Nikon F 105mm f/1.4 Vs Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 Bokeh Battle I Jason Halayko Photography 

We need a Nikon Z 105mm 1.2

Thanks for a great comparison Jason. I need to compare my 105 f/2.5 from the 70's with my 105 f/2.8 Z to get some of the comparison skills you demonstrated. I need to do more shooting and less shopping.

Great video. I so nearly ordered the 135 right away as i used to love my 135dc years ago until i tried the 105 1.4 that was incredible. I also own the 200 f2 and am gonna stick with these for a few more years

I own the 105mm F2 DC; and it's basically the best portrait lens ever made.. and I wish I can use it with full AF on the Z system. In fact; the 3 best portrait lenses I use; 105mm F2DC; 60mm F2.8 Micro; and the 180mm F2.8D are not reproduced in the Z lineup.. Neither is my most used lens; the 28mm F1.8G. Why I haven't switched; because the 4 most used lenses on my nikon F mount have zero equivalent.

In my perspective, difference key is: 105mm is for posed models and 135mm is more for corporate and social events.

Good comparison, I always regretted not buying the 105mm 1.4 it is a really good portrait focal length I use the 105 2.8 S macro for portraits sometimes with surprising results. I have sold all my F mount lenses besides my 70-200mm if I see a really good sale i will grab the 105mm.

Thanks for your video - it is an awesome one. About the point regarding FTZ, many folks have an FTZ (hopefully II) when they switched from the F-mount. So typically that is not an add-on purchase. I understand the point that it can be inconvenient taking the FTZ on or off. However, now that I have a lot of Z lenses and only a couple of F-mount lenses (the Nikon 105mm f/1.4E and the Nikon 500mm f/5.6 PF VR), I have a dedicated FTZ II adapter always glued to each of them. Hence I can use both of these like native Z mount lenses.

I guess the 105 is easier to get more creative angle since it is wider. 135 is longer, more restrictive when used in closed space

You saved me big money tonight; appreciating my 105 all over again.

Wonderful and useful comparison. I use the 105 f1.4for a few years, and love it. I also purchased the Sigma 135 f1.8 before the Plena was on the roadmap. I have been happy with the Sigma also for portrait work. This Plena though is quite appealing, and I might have to trade in a couple lenses to get one. Love the perfect bokeh and it would be significantly lighter. First time viewer to your page. Just subscribed, and look forward to checking out your content. Cheers.

Both beautiful images, the 105 images look like they have a really pleasing softness (in a good way) kind of light ethereal feel, while the 135 images looked a bit more contrasts and "modern super sharp" look. The 85 1.8 s in dx mode on Z9 would be an interesting comparison (thanks to the high resolution sensor).

Matt Granger made the comparison and he decided to keep his 105mm. Watch his comparison. He mentioned how much harder it was to control his background with the 85mm compared to the 105 and especially the 135mm.

Really great video and prompt review . Loved this video

I have both and, in my opinion, the 135mm Plena is a much better lens...not by much but one of the best I have ever used. 135mm a little sharper and all-round great lens...Peace

The bokeh of 135mm is insane. This lens is going to be legendary.

Nice comparison, great model, music and moves! I think the 105mm is just as good, they are both very impressive though. I'll never be able to afford either, but the little 85mm f/1.8 will be mine one day, and that's a sweet bit of glass. I have a 1973 vintage 105mm Nikkor that still holds up pretty well to modern lenses. Thanks a lot man, love from England!

I really enjoyed your review. I have the 85 1.2 and the 105 1.4. I wish you had done the comparison at night as well. I watched your other night video which was also great but it didn't have the comparison. Thanks! I'm confused too!

Great video thank you. I hsve been thinking about the 105 because I can use it with both My D850 and Z9. I love my my manual focus 105 f2.8 that I use when shooting film.

I'm perfectly happy with my older (scratched) sigma 135 f1.8 art and now have ordered a used manual focus zeiss milvus ZF2 85mm f1.4 for static subjects (ie plants and landscapes). Both'll have great control of aberrations. I may just trade up to the nikon 104mm f1.4 one day.

Interesting comparison. I like your approach. Good job ! 👍🏼 I subscribed

I have the Sigma 105 F1.4, which is a beast, but damn that 105mm filter size. Gonna save up for the Plena since it's better suited for video work than the Sigma.

Ok so I just checked the images from the Sigma 105mm f1.4 and compared it to the Nikon 105mm 1.4 and they both produce IDENTICAL images that are magical! Currently I own the Nikon Z85mm f1.2 and I was about to purchase the Nikon Z135mm f1.8 Plena but I’m CONVINCED that the images from the 105mm f1.8 (either Sigma or Nikon) are waaaaaay better than the Nikon 135mm f1.8 Plena. It’s actually ironic that your video has a comparison between the 105mm 1.4 and the 135mm 1.8 Plena !!! In YOUR video here there is a HUGE difference between the two lenses and ALTHOUGH the background blur is significant more pronounced on the 135mm Plena the images from the 105mm 1.4 are magical. It DOES produce images that have a background that is much less blurred than the Plena, but the way the background gradually fades is very dream like, and not the way the Plena obliterates the background. I would have no issue adding the adapter even if I had to climb up a cliff to do so, because the images from this 105mm f1.4 are worth every bit of effort. I’d just keep the adapter on the 105mm permanently or to prove how great this 105mm lens is I’ll find a welder at an auto body shop to permanently weld the two together 😂 There is a $700 or so price difference between the two and it gets reduced to $500 after you purchase the FTZ II adapter, so it’s not like I’m saving a ton of money. There is a physical size difference between the two lenses even with the adapter, but the main advantage are the images from the 105mm that in my opinion, bokeh aside, are dreamy, have a certain look to them. Your video has now, after watching several other videos on RU-vid of the 105, convinced me that even if a lens has a greater focal length and supposedly ‘better’ bokeh, aperture rings and such, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s the better lens. Only real world images will tell you that. The Nikon 105mm f1.4 is the better lens. For the longest time after I initially purchased the Nikon Z85mm f1.2 something kept me holding off on the 135mm Plena because I wasn’t entirely convinced. Now I know that nothing will convince me to get the Plena, either now or down the road and it’s the 105 that I want. This is a very easy decision for me to make.

If you ask the math law, the ratio between 135 / 105 = 1,2857. That multiplied with 1,4 totalls to 1,7999 aka f1,8 So by the physics it should be the same but for me the 135 renders a little better bokeh. Everything you said, I agree entirely. Great comparision !

Ive always preferred the 105mm range over the 85mm and 135mm.

Nice photos and videos with both lenses ! First thing -- many of us are well aware that the Bookeh of the 105 1.4 and the 135 1.8 are quite comparable -- we also know quite well that a 200mm 2.0 or a 300mm 2.8 do have more Bookeh than both of the aforementioned lenses ! I have to say some would not agree that being a Z mount lens is in general the better thing or an advantage ! There are still some F mount cameras around and one can clearly say that the 105mm 1.4 is much more versatile in this way as to be usable on both mounts ( or did anybody attempt to use a Z mount lens successfully on a F-mount camera yet ? ). And as good as the 135mm 1.8 is for sure -- for some portrait shooters it might be even too sharp ( on the clinical side ) -- and there is a huge price difference when taking into account that you can find the 105mm 1.4 in great condition used for way less than half the price of the 135mm 1.8 new ! BTW -- I had the 105mm 1.4 -- sold it because I used it not enough -- but it was a great lens and I even think about getting it again 2nd hand ( for less than I sold it for years ago ! )

Hi Jason!! Your videos are always top!! In my personal opinion the 105 1.4 has always been one of Nikon's most beautiful lenses and it also shows on the Z camera. The 135 is absolutely fantastic, but the price doesn't make it better than the 105. One question... Did you test it with the Z9? Thank you

Hey Jason, nice review! I wondered about this topic as soon as the Plena was announced, good to hear your musings. I used to love the 135 f2 back in my Canon days, especially as it would take a 1.4x converter and gave a primo 190 f2.8. Unfortunately the Plena does not allow this, if it did I would probably have one by now, but the 105 1.4 is excellent, so money saved! ;) Arigatou.

my 1st impression out of the box, I have the 105/1.4 already and have been content with using it, but i figured i would try the 135 Plena and when i put it on i did not get the OMG WOW reaction, do not get me wrong, the 135 is Lit, but my question, was it worth the $2500 to have both the 105 and 135. I think i will be sending the 135 back

Like the 105mm. I actually use it mostly for what it wasn’t really made for, sports at night. Lately, been shooting mostly sports and not much portraits.

Did you notice the plena making extra noise when changing aperture (loudest at 1.8 and disappears around 4)? Did side by side in a quiet room and plena is easily making twice the noise my Z 85 1.2 is. Concerned i got a bad copy, but don't want to return if this is normal. Purchased new from a reputable shop- package showed no sign of mishandling.

Nice video and great comparison. A suggestion could be to keep the 105 and get the 135. This could be the best of both worlds. Be safe.

I just moved from my D850 to the Z8 with an FTZ2 adaptor and only the Z 24-200mm f/4 lens. I have a bunch of excellent and underused F mount lenses and need to figure out "what next". I'm an amateur but like to do good portraits shots and own the old F 85mm f/1.4 lens. Based on footage here on YT to me it doesn't make sense to buy the Z 85mm f/1.2 the difference is too small (and less sharpness is not only bad) and therefore I mused about the Z 135mm f/1.8 Plena but even before you talked about the distance (!) and communication aspect I was already in doubt but after your video I feel confirmed. The Plean would be nice to have but I hardly have the distance needed and adding the old F 105mm f/1.4 doesn't make a lot of sense because of the fumbling with the adaptor although one could get it cheap(er). Bottom line I stick to may old 85mm and will check out the 35mm f/1.2 if its coming and see later if I really need to upgrade my portrait shooting lenses.

Pumping a 200mm f2 revision to Z would be awesome if they went crazy to 200 f1.8.

I could tell the difference. I like the 135mm better. Also, could the flange distance be why the F1.8 looked better?

Nice comparison. Did you notice any difference in AF speed?

Thanks for the side by side, Jason. I picked up a used 105mm f1.4 about 4 years ago for $900 (without hood - which I have added since). I had been interested in the 135mm f1.8 prior to it's release - and wondering if it would replace my f-mount glass (a used 105 f1.4 along with 200mm f2). Of course the 200mm has the same issue of distance from subject as you mentioned with the 135. The 135mm clearly has a weight advantage and it would take selling my 105 and 200 to pay for the 135mm. I'm also not sure it's worth it - nor am I sure my heart is in it. Time will tell. I haven't seen more than a few of your videos, but was curious what you thought about the 85mm f1.2 (a focal length and aperture I do not own) in comparison to both of these lenses. Thanks again. Appreciate the effort.

prefer the 105 1.4 skin tone, a bit warmer and also looks more natural and organic to me. the 135 seems sharper and more modern look.

I have sigma art 135 1.8 + ftz and I am not seeing that much better image from Plena for the price. I will stick to Sigma 135 and buy 85 1.2S. Maybe I will sell my 135 after that, 135mm as you mentioned is a bit too long sometimes to talk with models and its easy to lose connection, that why my 50 1.2s is almost always on my z8. So in this matter 85 will be better. Thanks for video.

Your review has convinced me to buy an Akira shirt. Nah but seriously Im starting to consider buying a 105

You guys could always get the Sigma 105mm f/1.4 DG ART HSM Lens for Nikon F

Good comparison

Le 105, pour moi, a un meilleur rendu... c est subjectif... une version z sera certainement proposee un jour...

Next generation cameras will probably integrate some AI refocus software (like the fake bokeh rendering in smart phones) the fact that any mirrorless (even m43) produces already sufficient out of touch’s separation will allow the software to produce more accurate fake bokeh.

even if you buy an adapter for every f-mount lens, it is much cheaper then the z-mount lenses

What a pretty model

I found that 135mm f/1.8 turns me into a passport ID picture cameraman. I found myself too close to the model...lol

I purchased the 135mm Plena and then promptly returned it after comparing it to both my sigma Art 105mm and 135mm. Really not worth the asking price. Excellent video, thanks

You missed the point that using the 105 on a Z mount you need the adapter - so they end up being the same length. Good comparison otherwise.

105 works better on this model due to lesser compression.

That Would've been a great video, if it had been uploaded in 4k, so we can see more detail. It's 2023 guys, you obviously have the equipment. Next time 4k.

It annt a battle without the 85mm 1.2