though. They're portrait lenses.You've focused almost entirely on the bokeh and sharpness... Firstly, I'm yet to meet a client who wants a sharper, more contrasty image of their face! Only we appreciate bokeh, clients dgaf! And no one wants a photo with bright green grass all around them on their wall either. If you go back to your shots and ignore the bokeh and sharpness and look at the way the lenses render depth you will notice a huge difference. The best way to do this is by looking at the lines of features, the very subtle increase of curves in the 85 vs the 105... The 105mm renders the subject much flatter than the 85. I use the longer lenses to reduce features of a face which the client may be self conscious about: big nose, big chin... Also for full body shots of, overly curvy people... If I want to bring out a curve or give shape to someone who is a bit skinny, I use a shorter focal length, usually a 50 but I'll even go as wide as 28mm sometimes I've owned all of these lenses several times. If you're shooting wildlife and random objects a 70-200, even the f4 would be better for you. Thanks again guys! If you want to see some examples of shots on these lenses my website is travisphoto.co.uk and there's a couple on my insta. Big love ✌
As an artist I always look for how cinematic and pleasing the image is. I don't care the weight, the adaptor or anything as long as the lens gives me the "look". I own the 105 and I think it is the only F mount beats the Z mounts. The 85mm f1.2 Z lens is out now, so I wonder how 105 competes with it. I think, because of the compression of a105 lens, bokeh will be better than Z 85mm f1.2 S, but the 1.2 and the tech behind the new lens will make me think again... Thank you for the review guys !
Thank you for this wonderful review/comparison! I am an 85mm nut and currently own five 85mm lenses and I love them all. 4 are manual focus and one is the 85 f/1.4G from Nikon, which is obviously older, but still an amazing lens. My favorite 85 is the Zeiss Otus, which is manual and just mind blowing every time I use it. I mostly use a Nikon Z7II with the FTZII and combined with the Otus, it is pure perfection and inspirational every time I pick up the camera. I recently got the 105 f/1.4 and although very different than the Otus, the 105 is equally inspiring to use, especially for portraits of both humans, semi-humans, and my gorgeous cats! The Nikon 105 f/1.4 is one of the finest Nikon lenses I have ever used!
I bought the 105 F1.4 after intensive testing it in comparison with the 200f2 and Sigma 135 f1.8 I loved the angle of the 200f2 but that lens is so heavy that it became frustrating when I was at weddings. The 105 f1.4 brought almost the same background compression but a slight wider angle. Howver, the compression was that great that is became a lesser issue The positive part of the 105 was als that I also could use it better inside. The Sigma was also a great lens but needed already more disance outside and therefore not useable inside. The versatility and the compression made me choose between the 200mmf2 and 105 f1.5. Price, long distance and frustrating weight made me go for the 105 f1.4. The 105 also did not need that long distances to get the same background compression as the 200f2. I use the 105f1.4 a lot, it is my favourite lens. In meantime I moved from the D850 and D750 to the Z series Z6ii and z9 and still use the 105 f1.4 . It performs perfect. When I need a smaller angle I use my 70-200mmf2.8. I also hav a Sony Alpha with a 85 1.8. But personally the 85mm angle is a bit to wide. The 150, 135 and 200mm are much more favorite distances for portraits. The 24-70mm f2.8 and 70-200m easily with cover the 85mm and imo if I go to 135mm with my 70-200mm the background compression is close to the 85mm f1.8. I really like the characteristic of the 105mm which I also could no find at the 85mm f1.8, the 24-70mm and 70-200mm. Those are much more "perfect" images, with less own characteristics. That said, it all does not make me moving to the 85mm f1.8. I doubted if I would go for for Z-mount 85mm f1.8, but I have already have a 105f1.4 and I'm therefore not on the crosspoint for such a choice. But if I had to choose today, I would go for the 105f1.4 with adapter and for all other work, the Z mounts 14-24mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm Z-mount.
Hi There, Agree with you. I have 24-70 2.8 z and 70-200 2.8 z for events weddings and pretty much everything else. but I have the 105mm 1.4 for that especial look dreamy shots. that's my trio with z6 and z9.
I have the 85mm 1.4 f mount which my son uses as his main, “go to” portrait lens, on his D810. I have the 85 1.7 Z mount which I love for portrait photos. The older f mount is heavier but sharp as heck. The newer lens has lots of future photos in my mind ahead of me. I love your interaction and conversation. You give me lots of ideas and subjects to think about. Thanks for your conversation. I’d say you hit on so many points it’s hard to pick one to stick to. Thank you again! 😎👋🤩📷👍
Thank you. As an owner of the z 50mm f1.2 I think I’m going to keep saving up for whatever faster Z version they release of the 85 (since owning the 50 f1.2 my 85 f1.8 hasn’t even been out of the camera bag tbh).
I already have the Z 85 F1.8 S - and as a biologist and ecologist also the Z MC 105mm F2.8 S. Therefore it would be pure luxury to complement my equipment with this 105 F1.4. But if portraiture would be my main focus in photography I would go for it - or waiting for the upcoming Z 85 F1.2. Indeed the images the 105 produces have a special look, that certain something, it's difficult to describe, but it's there ... The way you discuss the pros ans cons of cameras and lenses in a vital dialogue is very inspiring and unique in the www - I love it!
Would you stick with the 105 with ftz or sell for 85mm f1.8S or 70-200 2.8 S? I'm waiting on delivery of ftz to test but I don't know what's best. If I really push I could pickup the 70-200 but I'd have to sell the 105 then really!
I enjoyed the video. I liked the color rendition of the 85mm f/1.8S quite a bit more than the 105mm f/1.4E. I sold all my F-mount lenses, one of which was the 105mm f/1.4, in favor of the Z-mount lenses. I currently have the 85mm f/1.8, but I’m really looking forward to the 85mm f/1.2S lens.
@@russandloz I was actually considering purchasing it again along with the FTZ II adapter now that I’ve started using the new Z9. Matt Grainger has been touting how well some of the old F-mount lenses work with the Z9, and I don’t anticipate Nikon is going to release a Z-mount version of this lens anytime soon.
My main portrait lens is the 135mm f1.8 from Sigma. The problem is that I need enough distance to use it. I once tried the Z 85mm f1.8, it's a very nice lens and the fact that no adapter is needed is great.
I have the Z6II recently bought, with the 24-70 f4, going to pickup the 50mm f1.8 S too. I also have the Nikon 105mm f1.4 prime and waiting on delivery of the ftz ii adapter. Would you recommend picking up the 85mm f1.8 S over the 105? I'm debating that, or potentially selling the 105 and ftz, and going all in and picking up the 70-200 2.8 S... I'm mostly focusing on doing family photos and portraits of my 4 month old son alongside a few upcoming weddings shooting as guest.. Thanks!
Adapted F1.4 primes give great results. I like the idea of native Z-mount lenses but the price and performance of the f1.4’s has made me pick up lots of them. The Sigma Art 28, 40, 135 (F1.8) are ones that I have and I am super satisfied with their sharpness wide open and they are all super bargains right now. There is also an outside chance Sigma will ultimately switch the mount so that the Art lenses I have are z-mount.
I’ve never had the chance to use them. But using the FTZ can get annoying with the weight and balance of older lenses. Hopefully they will release z mount ones
We don’t have that lens unfortunately. Though the look of a 1.4 would be much different from a 2.8 at any focal length. Maybe it would be closer to the 85.
i have a 105 f1.4 sigma art lens F mount. Very happy with it despite the size. i kept it even when i sell most of my F mount lens to buy my new Z8. it's just beautiful and sharp.
I have the 50mm 1.8s, 85mm 1.8s, and the 70-200mm f2.8s. HOWEVER, I still use an adapted Sigma Art 105mm f1.4. It is probably my favorite portrait lens and I frequently use it and the 50mm 1.8s together for portrait sessions, but I still bought the 85mm for work where I need a lighter bag, and will have a shorter working distance (so for example I use the 85mm at weddings and events, and will leave the 105 at home). I think if your budget allows it's worth owning both, but If not I'd probably favor the 85mm for the convenience factor.
Yeah, the Sigma version is supposed to be sharper although it's even chunkier / heavier. Ror all intents and purposes I'd think they'd be very similar. (Never had the opportunity to to a direct comparison). I did like your comparison video here, showing working distance and out of focus elements / lens compression. Nice work.
@@russandloz The Sigma version is more clinical and the Nikon more painterly - I prefer the Nikon but they are both great lenses and it is a matter of taste. However, I will add that if you think the Nikon 105 1.4 E is big and heavy, try the Sigma 1.4 - it is a monster and significantly bigger and heavier than the Nikon.
I have a Z 85 f1.8 S and a Z MC 105 2.8 S. Either one is great for portraits, but I'll go to the 85 first. In either case, I generally use a higher f stop for sharpness and deal with background in post.
Interesting! I’d love a comparison between these two! I have the 85S but considering the 105micro as I used to love the old classic 105mm 2.5 ais lens.
In the future, the ultimate comparison will be: 85mm 1.8, 85mm 1.2, 105mm 1.4, 135mm 1.8, and of course the 70-200mm. When all of these lenses are available, the Nikon counter will be a candy store 🍭
If I could pick one of those I’d go for the 85 1.2 with 105 second. They’ll all be very similar. Though I don’t think 2.8 lenses really cut it for me. Have to be so far away too. What would be your first and second?
@@russandloz I tend to like the look of longer focal lengths. I wonder if the the 135 will be the sweet spot of not too shallow of depth of field at the subject, but still nice bokeh thanks to compression. For the same reason the 70-200 looks so good at 200 even though it’s at f/2.8. I just need to be patient and wait for it to be released, and then of course for you to review it! :) I also hope Nikon finds a way to keep it light-ish.
Great test! If anything it tells you how good the S line f1.8 lenses are. The 85mm f1.8S is less than half the cost of the mighty 105mm f1.4E, yet compares very well optically.
@@russandloz Wow that's an incredible deal! Sorry I missed your conversation at the start and jumped straight into the test. The 105mm f1.4E is a magic lens. I think you are making some of the best comparisons on RU-vid since because you move and work with field of view as one does in the real world. I would love it if you sometime have the opportunity to do this kind of comparison between the 105mm 2.8S Micro and the 85/1.8S.
@@tor2919 Thanks, we enjoy making these videos. The focal length of the 105mm seems to have a great look but might balance out with the f-stop, so may look the same?
If you love the 105 then you need to try the best portrait lens that Nikon makes and that is the 200/f2 vr2... yes its big and heavy but the result blows away the 105. BTW, I own both as well as the Z 70-200 2.8. The ultimate portrait lens ever IMO and although its a fully manual focus one is the Zeiss Otus 100/1.4.
As far as I'm concerned the 105 is pretty similar in sharpness to the 85. The difference is in the smaller DOF and (I believe) a misfocus on your side when you have used the 105 f1.4. It looks like you (or the body/or the lens) have backfocused a little.
BIG fan of the 105 F1.4... also have the 85 F1.8... NO comparison on subject islolation. The 105 is the mind blowing WOW lens (when shot wide open) that everybody freaks out over. :O
I have had the 105 1.4e for 3 years now and shot it on my D850. Wow! Something very pleasing to the eye doing a portrait. I now sold my D850 for a Z9 which I think is incredible and just can't think (not yet) of letting it go for another lens. I have a Z 24-70 s f/4 lens and no I don't need an adapter and yes it is very nice but I can't let go of my 24-70 2.8 yet either. Some tough decisions
The Z mount lenses have a different cooler look from the warmer f mount glass, I'm staying with them too for a while. It's worth upgrading lenses that have changed in performance and become lighter such as the 14-24.
@Russ & Loz Productions just saw update this morning the Nikon Z lens 85 1.2 s is available....almost $3,000 dollars...they make it tough to upgrade with these prices
I own the 85mm 1.8 and really enjoy it. I had been shooting on prime lenses between 28mm and 40mm for years, so using a longer lens has been a revelation. I, however, decided to skip the 105mm and go straight to the 200mm f2. So far that one is... well, you really have to see it to believe it. My God.
@@russandloz It's not so far that you cannot comfortably communicate with your subject. 70-200mm f/2.8 zoom lenses are very common for full-length portraiture--and are used at 200mm as often as possible for maximum compression. If a 70-200mm zoom lens can be used at 200mm for portraiture, why not a 200mm prime? There are quite a few portrait photographers I have great respect for who use them: including Daniel Venter, Manuel Ortiz, and Keydrin Franklin.
@@kylewist7745 I’m sure the 200mm makes great photos, though I really don’t like operating at long distances it’s just too far for me. I also think 1.8 and below has a much better look.
@@russandloz f2 isn’t far off from 1.8 mate. And with the 200 you get more compression and nicer rendered backgrounds. As the man said, you have to see it to believe it. People who had Nikons and jumped ship for another brand kept their Nikkor 200mm f2’s, of which I know at least three. That’s how good that lens is and the impact it leaves on you.
@@stephenspiteri_zunkus Yes I agree the 200 would be impressive. But it’s also a lot bigger and heavier and a lot more expensive. Also the working distance would be much larger. Thanks.
You should get a fringer adapter and try some canon portrait lenses too. Z cameras let you mount just about anything, and that fringer adapter is supposed to do a better job with Canon lenses than the ftz does with Nikon ones
Nikon 105mm 1.4 is a Dream lens The, ive got the Tamron 105mm f1.4 As well Both lenses I luv ❤️ and wouldn't give up neither.! Believe it or not the Tamron is Sharper less Gousting no Flaring and no fringe.? "BUT YES TAMRON IS HEAVIER, But I just don't give a darn, The Nicest thing is it aprox 5 to 7 hundred Cheaper.? Much Sharper and better Quality, Again is a HEAVIER lens but again do not care.!!! But luv ❤️ them Both BigTime Nikon 105mm & Tamron 105mm 1.4 PS-- I will never ever give neithe of them up.!!! ( Both 105mm rules.! ) Boston ❤️ Massachusetts
The 105 1.4 is the only f-mount lens I have left. Oops....I also still have the Sigma 135 1.8 with f-mount. I will be hanging on to both of these for the foreseeable future.
I love my 105 f/1.4E ED as it stays on my D850 and D810.I don’t shoot wide open, which the lens is between f/5.6 to f/9.0 , as I in shoot studios. I am sticking with F-Mount until Nikon unveils a Z-Mount 105mm f/1.2
My best portrait lens is the 200F2. Amazing pictures !!!! I also have the 105F1.4 and the 85F1.8Z but the 200F2 beets them all. And there is also the fantastic 58f0.9NOCT the I use for video.
This video isn’t helping my GAS. I rented and adored the 105 a few years ago and it’s why I bought my 85 Z for that portrait prime look. But after a couple of shoots including my family last night I still want the 105!
Can't go wrong with either! But I prefer the 70-200 f/2.8 when outdoors so I can capture almost anything interesting in my sight with the quick AF and reach.
That 105mm is just godly, and the price tag tells why. If I had all the money to spend I would still pick the 105 with the tiniest lack of detail, just too good to resist
I would say the 50 even at 1.2 wouldn't be able to compete with double the focal length at 105mm. Of course the 50mm range is a more versatile focal length.
Le 105 est 10 fois meilleur en terme de rendu... le 85 z est ridicule à côté même si le piqué est excellents. Je trouve ce 105 unique... le 105 sigma est bcp trop lourd et moins réussi également niveau rendu... les seuls rivaux sont le z85 1.2 et le plena mais dans la pratique 105 est unique... je le préfère... meilleur compression que le 85 et plus facile à utiliser qu un 135 souvent trop long... allez nikon faites nous un z105 1.4
Macro lenses aren’t really designed for the same things and I hear have slow autofocus for non macro work. Also is a 2.8 so will look quite different from a 1.4 or 1.8
@@russandloz Seth Miranda from Adorama has a video where he talks about using the Z 105 for portraits, and how he “loves” using macro lenses for portrait work. So, lots of photographers out there are hearing that the new Z lens is a viable option for headshots and such. So here’s your opportunity to show the world how huge a difference there is between the Z 105 macro and a much more classically designed F mount 105 portrait lens. Seems like a very worthwhile (and catchy) comparison for your channel.
@@waveland Yes i'd love to compare them, but we don't have a 105z macro. I do have the 105 2.8 Iaowa lens but that's manual focus. Loz has the f mount 105 macro we could also use. But sure, any 105 lens would be fine at portraits but maybe the out of focus areas wouldn't be so good.
@@russandloz I had passed on the Z 105 because of the janky manual focus. Non-linear is not a good fit for precise macro work. But after some research last night I found that the Z 105, Z 50 1.2, and the 24-70 have a firmware update which activates linear focus. I tried it on the 50 this morning. What a revelation. For tricky subject matter (puddles for instance) where autofocus can’t always read your mind, I’m able to get rough focus via auto and then with my index finger can dial in very precise refinements from there with zero effort. And for macro you can push the focus throw past 360 if you want, for hyper precise adjustments (assuming a tripod of course). The 105 is back on my list of must have lenses.
@@russandloz but at a premium price. By the way I do have the horrible sigma 70-200mm f2.8 OS contemporary. Its very slow to focus and is very noisy but when it locks on focus it's good.
I have an f-mount 85mm 1.8G, which I hardly use, it’s a good lens but it doesn’t inspire me. I have an old ai-s Nikkor 105mm 2.5 which is such a dream, it renders so nicely, and it’s an old lens so I do get why you’re loving the 105 1.4 so much. My favorite lens is my Samyang 135mm f2 manual lens. This lens renders so beautifully and the way it compresses the image, you hardly get an image wrong as long as it’s focused well. Having said all that, my most used lens is my old 70-200 vr2, which does the job almost as well as the 135mm but there that reassurance with it that the image would be in focus. These are all f-mount lenses, which I’m now using with my Z body since I’ve gone mirrorless. I’m now hoping Nikon gives us a new 105 1.4 and a 135 1.8 for the Z mount which we’d be proud to own and use.
I would say there would be a big difference between the 105 2.8 to 1.4 in DOF and background compression. If our tests with the 70-200 2.8 shows it at 200, then a 100mm would be even less so. Thanks.
I still rock the Sigma 85 1.4 and it has never let me down. Still waiting for that Nikon 85mm 1.2 S to be released. Otherwise I might just pick up the 105 1.4 F as well.
I wouldn't buy the 105mm even if it was significantly better. 85mm is great and smaller and easier to use. Not comparing them side-by-side, a client wouldn't know the difference. I also think the 85mm has its own character, different from the 105mm. That difference is subjective. The 85mm can be very creamy if you give more distance to the background. Of course, I have a 210mm F4 that creams the background if the distance is far enough away. I also have a 105mm DC that I will keep and use when I feel the need for a different look. My only issue with my DC is the chromatic aberration and LR takes care of that in a snap. With that said, the 85mm is more than enough and it's so lightweight. A big factor!!
Why is the background of every video you guys do - completely blown out? It's hard to watch and to take your commentary seriously. Please invest in some lights to balance the exposure of your shots. Your content is otherwise entertaining.
As we don't have a suitable indoor place to film ourselves we are often subject to the weather. We also don't have any income from this channel to invest in outdoor lights which can be expensive. I would say it doesn't make our videos hard to watch, but we realise it could be better in that respect.
@@russandloz Distracting is probably a better adjective. Loved today's episode btw-great comparison. But, the talking head portions were with a 2 large bright windows in the background. Perhaps shooting facing the window with 14-30mm. Or $7 reflector with 100watt bulb could balance the exposure. Just trying the help cause I like the content. All the best.
@@martinsmyth5580 Good one! You mean the VHS home video from 30yrs ago that I converted digital and hosted for family. You really zinged it! FYI - - One need not be a Chef to know when something tastes bad.
