Got the 50mm 1.8S and must say it is the sharpest lens I ever had. And for that reasonable price. Now getting the 70-200 2.8 and I think I never need the 85mm.
Yes it is my current favourite lens, though for greater bokeh the 85 is nicer and for that extra reach. Then the 70-200 is probably Nikons best lens. See our other video of it to see!
GREAT VIDEO!! I think I will buy the 40 f2 + the 85 f1.8 the 50 1.8 is better, no doubt, but cant affort 50 and 85, so the 40+85 would be great too.. a great combo and affordable...
Have 35,50,85 1.8’s.. love the 85 for portraits.. 35 is my all around general use.. but my 50 1.8 is less used cause of the heavy 50 1.2s but a damn great heavy lens..selling my 50 1.8 together with my Z6 so i can get another Z6ii body soon
noone mentions the 85 used in landscape for light telephoto prime , you are not just stuck with portrait at all. I have the viltrox 40mm F2.5 is sharp and LESS viginetting then the Niko version. I think will get a used z85 f1.8 and keep the 40mm which is under $200 and still nice output.
IF one is going to get two lenses, a 35 and a 85 could be a good combination. The problem is, for budged buyers the 35mm is typically more expensive. 4:12 the test shows so plainly the effect of compression: it's shown by the. bricks in the background.
Great comparison Russ & Loz. I can’t remember the last time (if at all) I’ve seen a shooting distance comparison like this. Any photographer starting out should see the difference for headshots, not only in terms of a less cluttered background, but also in how you don’t have to get right in a subject’s face to get a headshot. It also surprises me to see how much this 50mm elongates the face compared to the 85mm, and how the 85mm seems to have more contrast and dimensionality. Also, towards the end you mention the 50mm f1.2, and I suppose for general purpose wedding and events work, the softer backgrounds of the 1.2 may not be worth the extra weight and expense, because many clients will not manage to tell the difference. But for other kinds of commercial and art photography where you want to eliminate backgrounds and more carefully manage the viewer’s gaze, the f1.2 makes an immense difference. I just wish we had an 85mm f1.2 already. I don’t do a lot of people and portrait work, but you’ve reminded me with your comparisons, how important it is to not shoot too close when needing to have people look themselves in the final image.
Thanks, interesting input. We have a video comparing the 50 1.2 on our channel if you are interested. I now use the 50 1.2 and 105 1.4 instead of 50 1.8 and 85 1.8. But with face distortion, lens choice, distance and angle have a massive impact which isn't often discussed you are right.
@@russandloz I did see your 1.2 comparison and that helped solidify my decision to spend the money. So thank you for that. I’ve only had it two days and already have a few keeper shots I could not have produced any other way, so I’m very pleased with the decision. I did look at the 105mm micro but found the manual focusing to be too laggy and imprecise for my taste. Eventually I will pick up a third party z-mount macro with a proper mechanical focus for close work; and for more portrait-length shooting, will try to get by with the 24-120 f4 all-arounder lens for the time being. I’m also very curious to see how the 85mm 1.2 will look when Nikon finally releases it. I shot GFX for a time and still miss the 110mm f2 (87ish mm equivalent) which had truly magical falloff. Some of that feel comes from the 16-bit color, but most of it comes from the optical formula. I hope Nikon can produce a similar kind of magic. Time will tell.
If I would have one for general use it would be the 50mm, if I was just going to shoot portraits I would go to the 85 mm as it gives me more working distance, no when I photographed events I used Pentax and Panasonic s5 I just got a Nikon Z6Ii and Zf for general photography and landscapes.
During my early film shooting days, the 50mm was called a “Sneaker Zoom”. Want a closer image? Get closer. Now while approaching 84 years of age, for portraits, I use a 105mm, mostly at ISO 4 and 3D focus tracking.. Now for my nap.
I have the 24-70 2.8 now. Need a second lens and thinking on getting the 85. Should I save a bit more and get the 70-200? Doing events and some portraits.
@@BronzeHarbour An 85 will have such a nice different look compared to your 24-70. But the 70-200 produces beautiful results too! Probably more useful focal range
@@russandloz True, but in terms of cost and results, think the 85mm 1.8 can be a better choice for now. Portability is a big thing for me and looking for a second lens, think it is best to go for that look + price + size.
If I were shooting portraits of a single person, I would prefer the 85mm f/1.8S. There’s lightly more compression and the Bokeh is more pleasing. For groups of 3 or more, I would choose the 50mm f/1.2S. And for larger groups, I might use the 35mm f/1.8S. I have all three prime lenses. I also have the trinity of f/2.8 zoom lenses for the z-mount.
@@alfredconqueror4422 No, I’m not rich. I’ve just been selling off all my F-mount lenses and slowly replacing them with the Z-mount equivalent. It’s taken me 3 years so far, but I’ll likely stop after I replace my 200-500mm f/5.6 lens. That will be the last one. I’m not sure if it will be the 100-400mm or the 200-600mm that are listed in the lens roadmap.
I'm just an enthusiast and an old timer. At this moment, I only have the 50 f/1.2 S and adapted my AF-S lens trinity + EF 85 f/1.2 L II and other Nikon & Canon lenses. I'm not buying any more Z lens until I decided is the upcoming Z9 worthwhile enough to buy. Even with a Z9, I'll probably wait for the v2 of the lens trinity. Although I wish Nikon will release some new lenses, such as a 24/28-70 f/2 that matches Canon RF one. I'll buy one now if it is available. BTW, for formal portraits, I'm still using the old rule of the thumb, that is, 50 for full length, 85 for half, 105-135 for H&S.
Yes, the difference between f/1.8 and f/1.2 is visibly apparent. And it’s not limited to simply the degree of defocus but also the characteristics of the bokeh, greater sharpness and the reduced chromatic aberration. The question is: Is the difference worth the additional size, weight and expense? For me, the answer is yes in the cases of the 50mm and 85mm focal lengths (Canon R system user).
@@russandloz It is a consideration. However, the increase in size and weight are on par with the differences between Canon’s 50/1.8 and Nikon’s 50/1.8. One adopts a mindset upon committing to a large aperture prime that “the look” is worth the effort of carrying around a lens ~3x larger and heavier than the f/1.8 alternative.
I would definitely get the 85 first… it’s like a cheaper version of a 50 1.2 for getting that same isolation, and I have a 35 1.4 for my aps-c system already… regardless though, 85 covers more genres than 50 - sports, large animals, people, and mountain landscapes. You need to be really close to a mountain to make it look good at 50mm. Also as of 2023, 70-200 is redundant if you save up and get 135 plena and 85 second hand / grey market
Depends on your working distance, 85 would be too long for most of my event work but sure it has a better look. I would rather have the 70-200 instead of the 135 too, I don't really get the fascination with that lens
@@russandloz I love that we have the option to shoot at 1.8 and produce some stellar images but I prefer my images stopped down a bit. It’s just my personal preference.
HI, I own a z5 with the kit lens of 24-70 f4, Planning to get a prime lens to take portraits of my kid and family in the functions and family events, Pls provide a recommendation?
Thanks for uploading... I have both lenses, they are phenomenal optically, especially at their price points. My 85 seems a tad sharper than my 50, very little in it though. They have different use scenarios, both are brilliant for their intended purposes.
