Nikon slayed it . And yes the Nikon skin looked more natural “most” of the time in your shots . Canon seemed to have a little more microcontrast. I just got the 85mm f/1.8 and the Z9 . I’ll probably get the 85mm f/1.2 someday. Pushing for a 135 so that’ll be setting me back after the Z9 and 85 f/1.8 S are paid off
Yes they did. I would not dare, though, comment on skin tone being more natural - because the images are "raw processed" with Adobe Camera Raw and I don;t know what profile was applied. And. And. Microcontrast - don't understand what you mean with that. Contour sharpness? Looking at DxO Mark for 1.2L glass they seemed not very sharp and with a T-stop of 1.5 at f/1.2 they were as "fast" as another vendor's f/1.4G that also tested at T-1.5. Or detail? That depends on the quality of raw processing and some detail related slider settings. The Z 85/1.8S is the sharpest lens in DxO Mark with the Z 50/.8S second, IIRC. I have all these 1.8S primes and they're great. Yes, AF has its moments of hunting that I need to solve with MF (that's manual focus, not mother f... - even when that's what I think occasionally). The Nikon shots to me were extremely easy to identify with a perfect score. It's not in the skin tone but in the blue in the model's sweater. Nikon is really better at that colour. The Z 85/1.2S? I had said I would not need such a lens in the past. I shot medium and large format - who needs a lens faster than f/2.8 ;) ? Only SLR shooters who get a dark viewfinder when daylight disappears, but at medium format we did not need that even. Well, after Matt Irwin's video on the Z 85/1.2S I went from "never" to "on the fence". In the meantime, I also bought the Z 105/2.8S macro lens for its 1:1 ability and being a great lens. Well, its rendition is beautiful. You have to test that! I don't need a 135 next to that. If you have a Z 70-200/2.8S accidentally (I never shot zoom lenses) then note that at 200/2.8 that lens has a depth of field comparable to the 85/1.2 . (I am well aware of the Circle of Confusion in the Depth of Field formula (*).) (*) Next to distance, focal length, aperture, Depth of Field depend on a parameter that is a composite of a few things: film/sensor resolution, lens resolution, processing, print/display size, viewing distance to print/display.
The rendering of the Nikon 85mm f1.2 is superb - the new cream machine. You can tell they really paid attention to the background blur and the transitioning across the frame. They also didn't make it too sharp which can actually be a problem with portrait lenses - see the Nikon 105mm f1.4 vs the Sigma version for an example of this. The section where the presenter asks for guesses on Nikon or Canon, the overall image and particularly bokeh balls definitely stand out in Nikon's favour.
I have avoided f1.2s in the past because I used to think they were too slow at focusing for fast events/sports. With these new motors, would you be comfortable using this lens for faster run-and-gun photography? Great video btw, thanks for continuing to put out the best content.
I would wait for the finished version and the running-toward-camera reviews to come out first. Jared said this pre-release model was great (I think) in the walking-toward-camera test, so that's a good sign. Running is altogether another beast. And, this one's an f/1.2 lens (very shallow depth of field), so the margin to misfocus increases over, let's say, the physically smaller-size aperture of an f/1.8 85mm lens. But, who knows - mirrorless focus technology has come a long way, so I'd rather just wait for the official final retail version and take it from there. 👍
@pianofinger The best qualifier to me is nervous. You can feel that it has a lot of work and that there is reason why Canon used their big boy USM motor. The AF performance considering the amount of glass is impressive.
#1 - She looks like Scarlett Johansson #2 - That 85 1.2 in ridiculous in a good way. I tested that and the noct out all in the same day after the b&h conference - I must say, that lens and the transition is amazing... like the level of smooth it is is outrageous.
Love the tip about which eye to focus on. I have so many pics of my kids and sometimes I accidentally have it on the wrong eye and it looks off, softer maybe. Sometimes it turns out great but you nailed it thank you I'll keep that in mind more often!
Awesome Comparison... I shoot with the 85 1.8 and the Z9... I have noticed this focus not on the spot when shooting at a distance... And it being spot on close up... To overcome this, I use single point autofocus... I always thought its the Nikon bodies/their algorithm (as you have mentioned as well)... But if the 1.2 focuses just fine... then I am confused... Did you get Nikon to comment on it... You do an EXCELLENT job for us Nikon shooters to bring forward the weaknesses so they can be fixed...
I had the same problem with 85 f/1.8 on Nikon Z9, today I have the same problem on Nikon Z8. If I close the aperture down to f/2.2 the problem goes away. But that's not what I want to do with this lens. Haven't found another solution yet. Maybe the solution would be to buy 85 f / 1.2
So much faster, lighter and quieter as the Canon one. And it feels good on a z9. The rf feels to heavy on a Canon. And the Skin Color in the Face is so Nice with the Nikon. And smoother from light to shadow
The extra size, just like the 50mm 1.2, might be because of designing it for minimal focus breathing. How does it compare in that regard against the Canon and others?
Big and heavy lenses look pro. People don't want small 50mm f/1.2 like the Sony GM. Cameras need to be big and heavy like the Z9, and the lenses need to be heavy and long like the Nikkor.
I've been waiting (not so) patiently for this Z 85/1.2 ~~ not for portraits or events/weddings, but for Outdoor Lifestyle, Landscape, ASTRO/Night + Product photography. Particularly for Astro tho.
@@johndavolta3124 Some people might want to get creative or express themselves in different styles. This includes landscapes where everything isn't pinsharp corner to corner.
I had the same problem with 85 f/1.8 on Nikon Z9, today I have the same problem on Nikon Z8. If I close the aperture down to f/2.2 the problem goes away. But that's not what I want to do with this lens. Haven't found another solution yet. Interesting that on Z6II it works fine.
@U.S. Grant Yes, correct. Most of us already know that technical aspect. My comment was aimed at the obvious difference in appearance of the images taken at the exact same settings and ambient conditions. I didn't want to get technical in my initial post as most are only interested in the visual result of the image. Nonetheless, thanks for your input as it is helpful for those who may still not be aware of such facts. 👌
@@Joseph-iu6ip LOL. You are assuming too much. T-stop is not a secret to anybody and variations are usually quite insignificant, as the coatings and the number of elements are broadly comparable. You can see the difference in pictures of at least 1/3 stop, it's clearly the result of camera ISO.
For this test, a higher shutterspeed is preferred vs iso performance, since the higher shutterspeed will "eliminate" any chance of camerashake. But dont know if this is the reason behind this, in his test, or just a coincidence.
Jared had a video where he answered this question, but I couldn't find it with a quick search of his channel. He locks in a fast shutter speed to avoid any issue with the subject moving (sensor stabilization should handle camera shake). With cameras like the Z9 and R5, having the ISO float as high as ISO 1600 has little image quality effect.
Very informative video! Love your sample images and comparisons. And good cathch on the 1.8 not nailing the face on full lengths.. That's highly important in my book!
I had similar result with 85 1.8s and I was so confused as everyone talks great about it. Glad I have returned it. Surprisingly, Sigms 135mm was doing a great job which I ended up buying it instead.
The 85 1.2 looks interesting, but out of my budget (I'll keep shooting with my 85 1.8 Z). The 26mm is a bit of a head-scratcher. IN some respects, I can see why they released it (it's a pancake, whereas the 28mm 2.8 Z is not so much, but would have liked to maybe see a 24mm pancake instead as I feel that might be more appropriate, and on a DX (APS-C) camera that means a 35mm equivalent too. I guess Nikon IS planning a 24mm DX lens though, so there is still hope... Now I'm just waiting for the release of a 200-600 or some other 200-500 F-mount replacement, but for Z bodies.
Even with the shitty price of it had been a 24mm 2.8 or lower it would be an auto buy for me. That would be 35mm equivalent on aps-c and then 24mm on full frame? That would own.
Thank you for this. I just got the 1.8 right before the 1.2 was announced. This video showcased the difference in quality perfectly. Overall the 1.8 is still fantastic for portraits, but I definitely wanna get this lens at some point. You earned a subscriber sir.
Why is the quality of the images much sharper in the viewfinder (or LCD) (6:59) than the actual image captured (7:17)? This issue seemed to be the same on my 50mm 1.2 s.
Viewfinder image uses the currently selected Picture Control (Standard in this case). Lightroom ignores that. If you use NX Studio or manually select Camera Matching->Standard in Lightroom you should see nearly identical results.
What will 10-20% improvement do for you? Better images for your clients? Yes, upgrade. More satisfaction of taking the best image you can, and feeling challenged to match your abilities with the camera/lens? Yes, upgrade. Anything else, probably stick with the 85mm f/1.4G.
@@UnconventionalReasoning the f1.4 from the F mount is indeed a wonderful lens, and I think most of us that shoot with it are gonna think long and hard 0:14 before making the switch. But at the end of the day, if you shoot portraits in studio - this may be the most important focal length in the camera bag, and probably worth getting the bear in class lens if we can manage it.
@@johnpeterson7264 Yes, that's what I meant by "better images for your clients". Though studio portraits may minimize the advantages of the 85mm f/1.2S over the 85mm f/1.4G. Environmental portraits may be where the new lens separates itself.
Jared, was wondering if you have done a video of the Nikon Z MC 105mm as a portrait lens. I know you can’t possibly do everything. But…thank you for your time.
2025. Hopefully the Z7III comes out this summer, along with the Z6III, both getting the Expeed7 processor. If the Z8 comes out this year, the Z7 series is over, and Nikon is dropping the $3000 price point, one they've one great with since the D700 in 2008.
It is the same depth of field, different out of focus rendering. It's the entire point of the $2800 lens design. The images you indicated are what we should really consider for bokeh, more than Christmas lights.
@@Googlegnome That's $2000 blur! 'Bokeh balls' are a less useful way to show the background bokeh character of a lens. An image like this is much more effective.
Nice preview! BTW, it has also happened to me that the 85/1.8 has backfocused in some circumstances. I hope that Nikon solves this issue in a firmware upgrade.
Can you clarify the segment where you are talking about the 85 1.8 is back focusing at 1.8 but then it sounds like a different lens at 1.8 is tack sharp though you seem to be talking about the same lens. I watched that segment twice to make sure I didn’t miss something, maybe I did… and still missed it
If you are want to stay compact and don’t shoot above 3200 iso I would strongly advice to invest in either a Fuji apsc camera or a M43 body and to buy the Sigma 56mm 1.4 (85mm or 112mm équivalent). The IQ and bokeh are amazing for a fraction of the price. If you want to shoot 35mm, the Nikon or Sigma 105mm 1.4 are great alternatives too.
On Z6II it works great. On Z8 or Z9, there is such a problem both in full-length portraits and in facial ones. The only solution I found is to close it to f/2.2
Would be interesting to compare it with teh Sigma 85mm f 1,4.... Have the F mount 85 f 1,8 and the older 85, Af-D 1,4 and the Sigma Art 85mm f1,4... The last one is nearla a bit to sharp, but i love it... And jes, its heavy and bulky....
Never tried the Sigma, I have the other two, and several more recent lenses. I still consider the 85 1.4D my best portrait lens. Not the sharpest, but beautiful rendering, unique. Never going to sell it.
@@ilmatanela1816 I had the AF 1,4D, but it got a problem with the aperture, so i brought it to the service, it took more than two months to get parts from japan... So i bought the AFS 1,8, and got short after a good deal for the Sigma... As i take pics from bands and now theatre, i like the low light and fast focus possibilities. But for "normal" portraits, its too sharp.... Need only the AFS 1,4 to make a compair, and then choose which stays....
I'm really looking forward to getting this lens, but what I don't quite get is the cost compared to the Z 50mm f/1.2 S. The 50mm not only has more glass, but more specialty glass as well, along with more specialized coatings, such ARNEO. Both lenses are otherwise constructed similarly with respect to materials, are about the same size, weight and both have dual stepping motors -- and the 50mm even has an OLED panel, which I would imagine adds to the cost of construction. Why, then, is Nikon launching the 85mm f/1.2 at $700 US more than the 50mm f/1.2? I wonder if their answer is simply: "Because we can."
Because they can, and it helps their bottom line as they compete with the larger business (Canon is about 5x and Sony about 25x). I think very few photographers will say, "I would have bought it for $2300, but I refuse to for $2800." It also lets them discount it from time to time and still keep it over $2000.
Great review - thanks! One thing that stood out to me is the lens compression differences which I thought was odd - both being 85mm, you would the compression would be the same, but the Nikon looked flatter (@13:05 and @5:30) is it just me?
I think the camera is in the same place due to the fov of the background, but I think the model is 1/2 a step further back in the Nikon shot, hence the slightly flatter look. I like the color rendition on the Nikon more than the canon.
I don't understand you... Why do you don't use a flashlight with a softbox and the eyes will shine. For every portrait I use flashlights... Because the eyes look better and are popping out... And I don't use Lightroom, because it is B.S. (everything is written so small on the buttons) I use the best and that is DXO Photolap, and I don't care for the Lightroom prepared settings, I have from them over 200... Maybe it is too much
Could you please do a nighttime star test when you get the production model, maybe a milky way comparison with Canon? Star shapes, the ultimate test of sharpness. You can try also Orion Nebula. I have my suspicion that canon lets more near infrared (Hydrogen Alpha wavelength) in and that is why the Canon skin colors. I think most of the people interested in these lenses will be astrophotographers. Can you AUTOFOCUS ON STARS? How about video of milky way or shooting stars?
10 years ago a got my self a D90 I started photography. A few years later I discovered a guy sniffing lenses on RUclips. so many good advice, so many great videos. Thnx you Jared. I wish one day will meet so I can tel you this in person. Thnx again for all of this. Stay fro, shoot RAW ❤️🫡
I do not think Jared Polin has been very fair to Nikon. The reason I keep watching his videos is that he is a great photographer. There are so many RUclipsrs who cannot take a good photograph if it could save their life. So if Polin likes this lens, I guess he really liked it
Only you know the scale you would use for "much better". For what I do, the 105 f/1.4G is still great. If I got hired to photograph a wedding later this year, I would reserve a 85 f/1.2S rental immediately, especially if the 35mm f/1.2S is also released this year.
i used to really want 1.2 but after years of run n gun work i live for lenses that are perfect at f4. 1.2 is great, this lens looks amazing but i'll take a 1.8. currently have the 85mm 1.8 tamron F mount for my DSLRs and have never felt the need to go to 1.2
It depends on how often during a photo session the better lens causes the "Wow!" reaction. Getting that early in the session can help the subject relax and make the whole experience better, That quickly justifies the price difference, and amazing lenses help achieve that. Also, the size also helps create a sense of trust in the photographer, even if it's for the wrong reasons. At a wedding, it gives the photographer more of a commanding presence, and people are more cooperative. At least, those have been my experiences with lenses of this quality level.
@@UnconventionalReasoning This is a strange explanation. The very small differences in quality are not visible on a small LCD in the first place. Even when tethered to an iPad or laptop, there are no differences. You really need to process the RAW file first and look at it on a calibrated screen. If you want the 'wow' effect, simply apply a contrast curve and boost the colours beyond realism.
@@UnconventionalReasoning The difference here is between an excellent lens (the Nikon 85mm/1.8) and another excellent lens (the Nikon 85mm/1.2). You will not see any difference between these two lenses from f/1.8 and above on an LCD. Really, but rent the lens and do some tests. Most people who buy very expensive lenses convince themselves that the differences are obvious, but I have done some blind tests in the past (with another lens of course) and about 50% of the time the more expensive lens was chosen as the best. ;)
@@harpenfluit sorry, that was too mean even by internet standards. Sometimes the best response, for me, for perceived dismissiveness and condescension is snark.
Mann I was thinking ok my 1.8 will still do the trick but even the compression on her face and body looked better with that 1.2 in the side by side. Now I'm torn if I want to go for this or wait to see if the 135 does come out this year.
The most crazy honest photographer on youtube , when you become 50 years old you think you will be still in youtube ? and what is the future for your channel ?
I had the exact same focusing problem with the 35mm 1.8 on the Nikon Z7ii. I shot it at F4 for some wedding party shots and every single photo was out of focus, up close it was razor sharp even at f2
I use film cameras as well as digital still and have lenses that are 1.2-1.8 and i am able to manually focus those all the time its just tough sometimes because focus is really finicky and easy to knock the focus out of where it needs to be.
105 1.4 - Is the real test. I don't feel it'll match the look of a longer focal length? Also z glass has cooler tones compared to f mount. But interesting review, thanks
@@CabbitCast right below them are the 28mm f/2.8 and 40mm f/2 on the same line. We are also counting on the 35mm f/1.2S, which I do hope happens, though it could be a 35mm f/1.4. You're probably right that it will be a 135mm f/1.8. I do think the size savings with f/2 may be worth it.
Just move on. Nobody (except Sony, which isn't a camera company) bothered to support screwdrive lenses from the 1980s. If you want to support Nikon, always buy the latest gear from them. They need the cash to stay afloat. Old Nikkors belong in the closet.
Guys my main system is phaseone and they support everything they made 20+ years ago.If Nikon needs my cash it has to think about who made them what they are people are dissatisfied and that's why almost every professional I know has abandoned Nikon
@@photorealismstr people are dissatisfied because they're whiny twerps who watch the youtube photographers whose job it is to sell more and more equipment. These same photographers exclaim, "It's the photographer, not the camera!" and then worry about the camera. Groupthink is powerful, and photographers have succumbed to it over the past few years on eye-AF, following the megapixel wars and the high ISO wars. We'll be on to something else by next year.
![BLACK BAG - Official Trailer [HD] - Only in Theaters March 14](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Du0Xp8WX_7I/mqdefault.jpg)
Nikon slayed it . And yes the Nikon skin looked more natural “most” of the time in your shots . Canon seemed to have a little more microcontrast.
I just got the 85mm f/1.8 and the Z9 . I’ll probably get the 85mm f/1.2 someday. Pushing for a 135 so that’ll be setting me back after the Z9 and 85 f/1.8 S are paid off
The differences are so damn small these days but damn Nikon always have absolute superb files. Comming from a lifetime Canon guy
Yes they did. I would not dare, though, comment on skin tone being more natural - because the images are "raw processed" with Adobe Camera Raw and I don;t know what profile was applied. And. And.
Microcontrast - don't understand what you mean with that. Contour sharpness? Looking at DxO Mark for 1.2L glass they seemed not very sharp and with a T-stop of 1.5 at f/1.2 they were as "fast" as another vendor's f/1.4G that also tested at T-1.5.
Or detail? That depends on the quality of raw processing and some detail related slider settings.
The Z 85/1.8S is the sharpest lens in DxO Mark with the Z 50/.8S second, IIRC. I have all these 1.8S primes and they're great.
Yes, AF has its moments of hunting that I need to solve with MF (that's manual focus, not mother f... - even when that's what I think occasionally).
The Nikon shots to me were extremely easy to identify with a perfect score. It's not in the skin tone but in the blue in the model's sweater. Nikon is really better at that colour.
The Z 85/1.2S? I had said I would not need such a lens in the past. I shot medium and large format - who needs a lens faster than f/2.8 ;) ? Only SLR shooters who get a dark viewfinder when daylight disappears, but at medium format we did not need that even.
Well, after Matt Irwin's video on the Z 85/1.2S I went from "never" to "on the fence".
In the meantime, I also bought the Z 105/2.8S macro lens for its 1:1 ability and being a great lens. Well, its rendition is beautiful. You have to test that! I don't need a 135 next to that.
If you have a Z 70-200/2.8S accidentally (I never shot zoom lenses) then note that at 200/2.8 that lens has a depth of field comparable to the 85/1.2 . (I am well aware of the Circle of Confusion in the Depth of Field formula (*).)
(*) Next to distance, focal length, aperture, Depth of Field depend on a parameter that is a composite of a few things: film/sensor resolution, lens resolution, processing, print/display size, viewing distance to print/display.
The rendering of the Nikon 85mm f1.2 is superb - the new cream machine. You can tell they really paid attention to the background blur and the transitioning across the frame. They also didn't make it too sharp which can actually be a problem with portrait lenses - see the Nikon 105mm f1.4 vs the Sigma version for an example of this. The section where the presenter asks for guesses on Nikon or Canon, the overall image and particularly bokeh balls definitely stand out in Nikon's favour.
Wow...Nikon image looks stunning 🎉🎉
I have avoided f1.2s in the past because I used to think they were too slow at focusing for fast events/sports. With these new motors, would you be comfortable using this lens for faster run-and-gun photography? Great video btw, thanks for continuing to put out the best content.
I would wait for the finished version and the running-toward-camera reviews to come out first.
Jared said this pre-release model was great (I think) in the walking-toward-camera test, so that's a good sign.
Running is altogether another beast.
And, this one's an f/1.2 lens (very shallow depth of field), so the margin to misfocus increases over, let's say, the physically smaller-size aperture of an f/1.8 85mm lens.
But, who knows - mirrorless focus technology has come a long way, so I'd rather just wait for the official final retail version and take it from there. 👍
I have the RF 85 1.2 and its really snappy. I can’t account for other brands however.
You just have to look at Sony with their ultra fast linear motors to know what is possible. Time will tell if Nikon does as good a job.
Manny did comment how fast it was in his review. But, as said above I would def wait to see how the final production performs before the dive in.
@pianofinger The best qualifier to me is nervous. You can feel that it has a lot of work and that there is reason why Canon used their big boy USM motor. The AF performance considering the amount of glass is impressive.
Besides the excellent lens, Sydney is the most beautiful model you ever had for those tests :)
Makes me want to take up portrait photography.
Both images at 9:23 are shot at 1.8? Strange that the background blur amount differs so much at the same aperture...
Are you going to be doing another comparison video with the Nikon 85 1.2?
Great job Nikon, thanks. Now please release 85mm f/1.4 for most of us.
I advise that the sniff test goes before the wind test. Because of possible influence from breakfast or lunch.
The only bad thing about this is that I don't already have one. ☺️
Can't wait to get it! Looks amazing. Thanks for this review!!
#1 - She looks like Scarlett Johansson
#2 - That 85 1.2 in ridiculous in a good way. I tested that and the noct out all in the same day after the b&h conference
- I must say, that lens and the transition is amazing... like the level of smooth it is is outrageous.
Nikon somehow looks brighter at F1.2
Love the tip about which eye to focus on. I have so many pics of my kids and sometimes I accidentally have it on the wrong eye and it looks off, softer maybe. Sometimes it turns out great but you nailed it thank you I'll keep that in mind more often!
Awesome Comparison... I shoot with the 85 1.8 and the Z9... I have noticed this focus not on the spot when shooting at a distance... And it being spot on close up... To overcome this, I use single point autofocus... I always thought its the Nikon bodies/their algorithm (as you have mentioned as well)... But if the 1.2 focuses just fine... then I am confused...
Did you get Nikon to comment on it... You do an EXCELLENT job for us Nikon shooters to bring forward the weaknesses so they can be fixed...
I had the same problem with 85 f/1.8 on Nikon Z9, today I have the same problem on Nikon Z8. If I close the aperture down to f/2.2 the problem goes away. But that's not what I want to do with this lens. Haven't found another solution yet. Maybe the solution would be to buy 85 f / 1.2
@@KGMSSMGK I have this slightly problem with my 14-30 f4 as well... Jared showed this on the Z8 review as well...
Hey can we get a nikon 26mm f2.8 lens review as well
Did you calibrate the 85 1.8 lens? That might be why it was back focusing.
So much faster, lighter and quieter as the Canon one. And it feels good on a z9. The rf feels to heavy on a Canon. And the Skin Color in the Face is so Nice with the Nikon. And smoother from light to shadow
I put my pre order once I woke up this morning. So I'll be sure to get it shipped to me.
The extra size, just like the 50mm 1.2, might be because of designing it for minimal focus breathing. How does it compare in that regard against the Canon and others?
They chose the biggest mount but to feed the bigger rear element, all glasses have to be bigger (I think)
Big and heavy lenses look pro. People don't want small 50mm f/1.2 like the Sony GM. Cameras need to be big and heavy like the Z9, and the lenses need to be heavy and long like the Nikkor.
I believe so, focus breathing is very controlled on the 85mm f1.2 also.
12:26 , that’s because of Nikon glasses, they get more light and at the same situation compared to other glasses you have 1 to 1/3 more exposure.
It's great you can mount all those lenses on the Z mount, including the canon one.
I've been waiting (not so) patiently for this Z 85/1.2 ~~ not for portraits or events/weddings, but for Outdoor Lifestyle, Landscape, ASTRO/Night + Product photography. Particularly for Astro tho.
Landscape?
@@johndavolta3124 Some people might want to get creative or express themselves in different styles. This includes landscapes where everything isn't pinsharp corner to corner.
@@TheDeltaMoo good point
I spotted the Nikon over the Canon right away but it wasnt due to the bokeh. It was the Nikon had better color to the images shown.
My 1.8 never back focuses with full body portraits. Interesting. Maybe faulty lens
I had the same problem with 85 f/1.8 on Nikon Z9, today I have the same problem on Nikon Z8. If I close the aperture down to f/2.2 the problem goes away. But that's not what I want to do with this lens. Haven't found another solution yet. Interesting that on Z6II it works fine.
Will you have a video like this for 26/2.8 ?
Ordered. Should be in my hands in a couple of days. Thanks for the comprehensive review.
Is it Worth buying bro I shoot weddings and alot of portraits
Great Review, I’m going to wait until I have enough to get the 1.2. What recorder are you using? It is so compact on top of your camera.
The Nikon 85mm f/1.2 is brighter than the Canon version and also has rounder bokeh balls at f/1.2.
ISOs are not the same on different cameras. It has nothing to do with the lenses.
@U.S. Grant
Yes, correct.
Most of us already know that technical aspect.
My comment was aimed at the obvious difference in appearance of the images taken at the exact same settings and ambient conditions.
I didn't want to get technical in my initial post as most are only interested in the visual result of the image.
Nonetheless, thanks for your input as it is helpful for those who may still not be aware of such facts. 👌
@@ElementaryWatson-123 you should research t-stop (Light Transmittance in a Lens).
@@Joseph-iu6ip LOL. You are assuming too much. T-stop is not a secret to anybody and variations are usually quite insignificant, as the coatings and the number of elements are broadly comparable. You can see the difference in pictures of at least 1/3 stop, it's clearly the result of camera ISO.
@@ElementaryWatson-123 good I see you’ve done some research.
Hi might be a noob question but wanted to ask why Jared was shooting at ISO250 instead of ISO100? Any reason to bump the ISO in bright day light?
For this test, a higher shutterspeed is preferred vs iso performance, since the higher shutterspeed will "eliminate" any chance of camerashake. But dont know if this is the reason behind this, in his test, or just a coincidence.
It's Pennsylvania. You need all the ISO you can get.
I'm a native of the Keystone State, BTW.
Jared had a video where he answered this question, but I couldn't find it with a quick search of his channel. He locks in a fast shutter speed to avoid any issue with the subject moving (sensor stabilization should handle camera shake). With cameras like the Z9 and R5, having the ISO float as high as ISO 1600 has little image quality effect.
Very informative video! Love your sample images and comparisons. And good cathch on the 1.8 not nailing the face on full lengths.. That's highly important in my book!
Have we gotten too picky about the microscopic in/out of focus?
I had similar result with 85 1.8s and I was so confused as everyone talks great about it. Glad I have returned it. Surprisingly, Sigms 135mm was doing a great job which I ended up buying it instead.
Any chance you compare the Nikon 85 1.2 to the Sigma Art 85 1.4? That could come out interesting
The 85 1.2 looks interesting, but out of my budget (I'll keep shooting with my 85 1.8 Z). The 26mm is a bit of a head-scratcher. IN some respects, I can see why they released it (it's a pancake, whereas the 28mm 2.8 Z is not so much, but would have liked to maybe see a 24mm pancake instead as I feel that might be more appropriate, and on a DX (APS-C) camera that means a 35mm equivalent too. I guess Nikon IS planning a 24mm DX lens though, so there is still hope... Now I'm just waiting for the release of a 200-600 or some other 200-500 F-mount replacement, but for Z bodies.
Even with the shitty price of it had been a 24mm 2.8 or lower it would be an auto buy for me. That would be 35mm equivalent on aps-c and then 24mm on full frame? That would own.
Any lens over like 300-400 is more than im willing to invest in.
Nice review, now I'm having lens lust 😛
S5II review?
Great Review, I’m going to wait until I have enough to get the 1.2.
Now that the 135 P
lena is out, which one do you think is better?
What is that product from Atomos, on top of the camera? Thanks! :)
Thank you for this. I just got the 1.8 right before the 1.2 was announced. This video showcased the difference in quality perfectly. Overall the 1.8 is still fantastic for portraits, but I definitely wanna get this lens at some point. You earned a subscriber sir.
Why is the quality of the images much sharper in the viewfinder (or LCD) (6:59) than the actual image captured (7:17)? This issue seemed to be the same on my 50mm 1.2 s.
Viewfinder image uses the currently selected Picture Control (Standard in this case). Lightroom ignores that. If you use NX Studio or manually select Camera Matching->Standard in Lightroom you should see nearly identical results.
respectfully, what a stunning model.
Jared - for those of us with an 85mm f1.4 in the Nikon F mount for dSLRs - should we upgrade ? What do you think ?
Not if the 1.4 is working for your needs.
What will 10-20% improvement do for you? Better images for your clients? Yes, upgrade. More satisfaction of taking the best image you can, and feeling challenged to match your abilities with the camera/lens? Yes, upgrade. Anything else, probably stick with the 85mm f/1.4G.
@@UnconventionalReasoning the f1.4 from the F mount is indeed a wonderful lens, and I think most of us that shoot with it are gonna think long and hard 0:14 before making the switch. But at the end of the day, if you shoot portraits in studio - this may be the most important focal length in the camera bag, and probably worth getting the bear in class lens if we can manage it.
@@johnpeterson7264 Yes, that's what I meant by "better images for your clients". Though studio portraits may minimize the advantages of the 85mm f/1.2S over the 85mm f/1.4G. Environmental portraits may be where the new lens separates itself.
cant wait for the 35
I want this lens!
9:34 GREAT side by side. This is a pretty critical chunk of data!
Not the exact same framing between Canon and Nikon in the side to side studio photos. Is it due to the lenses ?
Jared, was wondering if you have done a video of the Nikon Z MC 105mm as a portrait lens. I know you can’t possibly do everything. But…thank you for your time.
Alright brother!! A doubt does the Z9 or Z8 have the option to crop the zoom like Sony?
I'm definitely going to get this lens.....i'm very happy to see not a bunch of unnecessary crap on the side of the lens, very basic.
Wowow fast update. When will the z8 launch btw??
2025.
Hopefully the Z7III comes out this summer, along with the Z6III, both getting the Expeed7 processor.
If the Z8 comes out this year, the Z7 series is over, and Nikon is dropping the $3000 price point, one they've one great with since the D700 in 2008.
Jared, you seem to be comparing Nikon v Canon colour science
9:19 How comes 85 1.2 @1.8 still has shallower depth of field then 85 1.8 @1.8?
It looks like he might've stood a smidge closer when shooting with the f1.2 (model's head is slightly closer to the top of the frame)
It doesn’t. It just has better fall off cause it has better glass.
It is the same depth of field, different out of focus rendering. It's the entire point of the $2800 lens design. The images you indicated are what we should really consider for bokeh, more than Christmas lights.
I also thought it was peculiar that the blur differed that much.
@@Googlegnome That's $2000 blur!
'Bokeh balls' are a less useful way to show the background bokeh character of a lens. An image like this is much more effective.
Nice preview! BTW, it has also happened to me that the 85/1.8 has backfocused in some circumstances. I hope that Nikon solves this issue in a firmware upgrade.
Yes as demonstrated close ups focus perfectly but full body portraits tend to be an issue
Can you clarify the segment where you are talking about the 85 1.8 is back focusing at 1.8 but then it sounds like a different lens at 1.8 is tack sharp though you seem to be talking about the same lens. I watched that segment twice to make sure I didn’t miss something, maybe I did… and still missed it
If you are want to stay compact and don’t shoot above 3200 iso I would strongly advice to invest in either a Fuji apsc camera or a M43 body and to buy the Sigma 56mm 1.4 (85mm or 112mm équivalent). The IQ and bokeh are amazing for a fraction of the price. If you want to shoot 35mm, the Nikon or Sigma 105mm 1.4 are great alternatives too.
IBIS in the lens? :D
So, you're saying that the 85mm 1.8 misses focus when you are further back, but when you get in closer, it nails the focus?
On Z6II it works great. On Z8 or Z9, there is such a problem both in full-length portraits and in facial ones. The only solution I found is to close it to f/2.2
Would be interesting to compare it with teh Sigma 85mm f 1,4....
Have the F mount 85 f 1,8 and the older 85, Af-D 1,4 and the Sigma Art 85mm f1,4...
The last one is nearla a bit to sharp, but i love it...
And jes, its heavy and bulky....
me too, sigma 85mm 1.4 is sharp, and price good.
Never tried the Sigma, I have the other two, and several more recent lenses. I still consider the 85 1.4D my best portrait lens. Not the sharpest, but beautiful rendering, unique. Never going to sell it.
@@ilmatanela1816 I had the AF 1,4D, but it got a problem with the aperture, so i brought it to the service, it took more than two months to get parts from japan... So i bought the AFS 1,8, and got short after a good deal for the Sigma... As i take pics from bands and now theatre, i like the low light and fast focus possibilities.
But for "normal" portraits, its too sharp.... Need only the AFS 1,4 to make a compair, and then choose which stays....
I'm really looking forward to getting this lens, but what I don't quite get is the cost compared to the Z 50mm f/1.2 S. The 50mm not only has more glass, but more specialty glass as well, along with more specialized coatings, such ARNEO. Both lenses are otherwise constructed similarly with respect to materials, are about the same size, weight and both have dual stepping motors -- and the 50mm even has an OLED panel, which I would imagine adds to the cost of construction. Why, then, is Nikon launching the 85mm f/1.2 at $700 US more than the 50mm f/1.2? I wonder if their answer is simply: "Because we can."
Because they can, and it helps their bottom line as they compete with the larger business (Canon is about 5x and Sony about 25x). I think very few photographers will say, "I would have bought it for $2300, but I refuse to for $2800." It also lets them discount it from time to time and still keep it over $2000.
Moon Dust, I. Am. Sold. lol
I'm really excited for it! Thanks for the comparison pics!
Nice 👌 what you udjng to screen record ?
Great review - thanks! One thing that stood out to me is the lens compression differences which I thought was odd - both being 85mm, you would the compression would be the same, but the Nikon looked flatter (@13:05 and @5:30) is it just me?
I think the camera is in the same place due to the fov of the background, but I think the model is 1/2 a step further back in the Nikon shot, hence the slightly flatter look. I like the color rendition on the Nikon more than the canon.
Compared to the 1.8 the 1.2 had creamier background too, um was that because of the back focus or something else?
The creamier background was the exact intent of the lens design. I noticed the same thing, especially with the tree in the mural behind Sydney. [9:30]
The difference between both Nikon at f1.8 is the vignette of the f1.8 S version is pretty noticable.
I don't understand you... Why do you don't use a flashlight with a softbox and the eyes will shine. For every portrait I use flashlights... Because the eyes look better and are popping out... And I don't use Lightroom, because it is B.S. (everything is written so small on the buttons) I use the best and that is DXO Photolap, and I don't care for the Lightroom prepared settings, I have from them over 200... Maybe it is too much
Could you please do a nighttime star test when you get the production model, maybe a milky way comparison with Canon? Star shapes, the ultimate test of sharpness. You can try also Orion Nebula. I have my suspicion that canon lets more near infrared (Hydrogen Alpha wavelength) in and that is why the Canon skin colors. I think most of the people interested in these lenses will be astrophotographers. Can you AUTOFOCUS ON STARS? How about video of milky way or shooting stars?
10 years ago a got my self a D90
I started photography. A few years later I discovered a guy sniffing lenses on RUclips. so many good advice, so many great videos.
Thnx you Jared. I wish one day will meet so I can tel you this in person. Thnx again for all of this.
Stay fro, shoot RAW ❤️🫡
I do not think Jared Polin has been very fair to Nikon. The reason I keep watching his videos is that he is a great photographer. There are so many RUclipsrs who cannot take a good photograph if it could save their life. So if Polin likes this lens, I guess he really liked it
Fair, thorough, well thought out review. Thanks!
Looks like Nikon Z 85mm F/1.2 S got more T-stops on its glass.
I thought it was 30.00 for the pack?
85 1.2 or 105 2.8 which is best
105 1.4
If I own the 85 1.4 f mount, should I buy it? Is it much better?
Only you know the scale you would use for "much better". For what I do, the 105 f/1.4G is still great. If I got hired to photograph a wedding later this year, I would reserve a 85 f/1.2S rental immediately, especially if the 35mm f/1.2S is also released this year.
Thanks! For my budget, I think the 1.8 would work fine for me. I was thinking about the 85mm or the 105mm, I am not sure which would be option.
i used to really want 1.2 but after years of run n gun work i live for lenses that are perfect at f4. 1.2 is great, this lens looks amazing but i'll take a 1.8. currently have the 85mm 1.8 tamron F mount for my DSLRs and have never felt the need to go to 1.2
Honestly when the 1.2 and 1.8 were both at 1.8 it's like 4 time the cost for a little better rendition isn't worth it whether ur a pro or not lol
It depends on how often during a photo session the better lens causes the "Wow!" reaction. Getting that early in the session can help the subject relax and make the whole experience better, That quickly justifies the price difference, and amazing lenses help achieve that. Also, the size also helps create a sense of trust in the photographer, even if it's for the wrong reasons. At a wedding, it gives the photographer more of a commanding presence, and people are more cooperative. At least, those have been my experiences with lenses of this quality level.
@@UnconventionalReasoning This is a strange explanation. The very small differences in quality are not visible on a small LCD in the first place. Even when tethered to an iPad or laptop, there are no differences. You really need to process the RAW file first and look at it on a calibrated screen. If you want the 'wow' effect, simply apply a contrast curve and boost the colours beyond realism.
@@harpenfluit I think the differences between a good lens and an exceptional lens are more easily apparent, even in the camera's jpg.
@@UnconventionalReasoning The difference here is between an excellent lens (the Nikon 85mm/1.8) and another excellent lens (the Nikon 85mm/1.2). You will not see any difference between these two lenses from f/1.8 and above on an LCD. Really, but rent the lens and do some tests.
Most people who buy very expensive lenses convince themselves that the differences are obvious, but I have done some blind tests in the past (with another lens of course) and about 50% of the time the more expensive lens was chosen as the best. ;)
@@harpenfluit sorry, that was too mean even by internet standards. Sometimes the best response, for me, for perceived dismissiveness and condescension is snark.
I'd love to try this lens out with some astrophotography just like the 50mm f/1.2. Pre-order has been submitted.
What is your opinion on the Viltrox 85 1.2 PRO lens? Do you think it's worth it compared to the Nikon? The price difference is huge
Mann I was thinking ok my 1.8 will still do the trick but even the compression on her face and body looked better with that 1.2 in the side by side. Now I'm torn if I want to go for this or wait to see if the 135 does come out this year.
Outstanding Video Sir .....
The most crazy honest photographer on youtube , when you become 50 years old you think you will be still in youtube ? and what is the future for your channel ?
Skittles does kick ass though.
Nice test JP
I had the exact same focusing problem with the 35mm 1.8 on the Nikon Z7ii. I shot it at F4 for some wedding party shots and every single photo was out of focus, up close it was razor sharp even at f2
Thanks for quality video :)
Is it possible for you to make a comparison: 85mm 1.2 Z vs 85mm 1.4G? :)
I use film cameras as well as digital still and have lenses that are 1.2-1.8 and i am able to manually focus those all the time its just tough sometimes because focus is really finicky and easy to knock the focus out of where it needs to be.
Nice! Q. Sony ZV-E10, will Sony update the sensor & stabilization anytime soon, should I wait to buy? what's your thoughts? thx
Nikon's t-stop has more opening than the canon's from the photos placed side by side
It’s cause it has better glass.
thanks Manny Ortiz for comming 1st :) I'm here for the wind tunnel test.
it is about both camera. since both top line camera body's for both brand
Canon Red Ring is King! 💪
Nikon should've kept the Gold Ring!
85 1.2 or 135 1.8?
there's no 135
@@froknowsphoto hypothetical. For Canon...
105 1.4 - Is the real test. I don't feel it'll match the look of a longer focal length? Also z glass has cooler tones compared to f mount. But interesting review, thanks
@@CabbitCast 135 f/2 or f/1.8, it is unclear which.
@@CabbitCast right below them are the 28mm f/2.8 and 40mm f/2 on the same line. We are also counting on the 35mm f/1.2S, which I do hope happens, though it could be a 35mm f/1.4. You're probably right that it will be a 135mm f/1.8. I do think the size savings with f/2 may be worth it.
For 85 i think majority prefer lower than 1.8. Around 1.4 to 1.2
This lens show class..
Jared please talk a little about how bad nikons Auto focus is, 🙏..... its not a true JP video until u tell every nikon owner what they are missing....
It's true. Why do I even bother to try taking pictures with the Z7II?!? It's hopeless!
@@UnconventionalReasoning I threw my Z9 in the River!
What our customers want; better autofocus in cheaper bodies and an f to z adapter for the older d lenses what we give them...
Just move on. Nobody (except Sony, which isn't a camera company) bothered to support screwdrive lenses from the 1980s. If you want to support Nikon, always buy the latest gear from them. They need the cash to stay afloat. Old Nikkors belong in the closet.
Guys my main system is phaseone and they support everything they made 20+ years ago.If Nikon needs my cash it has to think about who made them what they are people are dissatisfied and that's why almost every professional I know has abandoned Nikon
@@photorealismstr people are dissatisfied because they're whiny twerps who watch the youtube photographers whose job it is to sell more and more equipment. These same photographers exclaim, "It's the photographer, not the camera!" and then worry about the camera. Groupthink is powerful, and photographers have succumbed to it over the past few years on eye-AF, following the megapixel wars and the high ISO wars. We'll be on to something else by next year.
Sounds like the Nikon Money Truck came home to deliver this lens lol.... Thank you for a solid review!!