Thanks for following up with the video. I'm the one who made the initial comment. Side by side, I can clearly see the difference, but by itself I think the Micro is more than sufficient for my needs.
hehe thats right. Thank you Chuckwalla. Hope this video helped out and thank you for the request. If your using a dslr go with the G 105 macro, z mirrorless I would look into the 105mm MC. Heard this lens is spectacular.
Nice compare and contrast review and your niece is adorable!!! I’ve tried the 105 F2.8G macro Nikkor for portrait works and it can be made to work for sure. I’ve found the colors off a bit, especially the flesh tones for lighter skin, never can seem to get them right post shoot (D800/850). Might be just me or my particular example but that’s my experience. Love it for inanimate objects however, superb macro capabilities. I shoot most portraits with the 85 F1.4G, the current 70-200 F2.8, the old war horse 80-200 F2.8 (superlative skin tones) and, believe it or not, the 58 F1.4G (I just adore that lens). Of course, for a different fashion type look the 35 F1.4G can give interesting results. If I had the 105 F1.4 it’d see the lions share of head shots, a superlative lens when I tried it. Didn’t want to give it back!!! An enjoyable take my friend, thanks for sharing!!! Ciao.
Thank you Steve. Good observation. My observation is similar to yours. The 105 G vr works for portraits but it just doesn't have the weight and beef. There is allot more subject separation with the fast primes. Like you saide amazing for macro work. I noticed the skins tones too. The portraits primes render skin in a more flattering way. Sharpness is not everything when it comes to portraits.
Nice comparison video. As you said the f/1.4 versions are la crème de la crème. It seems to me the f/2.8 is a good alternative for head and shoulders and its bokeh would be suitable as a second priority. Thanks for your time.
good point, and another point is, if I was shooting something and I really didnt have room to pack both a portrait and macro lens and I knew for sure the job requires allot of macro photography along with portraits, THe 105 G 2.8 VR is going with me. Sometimes I am put in a situation when its an extreme on the go event, and I need to take pictures of the jewelry and the model with the jewels.
Awesome comparisons! Loved the images. The 105s definitely take beautiful images and create amazing backgrounds and bokeh behind the subjects. Personally I'm happy with my 85 which by the way, has helped me gain my first two portraiture bookings ever last week I guess because people have seen my recent photos I have taken with that lens and were blown away lol... it is just simply a gorgeous lens, the images it produces are exquisite, I'm glad I made that purchase as I needed a true portrait lens. Awesome shirt by the way, rock and roll!!!!!!
hehe yah the 85 is a superior portrait lens. It is all you really need. yes the 105 is awesome and its a monster, but do you really need the 105E? heck do you really need the 85 1.4G? the 1.8 G will probably get the job done aswell. hehe. If you find yourself with a little but of extra cash and you want to treat urself to a nice piece of glass. then go for it. Sometimes, i say to myself,, "ehhhh Im going to blow my money on stupid things, might as well buy a lens" hehe at the same time. life is to short enjoy your life as much as you can.
I have both 105s. The 1,4 is Superb When Bokeh is wanted but for studio work with apperatures of 5,6 to f8 the micro nikkor is a beast. Nice comparison!
Another great video from "the V". That 105 E does some really super work at 1.4, and can't be touched there by the 2.8 macro IMO. But the price? (I'm jealous of the equipment you're able to work with). The 2.8 macro is on my short list - perhaps the next one I get next month. Love the 85 too, although I only have the 1.8 -still amazing though. One 105 lens not mentioned here (although I think you covered it in another video) is the 105 DC (this month's purchase for me). It's likely the only one that can match up with the 105 E on the bokeh specs. If I made a living shooting portraits and weddings - I'd lean toward the E. If not, I'd probably go with the macro. 3 great lenses, all tack sharp, all great in their respective strengths. TY for the vid.
@@Vahagraphy I did pick up the 105 2.8 G macro VR - no in depth testing yet - but I do like it. The macro is something I do and will use. I wouldn't trade my 105 DC - but I do like the micro for what it does.
@@charlesdavis6371 Very nice. I have nothing but nice things to say about the 105 G. for macro stills and video work, its outstanding. Sure for all Z shooters, the MC 105 is out, but is it widely available yet? Now if you do shoiuld with DSLRs like I do the G is your go to. I even use this lens with the FTZ adapter on my Z6 and get amazing results. I love the big focus ring when fine tuning MF. Allot of my close up detail clips on my reviews are captured with that lens. Love it. the only thing I can complain about is the VR noise. Its a bit loud and clanky but not a deal breaker. Most of the time I don't use it anyway.
@@Vahagraphy My God, you answered in Italian! Bravissimo, Vahagn, grazie! 😃❤️🎉 I'm looking forward to your next video! I'll be here to watch it! Ps : I love so much the Nikon 105 f1.4 mm : stunning! Dom
Very good video on the Nikon 105mm f1.4 and f2.8 lenses, both are very good for sharpness though I like the blurry background of the f1.4 E, I think it is a great portrait lense between the two. Great video Vahagn, you have great lenses.
Thank you Agnetha. For someone who doesn't really want allot of gear and that does macro work, maybe this lens is a good option for both portrait and macro, but if you have anyone of the portrait lenses and I throw the 70-200 in the mix aswell. I would probably use the 105E 85G 70-200mm and even the 58G over the 105mmG vr for portraits. I would strictly reserve that lens for macro only.
I actually have the opposite dilemma - I know I want the 105mm f/1.4E for portraits, but since my wife likes shooting macro as well, I'm wondering whether I should get the micro lens as well.
I recently /traded/ my 85 f/1.8 G for a 105 f/2.8 AF-D micro (earlier version, no VR), and won't look back. There's one major thing that everyone overlooks in these comparisons. That $2,000 (new) 105 f/1.4 has a close focus distance that is over 3 feet. This is pretty standard for all portrait lenses. However, the 105 micros (in Nikon speak, same as macros) there is NO limit on how close you can focus. You can go an inch from the subject and get a close-up of his/her eyeball if you want. This removes what I find a very annoying limitation of straight portrait lenses and opens up many compositional opportunities. Sure, the 105 can blow out the background more -- too much imo. Looks weird to me, unnatural, and I like bokeh as much as the next guy. Also? The 105 f/2.8 AF-D costs around $150 used in excellent condition. A steal imo. It's also a true 1:1 macro lens. It's just so much more versatile and you're really not giving up much in the bokeh dept, if anything at all. Really a stellar piece of kit that's overlooked. Image Resource loves this lens and uses it for all their product shots. It says so in their review. And there's a LOT going on mechanically in this lens per KR's review. Save yourself some $$$ whether pro or enthusiast. Get the 105 f/2.8 AF-D or some other 105mm macro (Tokina makes a good one, purportedly...). A fantastic dual purpose lens...
FIRST THINK: GREAT VIDEO PRO!!! I have both 105's and I prefer the 105mm Macro on my D850 because of my shaky hands. sadly it's not always at 2.8 because the F stop ramps up depending how close you are to the subject... I will say as for me I use the 105mm 1.4 when I'm on the tripod... but this lens beats everything on my Z7 period... I mean everything except this Nikon 55mm 2.8 AF Marco... yep...lol
F/3 hehe. I noticed this too with the D850. Really the 55mm you say? interesting. Never used this lens. I will have to dig a little deeper now on the 55mm. Thank you Lem for that.🤘🏼🤘🏼🤘🏼
@@Vahagraphy you're welcome pro. Keep this great content coming. but yes. It's an old lens, hard to find but if you do get one it's the: 55mm AF micro Nikkor 2.8 👊🏾
@@charlesdavis6371 I've embrace it. My D850 most often is on a tripod/monopod when I'm doing work. I have a few Z cameras z7/6 and they are game changers for me. But it's hard to get the D850 outta my hands... And yes those VR LENSES have a home
@@charlesdavis6371 very good point Charles about VR. VR is grerat at lower shutter speeds sometimes. works well and lets you shoot at incredibly low speeds and delivers still sharp images.
Before I bought my Z 50 f/1.2 S a month ago, I did some research on the 105 f/1.4 and the Sigma one too, and found Nikon's 105mm lenses continued to be too sharp for my portrait needs. Even with the legendary 105 f/2.5, I had to add a B+W Zeiss Softar filter. Now I really want from Nikon is a return of the the the DC models or one similar to Canon RF 85 f/1.2 DS. After watching this video, it further confirmed my choice to pick the 50 f/1.2 S that offers similar 3D pop, micro-contrast and sharpness, but for wider than 3/4 body shots. Also, probably stay with my adapted Canon EF 85 f/1.2 L II for its creamy look.
Congrats on the dream Z lens 50 1.2 S. I bet its amazing when doing portraits. and equally is great when doing video. ahhh 1.2 Z,, what more can one ask for. 85 1.2 Z maybe. hehe I've owned the canon EF 85 1.2ii lens and I can tell you that lens is amazing. it delivers amazing quality. back in the day I bought a canon just to be able to use that lens for portraits. hehe it was that good.
@@Vahagraphy Thx and the 50 f/1.2 S is the only Z lens I have decided to buy and owned for now. Even I haven't shot with a 50 mm lens for four decades, it has replaced the 24-70 f/2.8 G that stays mostly on my primary camera for the past two decades. While the properties of a f/1.2 lens are expected, but it is the realization that I have a high standard (unlike the EF 50 f/1.2), general purpose lens that can do most of the things I wished for on demand, even wide open in low light situations, make the purchase worthwhile. BTW, I have a set of Canon DSLR so that I can use the EF 85 f/1.2 L II too. 🙂
I was so hoping the 105 14 wasn't the best...but it was ! Why didn't I want it to win? Only because Nikon have made it an E mount so I can't use it on my Nikon F5...blast !
How about the same thing but with Z system and Z lenses? It has been noted that the Z MC 50mm is excellent as well as the Z MC 105. I am not sure the F lenses are as capable. Thanks for your quality work and generosity in sharing.
Hello Andre. Your welcome. glad you enjoyed the video. Yes for sure. If I can get my hands on the Nikkor 105mm Z I will for sure do a comparison and review video. The 105mm Z MC and 50mm MC are on my radar right away.
@@andresce1308 Thank you thank you for the kind comment Andre. Really appreciate it. I enjoy photography and why not share what I have learned with anyone who can maybe find it beneficial. 🤘🏼🤘🏼
I have but the copy I had I bought in an estate sale with allot of other gear. that copy was not great. It wasn't as sharp. I think it was that lens.that was bad. I heard nothing but good things about this lens. some say its one of the best lenses nikon has made in that era. it has a cult following.
@@Vahagraphy I have one by the way and wide open it is not the most sharpest lens but from f2.8 pretty good. Typical for most of the AF-D lenses I would say from back then. Some of todays lenses are already tack sharp wide open such as my Sigma 135mm f1.8 or the Tamron 35mm f1.4. Quite astonishing how optical designs evolved the years.
@@Vahagraphy Ok this the second day with the 105 mmF2 DC and I discovered that this lens needs quite some AF fine tuning. -20 to be exact but now wide open at f2 things are much better.😁 AF fine tune is always something to check on.
The macro lens has so much better color, and seems just as sharp as the 1.4E. Yeah, the 1.4 gives better background blur, but also costs quite a bit more and doesn't look as pleasing, at least to me.
Great Video...takes time to do this stuff! Thank you. I think the 104 is too soft compared to todays technology. If you compare the 104E to the current 85 1.8s that would be more of a comparison keeping in mind distance and compression factors. We all know the 85mm 1.2 will be the "dream" lens for many photographers...
Thank you Reel. Yes the distance factors are tough, I learned that fast trying to shoot sample images with the 200 F2 and the 105E in my latest review video. The 85 1.2 Z will be a monster. That and the 105 MC micro are 2 must haves for me in the future.
very shallow depth of field of abt 1 inch at a distance of 8ft , 5 inch dof at 16ft. Hard time focusing in low light condition man.. thats the only drawback
At 4:04, the 85mm f/1.4 was the winner for me. The face appears to be more three-dimensional than with the two 105mm lenses. This could also be partly due to the difference in focal length, in which the 105mm gives more compression than the 85mm and therefore appears flatter. The color rendering of the skin is also the most pleasant for me with the 85mm.
