Nikon Z 85mm vs 105mm vs 70-200mm | Who WINS? - S CLASS Battle Royal | Matt Irwin 

Just finishing processing the take from my first proper shoot with my new 105 up in London yesterday, street work rather than macro. I am blown away by the sharpness and the bokeh, and the ability to separate the subject that Matt has talked about previously. May struggle to prise it off my Z6 for a while!

Proper job, Matt! Thanks for this as I’ve been sorting the 105 and the 85… I have and love the 70-200 yet want a portrait prime… stay the course.

I was just looking for something like this. Thank you sir.

Nice one Matt, in the backlight the color of your ears matches your jacket 😀.. Now being a bit more serious here.. thanks mate for a great review. I go back 50 years with Nikon and the 105 f2 AI-s was one of my all time favourites so I've been salivating at the prospect of owning a AF-S 105 f1.4 for some time (perhaps a 105 S at a later time). I've also see Matt Granger's review of the AF-S 105 and as he says there is just something special about the lens. So I'm finally convinced it's a must have.. thanks again and I love your relaxed presentaion style, I have never missed one of your videos.. Grant from South NZ

Always brilliantly informative and honest review

Great work Matt, thanks. These new (sharper more capable) lenses are certainly driving me to want to buy into the Z platform...

I have both the 85mm and the 70-200 and now waiting on both the 105 and 50 macro lenses. I love the 85, even though I rarely use it.

I have the 85 1.8 and love it, still waiting for the 105 (tick, tick, tick, tick), and will pass on the 70-200. I have the surprisingly sharp all-purpose 24-200mm for now, and will save the $$ for the 100-400mm when it is released sometime in the next decade. Nice comparison, thanks.

I have the 85, 70-200 and just got my 105z 2 weeks ago. The 105z macro lens is absolutely the sharpest lens I’ve ever owned. This lens even blows away the 50mmz and the 500mm PF lens. Nikon hit it out of the park with this lens for sure. I’d say the order I’d put them in is 105, 70-200 and then 85. The 50mmz is sharper than the 85 marginally but again the 105z blows it away.

I love the channel so keep up the great work Matt. I own the 70-200mm VR for my D850 and it’s an awesome and very versatile lens so I’d probably go for the Z copy for my new Z7ii which I finally bought last week. However, if money was no object I’d love the 105 also for its size, weight, macro and portrait capabilities.

I have the 85mm already and it has proved itself as my go-to portrait lens - love it! Aiming to include both the 105mm and the 70-200mm for different purposes. 105 for the macro, and sometimes portrait lens. 70-200 for events. Would like to eventually upgrade to all mirrorless lenses, but still using FTZ adapter for now. Z glass is brilliant!

I have both the 85mm f1.8 S and the 70-200 f2.8 VR S and I absolutely love them both - they are just fantastic. I think this is a fascinating comparison and they all have their use cases. However, I will say that pretty much no one picks up an 85mm for landscape or cityscape photography - let's be honest. That focal distance is primarily utilized for portraiture. I think a more interesting comparison would be when actually shooting people at 105mm vs 85mm (and of course the 70-200 f2.8 at both 85mm and 105mm). The weight is always an issue with the 70-200. I had both on the F-mount (with my D850) and I used the 85mm f1.4 G for 95% of my portraiture work. It's just easier, lighter, and produces great results (outside of the chromatic aberration which was awful on the 1.4G). Thanks for posting Matt - excellent job as always!

Although the 70-200 and the 105 lenses are fantastic, I tend to regrettably leave them at home a lot in favour of smaller, lighter versatile lenses like the 85 f1.8 or a 24-70 f4

Nice comparison. The 70 +200 is a really great lens. Ihe 105 is great but may not be worth having another lens unless a lot of macro work is done. For my use I think a couple of cheap extension tubes is lighter than another lens and I don't do enough macro work

I have the 85 and the 20, all those 1.8 Z lenses are exceptional. On the MC side, I opted to start with the 50 (for a few reasons) but I'm planning on adding the 105 down the road. It's too great of a lens to pass up. I'm so impressed with the entire Z line, no bad choices here. Just waiting on the longer glass! 🙂

I’m hoping to pick up the 70 - 200 as well as the 85mm in the near future. I had the option between all three but had to go with the 105mm to start with. All are amazing lenses but personally the 105mm was the winner today! Love your videos!

Hi Matt, always love your videos, at around the 10 minute mark, when you narrate over the wind noise, I thought you sounded like a airline pilot talking to his passengers :-)

Very interesting comparison. I would have liked to see some discussion/comparison of bokeh characteristics. Any thoughts, Matt?

Good information. Thank you.

I do weddings and portraits for a living and I gotta tell ya, the F-Mount 105mm 1.4 E lens is pure gold on the Z6 II. Of course, I’d love a native Z mount version but for now it does the job spectacularly. Maybe that 85mm 1.2 they are teasing will tempt me.

This was a great comparison. I did wish that you did more of a portrait comparison comparing bokeh (day and night). Is it possible you could make another video with there 3 lenses for the portrait shooter? I know you are on lock down… but I can hope? I am waiting for 85 1.2 but while we wait it would be very helpful! Also did you notice much difference in chromatic aberration between all 3? Sounded like 85 had a bit of an issue?

Interesting comparison tests Matt. Frankly, there's not too mcuh difference between thee lenses. They are all for different purposes, yet your comparisons show little difference between them, of cousre allowing for a zoom Vs. a fixed focal point lebs and a macro, close up lens. I appreciate all the effort you put in to produce these lens comparisons. 👍😎📸

Interesting that this comparison came up in my feed as thinking of comparing. I used to have a 70-200 f2.8G on DSLR, but after moving to Z6/7 picked up a 85 1.8S after realising that I got my favourite shots from the 70-200 mostly at the short end. Only downside to the 85 1.8S was the minimum focus distance. I don't need the range of the 70-200 or the weight!, but the 105 is very interesting. Thanks for useful comparison.

The 85 also has 2 focusing motors, but I agree with the assessment that this is a relatively slow to focus lens. I saw a huge jump and hit rate with the Z 70-200 2.8.

Thanks, I have the 70-200mm and the 85mm currently saving my nickel's and dime's for the 105 mc, this video just makes Me want the 105 mc more.

I want all 3, but based on this video I'd start with the 105. I own a Tamron 70-200 G2, a Nikon 85 1.8g, and a Tokina 100mm Macro. I recently purchased the Z5 and the 85 and 70-200 adapt well with the ftz, but the Tokina is a motor drive AF so that would be an easy first replacement.

Thks a lot My friend!

That first shot 😍 unintentionally bit of a banger 😂

I have all three as well. I'm taking my time with the 105 before I make any pronouncements I might go back on. Certainly it is not free of CA. In my experience -- and I think your test backs this up -- the 70-200 wins in the focussing department. I would also choose 105 over 85 as both my preferred focal length, especially for portraits and, in this case, rendering. But I'm not yet ready to write this all in stone. 😀

W W Went for all 3 , no regrets. Cheers for another great video Matt.

I have the 70-200 and 85. They're both great.

I'd like to do more portrait photography, but my question is, is anything wider than 2.8 useful on a 105mm lens? The depth of field would be super shallow for head shots - maybe less so from full body shots. Do you need to have 1.8 (or 1.2!) to get good separation and blurred backgrounds? I'd lean towards the 85 for the reasons others have mentioned (notably portability and versatility)....lenses now are crazy sharp...

That is a real tough call on lens choice. I think it depends on the distance and the available light. Working indoors in confined spaces, I'd take the 85. If I have more room, I like the 105, but I also like the versatility of the 70-200. It is impossible to choose. I'll take all three. :-)

All the way z 70-200, probably will get the 105 at some point though

Hi Matt - Would You rather recommend 105 over 70-200 for product/packshots only?

105 the macro capabilities and added contrast and focus speed sold me.. orders it. thank you

Hello Matt, Nice to hear from you. Good test still waiting for my copy of the MC 105mm. I am so looking forward to it. Just as a side issue, I know the Z7ii is knot a pro camera but it seem to have a good strong body, as I have just done a drop test 4 feet on to concrete yard floor. Not a recommendation with my Z7ii with 24mm-70mm f2.8. :( But they do bonce about six inches. Form first test all seem to be working? I do not wish you or any of your viewers to repeat this test. Keep well, keep safe and their is alway some one who it goes wrong for more then...

I'm going to get a Viltrox 24mm f1.8. Nikon 40mm f2 and Nikon 85mm f1.8 S for a lightweight, budget 3 lens kit that will handle low-light fairly well. I've got an old F mount 70-200 2.8 VR for occasional weightlifting too.

Does your 85 1.8 hunt for focus when you get close to min focus distance? I may have a faulty lens.

I’m fortunate enough to have all 3 and consequently (apart from the first week of ownership) don’t use the 105 as anything other than a micro/macro but listening to you perhaps I should.

I opted to get the 24-200 and now the 105. About same money as the 70-200, and lighter kit and much more versatility between the too lenses. Works great for me as I don't really need the 2.8 for the zoom. Really excited about the performance of the 105.

Great comparison Matt - I'm new to the z lenses (just bought a Z7ii and can see I'll be changing everything soon! Visited Melbourne in Dec 2019 - wonderful city.

I do already own the 70-200mm and the 85mm. Now I am waiting to get my hands on the 105mm when available again. So far I love all the Z-lenses and I will surely buy the 100-400mm and the 1.2/85mm. If I had to chose I would go for the 70-200mm as a mainly portrait photographer but that beast is quite heavy. Nothing to carry around for longer hikes.

I own all three lenses, but I would probably prefer the 105mm for portraits. I wouldn’t normally think of a 105mm as a landscape lens, and when I go out shooting landscapes, I take the trinity of 2.8 z-mount zoom lenses and leave the 105 home, only because I don’t have room in my bag. But that’s just me.

I love an 85mm f/1.8. Best focal length ever.

My 105mm MC is on order. Waiting impatiently.

Great video as always! Want to upgrade the kit lens that was with my Nikon Z5 down the road! Not sure which direction I should go! I love shooting landscape or city scape images. Zoom or a prime lens. I did like your review in this video! I am interested in the 105mm for a prime. Zoom lens would be the 24-200mm.

I've found that 85mm is my preferred focal length and the 85mm 1.8 S is probably my favourite lens I've owned (so far) ... but the 105 is still firmly on my GAS wish list...

I own those 3 but somehow the one that always surprise me with que quality is the 70-200, to be fair I need to give more time to the 105 mc outside the macro range

I have the 70-200 f2.8 and if the 105 is sharper I will get it too but I need a 100-400 and Z7 III first more

Honestly I'm thinking a future setup may involve all 3. I want a top notch macro lens for film scanning. I need a 70-200 for action, aircraft and cars driving. 85 1.8 for cars static- to just totally blow out the background when there's not as much space to have the 70-200 as far zoomed in as possible

They all look pretty good. Maybe you can compare the 85 to the 85 Viltrox lens?

As much as I’d love a 70-200 the 85mm S is fantastic for my usage as a candid family portrait lens for walking around. It’s not as intimidating as a 70-200 and people seem to relax more, giving me more natural looking expressions. The differences between all of these lenses are becoming less and less!

I just sold the 85 for the 105 as it’s my least used lens considering I also have the 70-200. When the original Z6 was out, the 85 was king because the other two didn’t exist. But it’s still a fantastic lens.

Hey Matt, that's a nice video again. As to the 85/1.8S being "brighter" and you use Capture One, have you actually verified which of these lenses are formally supported in C1? I have checked that in the past and the result was a big nono for me w.r.t. C1. I have the 105/2.8S since it was commercially released now and must say that it is phenomenal. Your test location will not fully reveal its qualities, I guess. I shot a portrait the other day, of an old gentleman in a "nature" setting with some green leaves and dark purple flowers in the background. F/8 gave extreme detail inside the DoF - the man sharp front to back and the background was buttery soft (wow). No, I did not directly compare with the 85/1.8S, which I love a lot too, as I tend to restrict myself to a planned shoot with one or two lenses and here I had only one. (My camera is a Z 7ii and my raw processor is LrC (10.3 with Camera Raw 13.3)). My profile setting ("Set Picture Control" in the camera icon menu) is "Neutral" and LrC takes this very literally compared to Nikon NX Studio, that gives more pop. The most important decision criterion for me, to choose between the two lenses in a portrait use case: how intimidating they are and what the subject might tolerate. The 85/1.8S without hood has the most modest intimidation factor. In a studio with a studio background, generally, background blur does not play a role at all (the Japanese word "bokeh" is just plain everyday Japanese for "blur"). As to T-stops, these Z lenses have an awful lot of elements and surfaces. I had expected their T-stops to be more than 0.5 EV off (worse) but DxO measures the ones they have tested so far at 0.1 and that is negligible. The 1.2 lenses from Nikon's big competitor, however at T-stops of 1.5 do a really bad job. Anyhow, I have the 85 and 105 and will not let them go for several years to come - at least. Compared with my old 1.4G F-mount primes, these Z lenses are on another level.

I'm happy with my 85 + 24-200 + 50 MC + 50 F/1.8 + 14-30

I just got the 85mm S lens and I love it. Not quite ready to retire my F mount 70-200 f2.8 or my F mount 105mm f2.8.

Matt, some other guy on his video complained about the 105 MC being noisy when focusing, did you?

If anything, to me the fact a zoom can be compared to such over-performing primes is a testament to how good the 70-200 is. Alternatively, as soon as the 105 came out my first impression was that the 85 suddenly looked overpriced (to me - macro is worth more than the 1.8 aperature. YMMV)

Can’t quite afford the 70-200 just yet, but the 105MC is on the way😊

Hi Matt. I’ve an ageing (like myself!) 200mm F4 micro …crazy sharp and loads of stand-off from the subject. But I’m also the totally aghast owner of a Z9…so, in your opinion, would it we worth investing in a 105 2.8 micro to get back all of the lost facilities that the Z9 would bring to the close up party? Plus…why hasn’t anybody done the most obvious comparison of the old 200 v new 105? I guess the rarity of the 200.

I needed this review. I have the z24-70/f4, the z70-200/f2.8 and the z14-24/2.8. I feel I need a macro - and for sheer versatility the MC 105 S makes it so attractive. But now I'm wondering. I don't do portrait work, just Street and travel primary. lots of gardens with flowers. what do you think...maybe the 85mm is the better lens for my need. Great video. and very useful comparison.

The 85 does not vignette like the other two also. But it does not get the love the other two get (I own the 85 and even I don't use it that often - maybe because I have that wonderful 105,, ART lens). I DO have the 105 on order. Might even get it before Christmas! :D But I think the main take away from this comparison - the camera and lens will do the job. The potential weak link is the person behind the lens.

I ordered the calendar. :)

On a side note; I laughed a little too hard at the "tired 70-200mm" ... Ha!

I've bitten the bullet and have the 70-200mm VR S - simply an awsome, versatile lens and saves me a Gym membership...

I would love the 70-200 but its more than double the price so looks like it is the 105mm for me.

Good comparison Matt. From personal experience I consider the trinity of f/2.8 S lenses "near prime" in quality. Your tests seem to confirm that on the 70-200mm and I believe it holds on the other two. The 105mm has a slight edge on sharpness in my experience as well but I've only been shooting it for a few weeks. The macro capability made it a must have for me. I think we both see the same results. Now I just need that Z 200-600mm and I'll be good to go!

The 85 1.8S has the nicer bokeh vs the 105mm. So better for portraits. Plus better working distance if you're inside a studio.

20mm, 35mm, 50mm, 105mm

Matt, I think you need to take pictures of a standard test format, where you see the possible differences much clearer. This is nice, but not very efficient! But keep going :)

I think you should examine the sharpness at 400% (at least briefly).

I Love my 105 MC.

Use color, object point, dof, bokeh, to comparating the large aperture lenses. May you can use wide lenses for this content.

LoCA comparison would have been interesting.

No wonder the 70-200 falls forward >> the supplied collar wasnt used and you have a Centre colum = less sharp images in my book ???

Is there a reason why they could only get f/2.8 out of a macro lens? If they put a bigger bit of glass on the front of the macro lens, would that not let more light in and have a better than 2.8 wide open aperture? 2.8 is supposed to be good (for a zoom) but a prime is good at 1.8 or even lower, like 1.4. Wouldn't a macro lens at 1.4 bet effectively letting way more light in than a 2.8? That would definitely be better. Anyway, we don't have to worried too much, the 105mm has sold out because Nikon didn't order enough! So we have plenty of time to ponder in imponderable....

I now have all 3😀

Bottom line, all 3 lenses are beasts and you cannot go wrong with any of them.

All three for me 😊, they all have their uses in my workflow and are all exceptional! (I know, I'm very lucky, but then they do pay for themselves)

I have gotten great results with both my 85mm and 105mm. Now, after moving to Z mount, I am hoping Nikon makes a 105 f/1.8 S version.

Have the Z 70-200mm, no plans to acquire the 105mm or the 85mm f/1.8. 85mm f/1.2 is a different story …

I love your red ears at the end of the video :)

If the image quality between prime and zoom lenses is equal than there is something terribly wrong imho :)

The 105mm is mine soon... :D I have and old Sigma 70-200 f2.8 which works okay for my stuff with the z6ii, sure the Z Lens would be better, but i don't need the best sh*t :P

The 85mm is a 2nd class version and not an s-line - the others are. When the f/1.2 85mm Z s-line comes out try this test again and you will see a difference.

105MC

85 :)

I have the 70-200 F2.8S. It is the lens that completely stopped my desire to buy new lenses.

70-200 if I'm spending your money, 105 if I'm spending mine ;)

105mm

I would say, with the 105 the traffic light looks more red whereas with the zoom clearly greenish. Thats no great job by nikon, I have to say...

What want you say, with your Video Guy???????

Putting them side by side like that, the 70-200 image looks consistently better, but I can't quite tell why. The 105 is clean as hell compared to the F mount version, but I don't think it offers enough improvement to warrant the switch. I'm mildy disappointed they didn't go 1.4:1 like Canon.

Thank you for the effort, but you compared 3 portable lenses shooting landscapes with a wide open aperture… Sorry for being harsh but this is not how you would use any of these lenses in the real world.

Great Video. Hard to see how good those Z lenses are over youtube B.T.W - Your tripod usage is a little embarrassing...

Maybe use a real bigBoy tripod? That flimsy tripod is a joke. But good job!😀

For me… none of the above. Instead, 85mm f1.8 AF-D, 105mm f2.5 AI-S SIC version, 180mm f2.8 AF-D. At a fraction of the price and better overall image quality IMHO.

Those Irwin's Videos and tests are by far the most boring on RU-vid 😅🤷‍♂️🤦‍♂️