Honestly...I couldn't tell much difference. They both look good! If you're just doing portraits, get the 85 because its cheaper and won't have the swirling bokeh. But if you want a "swiss army knife" of a lens, then the 105 2.8 Micro will do the trick if you aren't solely a portrait photographer.
They are amazingly similar. Some the 85 looks a little better some the 105. I am considering the 105 for a good portrait lens but seeing this it appears the 85 is just as good and handles better for less cost. Thanks for this real world portrait example. Short and to the point
Am I being overly critical in thinking the 105 looks pretty inferior to the 85 in terms of sharpness and color rendering? I plan on renting the 105 to test it out, but I figured I would ask beforehand. I've also noticed a big difference in color rendering when I tried my friend's Z 24-70 f/4 lens, so now I'm curious to know how much of a difference I'm going to find in Z lenses and if those differences are largely based on max aperture
no, it looked obviously worse, worse colors, poor skin tone, worse transitions, soft details at portrait distant. the macro is prob tuned for vivid flowers and bugs, the 85 is tuned for people.
Nice video! thanks for the comparison. 2c ahead It would have been good to compare the two at f2. 8, and to show the differing minimum focus distances - eye shots or detail shots can say a lot about a person, and this is where the narrative power of the 105 lives. 2/3 body portrait is like the 5th application of this 105 lens for me: after macro, art reproduction, landscape, great VR for video.
I’m in love with the 85. If you can get it I definitely would. I’ve used the 105 for portraiture, and it performs extremely well, but the 85 is the one I use most for all weddings and even some formals at the weddings.
Great comparison. I have only one suggestion for next time: imo it is more usefull to compare the same framing instead of shots taking from the same distance because you can always Chance the latter in the field. The 85 should do even better then.
Some thoughts to consider for future comparisons: If you are going to compare IQ, you need to shoot at the same aperture - in the first set you shot the 105mm at 3.2 and 1/2000 shutter and you shot the 85mm at 1.8 at 1/3200, and in the second set you are wide open at 2.8 for the 105 and 1.8 for the 85 - unless you are trying to compare the quality of the background bokeh (which you did look at) this is not the best test for looking at the face, or for detecting fringing or aberrations since the f stop is different which changes these elements. Your third set is again at 2.8 and 1.8 respectively, and this time at different ISO (which also takes away from a direct comparison) - again for a bokeh comparison this is fine because those that are interested in bokeh will be shooting wide open, but for comparing sharpness and aberration and just about anything else, they should be at the same aperture to get a direct comparison. Your 'close up shot of her eye is shot on the 105mm at f/8 and on the 85mm at 1.8 and then you blow up the shot to for her eye to fill the frame - this is a poor comparison f/8 will be sharper in this circumstance than f/1.8 pretty much on any two lenses irrespective of what they are - this comparison needs to be done at the same f/stop - you could do it once wide open - comparing 2.8 to 1.8 (as that is the most open the two lenses go), and both at f/8, but not one at f/8 and the other wide open. Your final set is likewise at two different apertures - if this is to compare how the lenses both look wide open then this is fine. Thanks for the video :)
If you’re a portrait photographer, this is how the lenses perform in the real world from the same distances. I shot wide open with both lenses the entire time except for that close up photo. The 105 is a 2.8 lens and it is also a macro lens. When you use a macro lens at certain distances it will not always go to its widest aperture. I would rather give a real world comparison of how the lens works at the same distance as the 85. I had specific requests on a comparison video for portraiture and background bokeh. There are a lot of other youtubers who do their “tests” in a studio setting with every element controlled. I personally will not be using the 85 at 2.8 unless I’m using it for formals. For portraits it will stay at 1.8. Nor will I be using the 105 at anything other than wide open if doing portraits. I appreciate your comments.
@@baronsilverton6504 I shot at a lot of different apertures for those, and I had filmed this video in October. I have actually forgotten my intent on that 🙈. I should have made the video directly after filming it, but it got busy.
@@baronsilverton6504 i was probably going to compare the apertures of both close up, because looking at the photos now I do have the full range from Both lenses to f11. Maybe I’ll do a part 2 and show those.
Thanks for this comparison. I have the 105 macro and love it. But I feel like it's only for close ups in controlled environments with stationary subjects. Hopefully the 85 S doesn't hunt like my heavy Sigma 85 1.4 when adapted on the Z mount so I have something for events
@@flashspotlightQuick question, which would you recommend for the Nikon Z fc? The Z 85mm 1.8 S or the Z 105mm MC 2.8 S VR. Or is it just a waste using either lens on a DX body?
Good comparison . Maybe having both lenses being set at the same aperture would make for a better test . Still it was good to see how they rendered compared to each other .
Totally different lenses. The Z 105 is amazing but the autofocus is too slow to be your telephoto wedding lens. Most weddings I use the 24-70 and 85 all day, with the 105 for details.
Honestly...I couldn't tell much difference. They both look good! If you're just doing portraits, get the 85 because its cheaper and won't have the swirling bokeh. But if you want a "swiss army knife" of a lens, then the 105 2.8 Micro will do the trick if you aren't solely a portrait photographer.
looks like 105mm macro lens skin color is more real than 85mm lens. Arm I right?
Bokeh a lot creamier on the 85s. Difficult choice between the versatility of the 105 vs the rendering for portraits and compactness of the 85.
Nice comparison!
I have the F-mount versions of those lenses and love them both.
They are amazingly similar. Some the 85 looks a little better some the 105. I am considering the 105 for a good portrait lens but seeing this it appears the 85 is just as good and handles better for less cost. Thanks for this real world portrait example. Short and to the point
Am I being overly critical in thinking the 105 looks pretty inferior to the 85 in terms of sharpness and color rendering? I plan on renting the 105 to test it out, but I figured I would ask beforehand. I've also noticed a big difference in color rendering when I tried my friend's Z 24-70 f/4 lens, so now I'm curious to know how much of a difference I'm going to find in Z lenses and if those differences are largely based on max aperture
no, it looked obviously worse, worse colors, poor skin tone, worse transitions, soft details at portrait distant. the macro is prob tuned for vivid flowers and bugs, the 85 is tuned for people.
Nice video! thanks for the comparison. 2c ahead
It would have been good to compare the two at f2. 8, and to show the differing minimum focus distances - eye shots or detail shots can say a lot about a person, and this is where the narrative power of the 105 lives. 2/3 body portrait is like the 5th application of this 105 lens for me: after macro, art reproduction, landscape, great VR for video.
Do you have any plans to test the Z 50mm f1.2 S? Could be an awesome main wedding lens.
I currently don’t. I haven’t even tried it yet, unfortunately. But I’m hearing that it’s fantastic!
I have 105 mc but I am considering to buy 85mm.it’s enough 105mc 2.8 for portrait or maybe 85 gives me more versatility?
I’m in love with the 85. If you can get it I definitely would. I’ve used the 105 for portraiture, and it performs extremely well, but the 85 is the one I use most for all weddings and even some formals at the weddings.
Great comparison. I have only one suggestion for next time: imo it is more usefull to compare the same framing instead of shots taking from the same distance because you can always Chance the latter in the field. The 85 should do even better then.
AWESOME VIDEO, GLAD I CAME ACROSS YOUR CHANNEL. BEEN WATCHING A LOT OF YOUR OLD CONTENT! LOOKING FORWARD TO WATCHING YOUR FUTURE CONTENT!
Wonderful!!! So glad to have you here ♥️♥️♥️
Some thoughts to consider for future comparisons:
If you are going to compare IQ, you need to shoot at the same aperture - in the first set you shot the 105mm at 3.2 and 1/2000 shutter and you shot the 85mm at 1.8 at 1/3200, and in the second set you are wide open at 2.8 for the 105 and 1.8 for the 85 - unless you are trying to compare the quality of the background bokeh (which you did look at) this is not the best test for looking at the face, or for detecting fringing or aberrations since the f stop is different which changes these elements.
Your third set is again at 2.8 and 1.8 respectively, and this time at different ISO (which also takes away from a direct comparison) - again for a bokeh comparison this is fine because those that are interested in bokeh will be shooting wide open, but for comparing sharpness and aberration and just about anything else, they should be at the same aperture to get a direct comparison.
Your 'close up shot of her eye is shot on the 105mm at f/8 and on the 85mm at 1.8 and then you blow up the shot to for her eye to fill the frame - this is a poor comparison f/8 will be sharper in this circumstance than f/1.8 pretty much on any two lenses irrespective of what they are - this comparison needs to be done at the same f/stop - you could do it once wide open - comparing 2.8 to 1.8 (as that is the most open the two lenses go), and both at f/8, but not one at f/8 and the other wide open.
Your final set is likewise at two different apertures - if this is to compare how the lenses both look wide open then this is fine.
Thanks for the video :)
If you’re a portrait photographer, this is how the lenses perform in the real world from the same distances. I shot wide open with both lenses the entire time except for that close up photo. The 105 is a 2.8 lens and it is also a macro lens. When you use a macro lens at certain distances it will not always go to its widest aperture. I would rather give a real world comparison of how the lens works at the same distance as the 85. I had specific requests on a comparison video for portraiture and background bokeh. There are a lot of other youtubers who do their “tests” in a studio setting with every element controlled. I personally will not be using the 85 at 2.8 unless I’m using it for formals. For portraits it will stay at 1.8. Nor will I be using the 105 at anything other than wide open if doing portraits. I appreciate your comments.
@@Jennifer_nicole Sounds good - why did you shoot one at f/8 and the other at 1.8 for a zoom in comparison on the subject?
@@baronsilverton6504 I shot at a lot of different apertures for those, and I had filmed this video in October. I have actually forgotten my intent on that 🙈. I should have made the video directly after filming it, but it got busy.
@@Jennifer_nicole Gotcha 👍
@@baronsilverton6504 i was probably
going to compare the apertures of both close up, because looking at the photos now I do have the full range from
Both lenses to f11. Maybe I’ll do a part 2 and show those.
please give a link to the files so that you can download them and compare them yourself, thank you!
love the 85
Thanks for this comparison. I have the 105 macro and love it. But I feel like it's only for close ups in controlled environments with stationary subjects.
Hopefully the 85 S doesn't hunt like my heavy Sigma 85 1.4 when adapted on the Z mount so I have something for events
Update: 85 S is amazing
@@flashspotlightQuick question, which would you recommend for the Nikon Z fc? The Z 85mm 1.8 S or the Z 105mm MC 2.8 S VR. Or is it just a waste using either lens on a DX body?
So does the 105 focus as fast as the 85?
Why choose?
Thanks you for nice video!
nice, i have ben searching for a video with this comparison
85 for portrait all the way, there should not be a second opinion 😉 but it is not a macro, so you need both 😊
They are almost, look the same to me,
there is only a “smal” difference when you zoom really really closely.
Good comparison . Maybe having both lenses being set at the same aperture would make for a better test . Still it was good to see how they rendered compared to each other .
It wouldn't because they have different focal lengths. This difference in aperture compensates for the difference in focal length
@@carlosandreviana9448 you can change the distance to the subject if need be to get a good comparison using the same aperture.
Very interesting results
thanks, it helps me a lot 👍
Totally different lenses. The Z 105 is amazing but the autofocus is too slow to be your telephoto wedding lens. Most weddings I use the 24-70 and 85 all day, with the 105 for details.
Slow???
@@carlosandreviana9448 the 105 isn’t as quick to focus as the 85mm or 70-200.
@@intrinsicimagery there must be something wrong with yours. Mine is very fast
@@carlosandreviana9448 all macro lenses are slow to focus. Compare to the 85 or 70-200.
@@intrinsicimagery I'm not going to insist.i must be lucky with mine
Excellent video!
Glad you liked it!
The REAL superstar of background blur and subject isolation is the Nikon 105 F1.4... I own it... it's KILLER!
wrong description in last couple, regards
why you use a F1.8 Lens compare to F2.8 Lens……
Both are good portrait lenses, and a few viewers asked me to.
Your photos look underexposed.