Which lens do you think is 1234? And what's your favourite? Guide to improving your Portraiture (FREE COPY): learn.mattgranger.com/courses/improveportrait Nikon Z Expert Set up Guide: learn.mattgranger.com/courses/zsetup Sample Files: learn.mattgranger.com/courses/nikkorportrait
I wish I could afford to spend around $2,000 or more on one of these lenses, but I cannot. So instead I just got the new Techart TZM Autofocus Adapter and the Voigtlander 75mm f/1.5. This is a nice lower budget option. Plus it is a much smaller and lighter option.
Actually, what I think your tests show is that the application combined with the skills of the photographer matter rather a great deal, probably more than the lens. That being said, I'm really partial to that 200 and the 105. I wish I had a use case for the 200, enough to justify the cost - it really is almost magical in the right situations.
Realistically the 50 and 200 both are outside the normal portrait range for a reason. They stretch or compress the features more than is perceived by the eye. Whether to go with an 85mm, a 105mm or a 135mm is a matter of style but going significantly outside that range really does change the face. It's also important to note not just the background angle changing but also the size of the in focus area at the various apertures and how they change with focal length.
I disagree about the 200. I think it has less distortion for portraits than a 105. Also as I equalized the frame, the focal length doesn’t impact dof. F2 at 50 or 200mm is giving same dof when frame is equalized by moving my shooting distance.
@@mattgranger Yes, when the frame is equalized the depth of the plane of focus is the same. On the other hand, the proportions of the face or any other subject do change with focal length. That's why my 11mm rectilinear lens makes a very different image even equalized for framing than my 800mm. If those are different then so are a 50mm, an 85mm, a 105mm and a 200mm. Which looks "right" is a mix of style and cultural habits of distance used when talking with a person which is what we subconsciously use as "normal". .
Thank you for the video and image comparison. Just so happens I shot with both the Nikkor 105mm f/1.4 and 200mm f/2 this weekend (on the Z9). Perhaps, because I recognize the images of the 200mm easily, it was very easy to pick it out as #3 almost from the beginning. I do not own a Z mount lens yet, but the 50mm f/1.2 S also seemed easy to identify. It was slightly tougher for me to settle on which shots were the 105 and which was the 85. The 105 and 200 are some of my favorite go to glass and I try and make excuses to use both (recently shot great horned owl Mom feeding Owlets a snake (in very dark conditions) and shots of Mom flying in with dinner. You were one of the reasons I picked up that lens, and it hasn't disappointed. As I'm sure you've heard many times, my non-photography friends look at images I've taken of them with the 200mm and their immediate response is "Oh, wow" - and always brings a smile.
All these years later, mirrorless upgrades, etc & I genuinely only want that Nikkor 200mm/2 😍! Portraits, telephoto landscapes & DSO Astro, it'd be my dream versatile workhorse lens!
I love the 105 and picked it as the best while you were doing a comparison. But now that I finally have a Z9 I really also want the 50mm 1.2. Good review Matt
I own the 50 1.2 and recently got to borrow the 85 1.2 from Nikon for a couple of hours. I thought the 85 was flat out amazing, but I never owned the 200 f2, so there is that. In speaking to the Nikon/Leica shooter who had the 85 before me, he said it was the best lens he ever used and his z9 was the cheapest of the three cameras he was carrying. All that said, I still want to see the coming 135 1.8 from Nikon as I think it is a more interesting focal length. That 85 1.2 is going to be hard to resist though.
I just got the 85 1.2, it's fantastic so far, just need to use it more. I own everything on that table except the 200, there's no wrong decision here, they're all great.
Thank you for doing this Matt. It was very interesting! Very hard to pick a favorite. However I was leaning to the 105, I prefer the warmer color so maybe that's why.
I love my 200mm f/2 vr ii, gawd it's so expensive even used but the way it renders a subject is indeed so "evened out." I had only a 50mm 1.8g for years and i never was satisfied with shooting portraits, the 85mm 1.8g i also possess is damn fantastic just a tad less sharp than the 200mm f2. now i just need the 105mm and a 135mm sigma art lens - those i prefer even though they aint nikon. awesome video and comparison work.
Thanks for sharing your shoot out with us. I use the following Nikon F-mount lenses for half-length and head & shoulder portraits: 85mm f/1.8 (purchased in 1969 for my Nikon F SLR) 85mm f/1.4 auto focus (purchased in 2016) 100mm f/2.8 Series E (use as an expendable backup lens) 105mm f/2.8 macro 105mm f/2.5 (Steve McCurry used similar lens for famous Afghan girl photo) 135mm f/3.5 (use as an expendable backup lens) 135mm f/2 180mm f/2.8 Based on the shoot outs I have performed; I could see no significant difference between them. My personal favorite "portrait lens" is the 105mm f/2.8 macro because it allows me to capture tight face shots with no problems. My personal favorite three-lens kit is 35/85/180. I did not include 50mm or 55mm Nikon lenses because I use them for full-length, 3/4 length, and environmental portraits. I do not use them for half-length and head & shoulder portraits.
105 F1.4E definitely is the way to go,way better rendering, 200 f2 is the king but not accessible to everyone I have them both and I can confirm closest to 200 f2 is 105 f1.4E. Great review as always mate 🤙🏼
Finally someone has compared the 85 1.2 to the 105 1.4, I think other RU-vidrs don't want to ruin their gear-head love for new the new lens. Your video proves it's not the gear, but many photographers love the gear more than using it, (i'm a self-confessed gear-head too)
Commenting before the reveal. I didn't look at the details, only the background. The #3 lens produces a very pleasant creamy background blur, which I seem to prefer.
After reviewing the pictures, I feel that I have made the right choice. I bought the 105mm f1.4 a few years ago and will continue to use it going forward, no need for either the 50 or 85mm. For me, 200mm is overkill.
Yeah, guessed the 50 and 200, mainly from the look of the face, and a bit from the bokeh. I've shot at 70 Crop, and the full-body shots from an equivalent 105 simply are not confortable at all. Even if the 200 looks amazing, having to use walkie-talkies for communication makes it impartical. Head shots? The 105 and 200 look amazing. I guess I'll go ahead eith my plan of using the 28-70 on crop, which will provide a lot of flexibility by covering the 50, 85 and 105 ranges. Thanks for the vid.
None of them really compare to the 200/2, it is simply in a league of its own. The examples here don't really showcase all its superb strengths, but you're trying to level the playing field and make the comparison less obvious. Of course 200mm is ideal for perspective and headshots, but there is a huge difference for full length portraits with the 200/2 in which its astonishing bokeh in the background can be utilized to great effect. In fact, even among the super-tele big Nikkor glass, the 200/2 stands nearly toe to toe with the very best Nikkor glass in existence (400/2.8, 600/4, 800/5.6). It is worth every penny, and it seems that Nikon will not be making a Z mount version in the future so it would be wise to grab one (any version) before the collector price skyrockets.
Thank you very much. A very interesting comparison. I downloaded the RAW files, processed them according to my own preset. The 200mm lens is still out of competition, the 105mm is a very nice lens. I thought for a long time whether to buy 85 1.2 or not, after this comparison I definitely decided that I will not buy 85 1.2. 105 is something new for me ( I own 35 1.4, 85 1.4, 200 f2 VRII), perhaps, of course, 85 mm focal length has already become boring to me and does not seem to be something special. In addition, bokeh at 105 mm seems to me more pleasant and 3d pop-up looks more attractive for me.
I believe if you work on your basic composition skills and posing the model, you will find that no lens is boring. Relying on blurry backgrounds for subject isolation and separation indicates that you may need significant work on your basic photo skills, as blowing backgrounds into oblivion is the lazy man's way of isolation and is used so often that this technique has become so so so maddingly boring to me. If I never hear the word "bokeh" ever again, that would be really great. Any five year old who has a few bucks can purchase a long lens, shoot it wide open, and blow the background away. My own grand daughter does this constantly just to drive me nuts.
Pfft. Like you said, all of them are fantastic so how you choose would have very little to do with the lens but more about your style, budget and biases. In no particular order. I have the 85 f/1,8 and the Sigma 105 ART lens. The 105 is a beast to haul around but I prefer it over the 85; mainly for the way it blurs the back ground. But I'll leave it at home sometimes to avoid the extra weight. :D
I have the same lenses (the 85 is the old F-mount tho) and I'm selling both for the 1.2 that arrived today (just ran some test shots of my own this morning). I love the 105, but it would mostly stay home because of the weight. The 85 f/1.2 is a lot easier to carry around, still not a feather, but along the lines of a 70-200 f/2.8 in terms of weight and handling, the 105 being shorter feels somewhat heavier (probably because of how it skews the balance even if you use the tripod mount correctly). Still a hell of a lens, it was my favorite overall in terms of final image and absolutely do not regret buying it. The 85 f/1.2 will see more action and I've never had a 1.2 so it's a novelty as well which always helps to get your gear out
Daylight shot like this, there's not going to be much difference. I'd love to see a repeat done at night on a dimly lit street with some neon lights to muddy the waters. There I think the differences would be much more visible than optimal light, +/- a few percent on the bokeh.
Great video! Now here's a question how does the 70-200 f2.8 Z fit into the mix? DOF isn't going to be as shallow of course, but versatility may be its strong suit?
@@mattgranger Agreed. I'm thinking of what be the best bet for me as an overall portrait/headshot lens. The 105 f1.4 is very tempting. Of course there is an 135 f1.8 in the future. Too many choices lol.
It would be interesting to see the 50mm f/1.2, 85mm f/1.2 (and maybe f/1.8), 105 f/1.4, and MC 105 f/2.8 shot in the different image area modes and then compared. Would the DX mode remove any vignetting and/or give more pleasing compression for each focal length? Would shooting in 5:4 provide a more satisfying result? I was disappointed that the native Z mount 105 was an f/2.8 instead of an f/1.2 or f/1.4, and while I like it, I find myself using the 85 f/1.8 and 135 f/2D, along with some off-brand manual focus lenses. I've not been sold on the 85mm f/1.2 yet, but I will most likely add it to the collection down the road, but am kind of holding out and wishing for a native Z mount 105 or 135 in f/1.2 or f/1.4. Appreciate you doing all of this testing, Matt.
This is an excellent example of when f-bombs are appropriate, and even necessary. 🤣🤣🤣 The 50mm and 200mm were pretty obvious, I had the 85mm and 105mm switched. For once, Matt, you saved me money rather than instigating some spending... 💸💸💸 Next time Matt knows what to expect when he says, "Hi Felicia. How can people support you?"
My thoughts exactly! Though my fav part of the video was at the very end where he says "Love you" while signing off! Hilarious and adorable. I think he's been Zooming with family a lot.
I think the 105mm f1.4 is the best overall. The compression and Bokeh are better than the 50 and 85, is not as great as the 200, but the 200 is too heavier, way more expensive, and also for full body portrait you need to be too far from your subject. The 105mm f1.4 balances every great aspect of a Portrait lens. In the matter of sharpness all 4 are so sharp the difference is irrelevant in the end of the day.
@@hautehussey the big issue is these ultra fast lenses are becoming ridiculously too big and expensive I’ve bought them all but end up taking the 24-70 f2.8 out and leaving the others at home
@@ronaldsand3000 yes, well there isn’t much point in making one if it’s not. Otherwise you’d just use the standard zooms or your phone. Also, that’s what makes the profit for the manufacturers.
@@hautehussey seems like with the new z mount’s bigger openings, Nikon is taking advantage and going 1.2 for everything if it’s not too cost prohibitive. I think this also helps separate the z from the f mount which mostly has 1.4 and biggest aperture primes.
I have the 50mm 1.2 the 105mm 1.4 and 70-200 2.8…. But the 105mm 1.4 for me the best hands down… the 85mm 1.2 is beautiful but does not match the 105mm 1.4….
@@mattgranger My research indicates that the consumption of delicious gyoza (in addition to a good pilsner) is the optimal means of stimulating the economy.
I think this lens is very subjective. We can get shots with very minimal gear, this is just about that number 1.2 and that your comparing. If someone owns a 50/105/200 even the MC 105 or 85 1.8, like you have shown the images look fine, why do they need a 1.2 - GAS. GAS affects photographers like golfers or gamers, the tool is always nice to have thats the latest and best spec’d out there, so you want it. Lots shoot with the canon 1.2 and post edit like crazy to get an image they could have got with editing. The reality is most shoot with the 1.2 without the skill to know when and why to use it like that. Like my case - i love portraits, but reviewing my sheets i seem to pic out 105 most times, so i must not succumb to my own internal GAS issues and stick to my 70-200 EDFL.
$2800 for “made in China” flagship prime lens? WTF Nikon?!?! You can buy the Fuji 110mm F/2 Medium format Len and it’s made in Japan for the same price and the 80mm 1.7 is made in Japan for $400 cheaper? Nikon is selling their Z9 bodies for cheap and overcharging on their lens.
Indeed - was thinking the same thing. They seem to take delight in bad manufacturing decisions. I waited for over a year for the big primes to go with my Z9. I eventually threw in the towel and reluctantly moved to Sony. It’s sad how Nikon does fairly well at innovation but drops the ball completely when it comes to actually making things to sell - at value, quality, and at volumes required to drive market share.
You old guys always harp on made in China bs. modern quality control practices ensure a lens made in China is of the same quality as one made anywhere else.
Sadly, none of the lenses are sharp except the 200mm f/2. You can see it in the portrait shots at the end. Only the 200mm f/2 wide open had a very sharp catch light. The rest of the lenses are either not hitting the focus (big surprise Z system), or just not sharp wide open. In fact, the 105mm is not sharp in general on 45 megapixels so I would put the resolving power on the 50mm and 85mm pretty low wide open (50%, unlike the Sony 50mm 1.2 which is 90% resolved wide open), whereas the 200mm f2 is 90% resolved wide open. Honestly, I could pick out the 85mm 1.2 from each shot based on how NOT SHARP it was. LOL. The shots look like they've missed focus entirely.
@@HessiDude the 85 1.2 is at least as sharp as the 200mm in all the examples except for the stairs pic where it’s hard to judge because head is angled (vs straight in 200mm pic) and depth of field. The catch lights are also similar with biggest difference being dof. The fact one must zoom in over 100% to see sharpness differences of lenses wide open @ 1.2 vs one of the sharpest f mount lenses makes these comments really trivial.
@@livejames9374 I can see it on the RU-vid video on my phone. When I looked at the raw files it’s insanely obvious. Keep lying to the internet you Nikon shill.
Nikon Guy, enough already with the Nikon Gear, it's a dying company. Start reviewing more relevant gear that people are actually buying and using, such as Sony, Canon, Leica, and Fuji.
actually i dont think most people know how japanese companies are operated. nikon is partially a national, while sony is not. nikon will not die as long as japanese government exists. fuji and canon are close to this situation too.
