I own this lens and it's a stunner. For me its defining characteristic is its transition from in focus areas to out of focus areas. Can be hard to know what that means if you haven't shot with it, but it's true. Reminds me a bit of that 200 f/2 magic.
LoCa is for most lenses optimized for the focal distance the manufacturer expects the buyers to use the lens at, so unless you plan to use the lens at 1:2 magnification (in that case, just buy a macro lens! :) ) you should test most lenses LoCa at half- to full body portrait distance. Very few lenses except for macros are optimized for MFD performance.... And for large aperture lenses the difference in performance between 1:3 and 1:30 magnification is quite big :)
DXO’s highest scoring lens ever tested. This and the Plena are spectacular portrait lenses. I also have the 85 1.2 for my canon RF system and that lens was my all time favorite until this lens came around.
@@southbridgeforestHOAmain reason is focus speed. The canon is noticeably slower and loud. The other thing is subjective, I think the RF isn’t quite as smooth in oof rendering/transition zone. This test didn’t show it but my copies of the two, the Nikon is sharper across the frame to the edge, but the canon is no slouch.
That’s only because they don’t have a test for the Rf 85 1.2 Every test comparing them has the RF being sharper edge to edge. But yes the AF speed is superior.
@@robbie154 the two copies I tested showed the Nikon 85 1.2 to be sharper. However testing one copy of each isn’t scientific. At these levels sharpness differences don’t even matter so I do not put to much weight into that. Both are sharp. Also there is a site that took MTF measurements of both and came to this conclusion: “The Nikon easily outguns the competing Canon RF 85mm F1.2L USM for sharpness throughout the aperture range, especially in the areas away from the center of the frame.”
I have had this lens since release and nothing beats it in this focal range and aperture regardless of system. It's rendering is what keeps it ahead of everything else
Good review, but a portrait lens of F1.2 is probably used with the suject in tne centre 90% of the time, and this lens certainly delivets stunning resolution wide open in the centre. The cornets will probzbly be out of the focus range at F1.2 anyway so it doesnt really matter if the edge is a little softer than centre. If you think this lens is expensice, then have a look at Leica 75mm Noctilux F1.25 at a giveaway price of £11500.00. Now we are talking.
Yeah but also look for Viltrox 75mm F1.2 at 500 USD. This lens is expensive and less sharp than the Viltrox at F1.2. Plus the Viltrox has a more premium build quality.
I love this lens, event though i shoot Canon. Nikon really knows how to make great lenses, at any price point, ticking just about every aspect of a perfect lens.
yeah same Canon shooter but I love this glass... Nikon is an Optics company first and foremost. Canon is a printer company first and foremost... That's the rub (industry wise and business wise I know that shocks people)
@@livejames9374 probably what he wants to say is that Canon is the leader in printer market, while Nikon always produced higher quality optics than Canon.
Very nice review! HoweverI think you judge this lens and some others harshly at times,… ie. Just recommended for this. Maybe a bit of canon bias. This lens has been measured to be sharper than canon RF version by multiple sites, focus breathing is less, the focus mechanism is much better, close up image quality looked similar, the flare on the RF was all time bad, and you say the RF version had some issues with bokeh and difficult backgrounds. Yet the canon RF lens was given highly recommended.
The Canon was released nearly five years ago, while the Nikon was only released last year. At the time the RF 85mm was released, Nikon hadn't even released any 85mm lens, let alone an f/1.2.
@@FawfulDied thanks for the history lesson. Doesn’t change the fact that one seems to be a good deal better yet received a lower recommendation. It’s not like any other 85 1.2 lenses have been released since that upped the bar like this lens seems to have done.
Canon version is equal or.more expensive, sony doesnt have this lens yet, sigma or tamron doesnt have this lens for Nikon, so i wonder that better options available that he mention exist...?
Yes it’s heavy and expensive so it’s not going to be on everyone’s list but it’s cheaper than the canon version! It is a fabulous lens and I have absolutely no regrets about buying it. Imo it’s perfectly weighted on both the Z8 and Z9 😅
Doubt this is related but RUclips played an American Express ad before this video and the name on the sample credit card shown was "C F Frost" and I thought that was interesting.
I just realized it doesnt have the OLED screen like on the 50 1.2! Not so much of a knock since the digital screen is a wee bit of gimmick. wonder if nikon could have made the 50 1.2 a little more compact w/o the screen Great review! Cheers Chris and Happy Lunar New Year🐉
It’s pretty much perfect in use. Lo ca isn’t a thing at normal distances as evident by his water fall picture at the beginning. Only slight negative I have noticed is minor flaring in difficult light even with hood on, but some may find that desirable.
This is unrealistic. There will always be tradeoff no matter the price of a lens, though mirrorless lenses compromise a lot less than the F-mount (DSLR) lenses.
I'm wondering if you maybe got a softer copy of this lens. I've found it to be so sharp wide open that I have to dial it back at times in post. An impressive feat for and 85mm 1.2
For heavy lenses, tripod and a rig to support it, always solves the issue, however, I understand, you can't carry it around anywhere, but heavy lenses do work on planned shoots where you may have more time to set it up.
I'm not a Nikon shooter but this lens could cause me to convert at some point. I do have the Canon version of this lens in the FD and EF lens mounts. I love the FD version's smaller size and dislike the EF version's slow and spotty AF mode. The front element on these lenses is so large that AF can be an issue.
Вообще, Крис, спасибо тебе за всё. Ты реально делаешь важные вещи. Как я понял, ты очень верующий человек (может даже священник). Храни господь тебя и твою семью. Actually, Chris, thank you for everything. You are really doing important things. I understand that you are a very religious person (maybe even a priest). God bless you and your family.
At F1.2, the upper left hand corner of the test chart is soft compared to the other three corners. Field curvature or some other issue? Thanks for what you do Chris!
Chris, have you grab a Voigtlander Nokton 23mm f/1.2 by any chance? I’m waiting for a good review with all that matters to see if it’s a worthy addition to my X-pro2 (which it seems that it doesn’t do proper communication with)
Was expecting razor sharp image quality across the frame starting from f/1.2. The price point of the lens & the sharpness of the lens when wide open is little bit off for me.
There is a reason why Nikon didn’t named the lens like the Noct and Plena. The image circle seems to be tighter as the other two are basically over-projecting. Hence almost no vignetting for these two, unlike this one. Its sad that Nikon missed the opportunity as there wont be another 85 in this class.
Hey chris , why do you need more sharpness in the far corners at f1.2? Does anyone put their subjects at very corners in their photographs when using an 85mm?
That's not the point. When you're paying such a huge amount of money, you're paying for perfection. He's doing a reviewers job and pointing out any imperfections he sees. There's always the possibility that a professional photographer with this lens might want to enlarge a photo onto a very large poster. Those are situations where edge softness might become much more apparent.
@@domm6812 I get that but these corners will be out of focus any way 99.9% of the time. No photograper will enlarge a photo at f1.2 with a subject there. I feel like that for these lenses we should look at the sharpness between the middle and the corners which is a spot where we actually have our subject's from time to time.
I own the 1.8, it is razor sharp straight from F/1.8 and contrasty, with virtually no aberration, handles backlight decently, and really has a good bokeh and overall rendition. 100% would recommand, especially if you buy it used (it then costs around 550-600€).
Viltrox has been focusing on aps-c lately which I prefer as an aps-c user but it probably means they won’t make one of these soon. I doubt they will ever make something like at all, though personally.
Not sure why you would compare the two lenses. Anyone considering buying the either is probably looking to buy for entirely different reasons. I own the 105mm and I am considering the 85mm 1.2, the 135mm 1.8 or the 35-150mm 2-2.8 Tamron as my next lens. I already have the 85mm 1.8 S so I am leaning towards 135mm although that is a little tight.
@@MB-dq2gz not sure I'd agree, 105mm has always been a great focal length for portrait photography. Sure f2.8 is not the same as f1.2 but some of that difference would be made up by the slightly better compression from the slightly longer 105mm focal length.
@@haydennettleton3272 I would say 105mm is the perfect focal length for portraiture in my opinion at least, but as a macro lens depending on your distance from your subject it isn't a constant 2.8 and the compression isn't what you think it is and doesn't make up for two stops. My 85mm 1.8 S lens produces a more shallow depth of field. There is a 3d pop effect that is only produced by the wider apertures, higher lens elements and more expensive coatings. You just have to use it for yourself then ask yourself if it is worth the price tag. Usually I contented myself with the less expensive 1.8 primes. I did by a voigtlander 50mm F/1.0 for my ZF though and it has been the only len I have been really using on the camera ever since. The thing is a photo art maker and I am impressed every time I work for a shot with it. So my appreciation for stupidly expensive lens with wide apertures has been snagged.
105 and 85mm are pretty different, 105 is much more difficult to use in an interior setup, so the two cannot really be compared. But even if you do compare, the 105 is a slow as fuck lens (F/2.8 ! At such a slow aperture, you're better off with a 70-200, except if you shoot jewelry, like ear rings, in which case you won't shoot at 2.8 anyway), although you could compare the 85 1.2 and the 105 1.4, which would have pretty much the same bokeh (the 105 making up for its dimmer aperture with its tighter FoV), in which case both are stellar, they're just different tools for different jobs (but the 105 1.4 can easily be found used for under 1000€).
Thanks to lenses like the Viltrox 75mm F1.2 people are slowly starting to see how the big brands are trying to screw us into spending so much money on lenses like this one from Nikon.
f/1.2 is meaningless without the T-value. You cannot claim that it is a ton of light coming into the camera. That's what the T-value tells you. Generally not published by lens manufacturers. For reference, famous 1.2L lenses from one brand have a T-value of 1.5 at f/1.2, while famous 1.4G lenses from another brand also have a T-value of 1.5 but at f/1.4. You cannot make a claim about Depth of Field (DoF) either because it depends on the Circle of Confusion (CoC) [1]. CoC is a blended parameter and one main aspect of it is resolution (sharpness). Sharper means shallower DoF because it gives a smaller CoC. In that sense, the 1.4G may have similar or shallower DoF than the 1.2L when both are fully opened and ceteris paribus. (See DxOMark to review these claims). [1] CoC captures the following influences on the perception of DoF: (1) Camera (sensor) or film resolution (2) Lens resolution (3) Processing (4) Display resolution (5) Display size (6) Viewer to display distance
@@SovietLensReviews - that's a problem if you think what he says is important. He has a soothing voice and nice presentation. But apparently there is not much depth underneath that varnish.
@@SovietLensReviews- I trust on what I learned in photography school. And, DxOMark is not perfect either, but what I reference in DxOMark is absolutely trustworthy. When they write they test sensors, that is baloney. As their sister company sells raw processing software they are all part of the Bayer conspiracy.
Just compare a photo of both side to side, and see for yourself. As for the CoC, it is an arbitrary parameter chosen to estimate the DoF of a lens (usually based on the sensor's photosite size), because in theory, the depth of field of a lens (wether it is an F/0.7 or an F/240 pinhole) is null. So you need to introduce the parameter of CoC (wich is the low bar of acceptable optical resolution) to compare different aperture, in order to define a depth of field (AKA a zone in which optical resolution is superior to the CoC). But it doesn't play any role on the depth of field of the lens (only reproduction ratio, focal length and aperture do). For example, if you print the same photo, at the same size, but one with 6Mp of resolution and the other at 45Mp, DoF will still be the same on both. So the 1.2 has a better bokeh than a 1.4, but only slightly, given the fact that it is only a ~1/2 stop difference.
I’ve owned this lens with my z8 And I’ve owned both versions of canons RF 85 1.2 with my canon r5 As much as I absolutely love the Nikon images over any other brand… this 85 could not hold a candle to the 85 1.2 DS from canon… there is just something about that defocus smoothing coating that just makes every single image look like magic. That being said this lens is the absolute best Nikon has to offer on the 85 side.
The background rendering is unmatched with the DS. However, like everything there are pros and cons. DS you aren’t getting close to 1.2 light transmission, it’s around ~f2.
@@livejames9374I understand the loss of Light it still never found that to Hinder my shots at all it was totally worth the stop of light loss because I can make It Up with iso easily
I’ve used the Canon DS and this lens. No comparison on bokeh. Nikon is far better. Nikon isn’t worth the price though considering it’s made in China instead of Japan. Sharpness is the same on both. Real issue is this has to be used on a z9 or z8 otherwise the 1.2 can’t hit focus.
1.2 is not meant for headshots (in which case 1.8 is already more than enough), but rather for entire standing portraits. But i agree on the fact that 1.4 is enough for most case and the Price/Weight tradeoff to achieve 1.2 isn't really worth it. That being said i absolutely want this lens or the Plena
Wide open(@1.2) this Z can’t match corner sharpness of the RF. Same story with their Z 50 1.2 and the overhyped/price Plena, with stm motors and without IS. Just look at the corner sharpness wide open(@1.4) of the Z 35 1.4 vs the RF equivalent, night&day! 😂😡😂
I have both 85s from Canon and Nikon. The nikon z 85 1.2 is better in every way. 35 comment is dumb. The Nikon is under $600. The canon is $1500. Also who cares about corner sharpness at 1.2. Nobody. Plena is a reference lens, canon 135 doesn’t match image quality. Let’s go down the line…. These Z lenses are better than equivalent RF or don’t exist on RF: 800mm, 600mm, 400mm, 600pf, 400 4.5, 180-600, 70-200, 24-70, 135, 14-24, 105 macro, 24-120, 85 1.8, 50 1.8, 85 1.2, 50 1.8, 50 1.2, 24 1.8, 20 1.8, 24-70 f4, 28-400 RF does have some unique options like the 16mm, 28-70, 800/600 f11 (lol), 24-105 2.8, 70-200 f4 but over all Z mount has a better lineup.
It is already very good on a 45Mp body wide open (and perfect on a 24Mp one). Most photographers don't need optical perfection, but rather exceptionnal rendering (which this lens has).
I own this lens and it's a stunner. For me its defining characteristic is its transition from in focus areas to out of focus areas. Can be hard to know what that means if you haven't shot with it, but it's true. Reminds me a bit of that 200 f/2 magic.
LoCa is for most lenses optimized for the focal distance the manufacturer expects the buyers to use the lens at, so unless you plan to use the lens at 1:2 magnification (in that case, just buy a macro lens! :) ) you should test most lenses LoCa at half- to full body portrait distance. Very few lenses except for macros are optimized for MFD performance.... And for large aperture lenses the difference in performance between 1:3 and 1:30 magnification is quite big :)
DXO’s highest scoring lens ever tested.
This and the Plena are spectacular portrait lenses.
I also have the 85 1.2 for my canon RF system and that lens was my all time favorite until this lens came around.
why? they are both 85mm 1.2 and very similar?
@@southbridgeforestHOAmain reason is focus speed. The canon is noticeably slower and loud. The other thing is subjective, I think the RF isn’t quite as smooth in oof rendering/transition zone. This test didn’t show it but my copies of the two, the Nikon is sharper across the frame to the edge, but the canon is no slouch.
That’s only because they don’t have a test for the Rf 85 1.2
Every test comparing them has the RF being sharper edge to edge. But yes the AF speed is superior.
@@robbie154 the two copies I tested showed the Nikon 85 1.2 to be sharper. However testing one copy of each isn’t scientific. At these levels sharpness differences don’t even matter so I do not put to much weight into that. Both are sharp. Also there is a site that took MTF measurements of both and came to this conclusion:
“The Nikon easily outguns the competing Canon RF 85mm F1.2L USM for sharpness throughout the aperture range, especially in the areas away from the center of the frame.”
I have had this lens since release and nothing beats it in this focal range and aperture regardless of system.
It's rendering is what keeps it ahead of everything else
Good review, but a portrait lens of F1.2 is probably used with the suject in tne centre 90% of the time, and this lens certainly delivets stunning resolution wide open in the centre. The cornets will probzbly be out of the focus range at F1.2 anyway so it doesnt really matter if the edge is a little softer than centre. If you think this lens is expensice, then have a look at Leica 75mm Noctilux F1.25 at a giveaway price of £11500.00. Now we are talking.
Yeah but also look for Viltrox 75mm F1.2 at 500 USD. This lens is expensive and less sharp than the Viltrox at F1.2. Plus the Viltrox has a more premium build quality.
@@dobrecristianroyou can’t really compare this lens to a crop sensor lens.
I love this lens, event though i shoot Canon. Nikon really knows how to make great lenses, at any price point, ticking just about every aspect of a perfect lens.
yeah same Canon shooter but I love this glass... Nikon is an Optics company first and foremost. Canon is a printer company first and foremost... That's the rub (industry wise and business wise I know that shocks people)
@@NoSuRReNDeR001 canon has been a camera/precision optics company since the 30s. Their printers came out in the 80s.
@@livejames9374 probably what he wants to say is that Canon is the leader in printer market, while Nikon always produced higher quality optics than Canon.
@@livejames9374Nikon is focused on optics only
Canon has multiple branches
That's he want to say
I'm a big fan of Nikon's cheaper lenses, from the original 28-80 f/3.3-5.6G of the film era to the 24-70 f/4.
The lack of colour fringing or vignetting are plus points for extreme astrophotography.
Very nice review!
HoweverI think you judge this lens and some others harshly at times,… ie. Just recommended for this. Maybe a bit of canon bias. This lens has been measured to be sharper than canon RF version by multiple sites, focus breathing is less, the focus mechanism is much better, close up image quality looked similar, the flare on the RF was all time bad, and you say the RF version had some issues with bokeh and difficult backgrounds. Yet the canon RF lens was given highly recommended.
The Canon was released nearly five years ago, while the Nikon was only released last year. At the time the RF 85mm was released, Nikon hadn't even released any 85mm lens, let alone an f/1.2.
@@FawfulDied thanks for the history lesson. Doesn’t change the fact that one seems to be a good deal better yet received a lower recommendation. It’s not like any other 85 1.2 lenses have been released since that upped the bar like this lens seems to have done.
@@lilnape2604 Well, one lens released that upped the bar: the Canon RF 85mm f/1.2.
@@FawfulDied it seems like the RF lens set the bar and this Z lens surpassed it, that’s why the recommend rating seems odd.
Canon version is equal or.more expensive, sony doesnt have this lens yet, sigma or tamron doesnt have this lens for Nikon, so i wonder that better options available that he mention exist...?
Great review, Chris. Wow, the AF speed looks pretty snappy for a F1.2 lens.
Really a great job from Nikon. I'm a Canon user, but not a fanatic. We should be honest when a brand makes a masterpiece like that.
Have you tested the RF85 1.2 ?????
@@amabualrub No, at the moment I didn't test it yet. But I hope to do that, soon or later.
Yes it’s heavy and expensive so it’s not going to be on everyone’s list but it’s cheaper than the canon version! It is a fabulous lens and I have absolutely no regrets about buying it. Imo it’s perfectly weighted on both the Z8 and Z9 😅
Doubt this is related but RUclips played an American Express ad before this video and the name on the sample credit card shown was "C F Frost" and I thought that was interesting.
I got this lens the day it was released. it's become one of my favourites. It has some kind of "special sauce."
I just realized it doesnt have the OLED screen like on the 50 1.2! Not so much of a knock since the digital screen is a wee bit of gimmick. wonder if nikon could have made the 50 1.2 a little more compact w/o the screen
Great review! Cheers Chris and Happy Lunar New Year🐉
Should have excelled in every test considering the price
It’s pretty much perfect in use. Lo ca isn’t a thing at normal distances as evident by his water fall picture at the beginning. Only slight negative I have noticed is minor flaring in difficult light even with hood on, but some may find that desirable.
The 85mm is a very specific lens and I think it does for this focal length.
This is unrealistic. There will always be tradeoff no matter the price of a lens, though mirrorless lenses compromise a lot less than the F-mount (DSLR) lenses.
I'm wondering if you maybe got a softer copy of this lens. I've found it to be so sharp wide open that I have to dial it back at times in post. An impressive feat for and 85mm 1.2
For heavy lenses, tripod and a rig to support it, always solves the issue, however, I understand, you can't carry it around anywhere, but heavy lenses do work on planned shoots where you may have more time to set it up.
Is sharpness really needed in the corners at F/1.2 shooting portraits?
Of course not. Just for test purpose, no real application at all.
Useful for shooting stars.
I cant wait when mine comes in next week. 🤗
I'm not a Nikon shooter but this lens could cause me to convert at some point. I do have the Canon version of this lens in the FD and EF lens mounts. I love the FD version's smaller size and dislike the EF version's slow and spotty AF mode. The front element on these lenses is so large that AF can be an issue.
Вообще, Крис, спасибо тебе за всё. Ты реально делаешь важные вещи. Как я понял, ты очень верующий человек (может даже священник). Храни господь тебя и твою семью.
Actually, Chris, thank you for everything. You are really doing important things. I understand that you are a very religious person (maybe even a priest). God bless you and your family.
Excellent review, as always, Chris.
At F1.2, the upper left hand corner of the test chart is soft compared to the other three corners. Field curvature or some other issue? Thanks for what you do Chris!
If only one corner is soft then than it’s a decentered lens.
@@lilnape2604 Good to know. Thank you.
As soon as I saw the lens and clicked the video, I knew it was gonna be one of those that you say “test the living daylights out of it” lol
Chris, have you grab a Voigtlander Nokton 23mm f/1.2 by any chance? I’m waiting for a good review with all that matters to see if it’s a worthy addition to my X-pro2 (which it seems that it doesn’t do proper communication with)
I can attest that this is the best Nikon 85mm lens I have used. However, cost wise it is not 3 times better than the Z 85mm F1.8.
Was expecting razor sharp image quality across the frame starting from f/1.2. The price point of the lens & the sharpness of the lens when wide open is little bit off for me.
Lovely review, It's a dream machine for portraits.
Superb review of an amazing glass....thank you.
A true successor to the AF-D Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 which was known as the Cream machine.
The AF-S was no joke either...
my friend, thank you for reviewing this beast of a lens!
Please review Viltrox 75mm F1.2 Z fit, it competes with this lens on every level and it only cost £430
I would love a Sony 85mm f/1.2 GM
So many salty comments about the corner sharpness at 1.2 clearly missing the point
There is a reason why Nikon didn’t named the lens like the Noct and Plena. The image circle seems to be tighter as the other two are basically over-projecting. Hence almost no vignetting for these two, unlike this one. Its sad that Nikon missed the opportunity as there wont be another 85 in this class.
Noct is named for the 0.95 aperture. It actually has more vignetting. Plena is designed different from both.
Hey chris , why do you need more sharpness in the far corners at f1.2? Does anyone put their subjects at very corners in their photographs when using an 85mm?
That's not the point. When you're paying such a huge amount of money, you're paying for perfection. He's doing a reviewers job and pointing out any imperfections he sees.
There's always the possibility that a professional photographer with this lens might want to enlarge a photo onto a very large poster. Those are situations where edge softness might become much more apparent.
@@domm6812 I get that but these corners will be out of focus any way 99.9% of the time. No photograper will enlarge a photo at f1.2 with a subject there. I feel like that for these lenses we should look at the sharpness between the middle and the corners which is a spot where we actually have our subject's from time to time.
It´s absolutly nonsense. That´s what you get when you only analyze test results and don´t stop to think about the usage and purpose of the lens.
If you're shooting star fields, the corners wide open are important.
@@FawfulDied Nobody shoots astro wide open at f1,2
I own it, I love it!
Can you to eye autofocus test in the up coming videos ?
From what I see, I would buy the 1.8 version in a heartbeat...
I own the 1.8, it is razor sharp straight from F/1.8 and contrasty, with virtually no aberration, handles backlight decently, and really has a good bokeh and overall rendition. 100% would recommand, especially if you buy it used (it then costs around 550-600€).
i wish nikon made smaller version of these lenses. those huge lenses are so hard on the hands and shoulder when shooting long events 🥵
Gosh this is expensive! I just got the VIltrox 75mm 1.2 and I love it so much o.o
It's so awesome when a lens has so much glass at the front it's like a cats eye when it's HUGE and about to pounce :D
Waiting for Viltrox / Samyang version of this lens - 98% quality at 30% price.
The way Viltrox has been going, and given the lack of perfection in this lens, 100% quality at 30% price isn't out of the question.
I swear Viltrox is the new Samyang. But slightly better. And with autofocus!
Viltrox has been focusing on aps-c lately which I prefer as an aps-c user but it probably means they won’t make one of these soon. I doubt they will ever make something like at all, though personally.
Christopher already reviewed it, and that was a big reason I got it...the Samyang XP 85mm f/1.2
@@sesgow yeah I shoot Fuji so I’ve been loving the Viltrox 13 and 75, might get the 27 eventually
My best lense ever :)
bokehrama images with this must be god tier
awesome rewiew
I am getting back into my hobby as a Nikon novice. Z6 or Z7 and this lens is all I need for my granddaughters shots!!
Get the 1.8
For a lens of this size, weight, and price from a first party, Nikon, there ought to be nearly no focus breathing, I feel.
Waiting 85GM version 1.2. My people at Sony are saying it's going to happen!
Rumors of a 85 1.4 GMii coming first
Theyre going to renew the 1.4 What do you need a 1.2 85mm for? nothing will be in focus. One eye maybe!
@@jukeboxjohnnie Nobody forces you to only shoot it at very close distances. 85 f/1.2 is great for background separation in full body portraits.
@@NAG3Vthat's right. I only shoot f/1.2 or f/1.4 for full body shots, stop down as I shoot closer
Охуенный объектив. Дорого богато, но фотографии выглядят отлично. Жалко не по финансам для любителей.
nice
The price dropped so fast that it made people think they were stupid people who bought it.
When you said 2600 pounds, I thought maybe you were talking about the weight.
Recommend. At that price the verdict is a bit of a singer really.
Not really impressed, the 105mm 2.8 macro seems sharper in your test.
Not sure why you would compare the two lenses. Anyone considering buying the either is probably looking to buy for entirely different reasons. I own the 105mm and I am considering the 85mm 1.2, the 135mm 1.8 or the 35-150mm 2-2.8 Tamron as my next lens. I already have the 85mm 1.8 S so I am leaning towards 135mm although that is a little tight.
@@MB-dq2gz not sure I'd agree, 105mm has always been a great focal length for portrait photography. Sure f2.8 is not the same as f1.2 but some of that difference would be made up by the slightly better compression from the slightly longer 105mm focal length.
@@haydennettleton3272 I would say 105mm is the perfect focal length for portraiture in my opinion at least, but as a macro lens depending on your distance from your subject it isn't a constant 2.8 and the compression isn't what you think it is and doesn't make up for two stops. My 85mm 1.8 S lens produces a more shallow depth of field. There is a 3d pop effect that is only produced by the wider apertures, higher lens elements and more expensive coatings. You just have to use it for yourself then ask yourself if it is worth the price tag. Usually I contented myself with the less expensive 1.8 primes. I did by a voigtlander 50mm F/1.0 for my ZF though and it has been the only len I have been really using on the camera ever since. The thing is a photo art maker and I am impressed every time I work for a shot with it.
So my appreciation for stupidly expensive lens with wide apertures has been snagged.
105 and 85mm are pretty different, 105 is much more difficult to use in an interior setup, so the two cannot really be compared. But even if you do compare, the 105 is a slow as fuck lens (F/2.8 ! At such a slow aperture, you're better off with a 70-200, except if you shoot jewelry, like ear rings, in which case you won't shoot at 2.8 anyway), although you could compare the 85 1.2 and the 105 1.4, which would have pretty much the same bokeh (the 105 making up for its dimmer aperture with its tighter FoV), in which case both are stellar, they're just different tools for different jobs (but the 105 1.4 can easily be found used for under 1000€).
Thanks to lenses like the Viltrox 75mm F1.2 people are slowly starting to see how the big brands are trying to screw us into spending so much money on lenses like this one from Nikon.
Canon Vs Nikon Comparison for the Fanboys. 🙈
But gotta give Canon credits for beating their rival by 4 years.
this is not the best and most expensive Nikon portrait lens. much interesting and not affordable is Nikon Z 58mm f/0.95 Noct
f/1.2 is meaningless without the T-value. You cannot claim that it is a ton of light coming into the camera. That's what the T-value tells you. Generally not published by lens manufacturers. For reference, famous 1.2L lenses from one brand have a T-value of 1.5 at f/1.2, while famous 1.4G lenses from another brand also have a T-value of 1.5 but at f/1.4.
You cannot make a claim about Depth of Field (DoF) either because it depends on the Circle of Confusion (CoC) [1].
CoC is a blended parameter and one main aspect of it is resolution (sharpness). Sharper means shallower DoF because it gives a smaller CoC. In that sense, the 1.4G may have similar or shallower DoF than the 1.2L when both are fully opened and ceteris paribus. (See DxOMark to review these claims).
[1] CoC captures the following influences on the perception of DoF:
(1) Camera (sensor) or film resolution
(2) Lens resolution
(3) Processing
(4) Display resolution
(5) Display size
(6) Viewer to display distance
I think you'll actually find that Chris can make any claims that he wants, and his 330,000 subscribers (myself included) will listen to them :)
@@SovietLensReviews - that's a problem if you think what he says is important. He has a soothing voice and nice presentation. But apparently there is not much depth underneath that varnish.
@@jpdj2715 Very funny. Head back to DxOMark then mate, and trust smartphone reviewers to give you their opinion on real lenses.
@@SovietLensReviews- I trust on what I learned in photography school. And, DxOMark is not perfect either, but what I reference in DxOMark is absolutely trustworthy. When they write they test sensors, that is baloney. As their sister company sells raw processing software they are all part of the Bayer conspiracy.
Just compare a photo of both side to side, and see for yourself. As for the CoC, it is an arbitrary parameter chosen to estimate the DoF of a lens (usually based on the sensor's photosite size), because in theory, the depth of field of a lens (wether it is an F/0.7 or an F/240 pinhole) is null. So you need to introduce the parameter of CoC (wich is the low bar of acceptable optical resolution) to compare different aperture, in order to define a depth of field (AKA a zone in which optical resolution is superior to the CoC). But it doesn't play any role on the depth of field of the lens (only reproduction ratio, focal length and aperture do). For example, if you print the same photo, at the same size, but one with 6Mp of resolution and the other at 45Mp, DoF will still be the same on both.
So the 1.2 has a better bokeh than a 1.4, but only slightly, given the fact that it is only a ~1/2 stop difference.
Canon Stark built this in a cave. For an SLR!
I’ve owned this lens with my z8
And I’ve owned both versions of canons RF 85 1.2 with my canon r5
As much as I absolutely love the Nikon images over any other brand… this 85 could not hold a candle to the 85 1.2 DS from canon… there is just something about that defocus smoothing coating that just makes every single image look like magic. That being said this lens is the absolute best Nikon has to offer on the 85 side.
I agree as I've been using the 85 1.2 DS for the past year and it's exceptional!
The background rendering is unmatched with the DS. However, like everything there are pros and cons. DS you aren’t getting close to 1.2 light transmission, it’s around ~f2.
@@livejames9374I understand the loss of
Light it still never found that to
Hinder my shots at all it was totally worth the stop of light loss because I can make
It
Up with iso easily
I’ve used the Canon DS and this lens. No comparison on bokeh. Nikon is far better. Nikon isn’t worth the price though considering it’s made in China instead of Japan. Sharpness is the same on both. Real issue is this has to be used on a z9 or z8 otherwise the 1.2 can’t hit focus.
@@Tap-a-roo changed your name, fulcrum?
Man stop down your camera while you are recording the handling of the lens. So little DOF with the focus constantly moving give me headaches.
A bit late to the party don't you think?
Far to big, silly really 1.4 is plenty very little will be in focus at 1.2, certainly not the models nose or ears
1.2 is not meant for headshots (in which case 1.8 is already more than enough), but rather for entire standing portraits. But i agree on the fact that 1.4 is enough for most case and the Price/Weight tradeoff to achieve 1.2 isn't really worth it. That being said i absolutely want this lens or the Plena
Wide open(@1.2) this Z can’t match corner sharpness of the RF. Same story with their Z 50 1.2 and the overhyped/price Plena, with stm motors and without IS. Just look at the corner sharpness wide open(@1.4) of the Z 35 1.4 vs the RF equivalent, night&day! 😂😡😂
I have both 85s from Canon and Nikon. The nikon z 85 1.2 is better in every way. 35 comment is dumb. The Nikon is under $600. The canon is $1500. Also who cares about corner sharpness at 1.2. Nobody. Plena is a reference lens, canon 135 doesn’t match image quality.
Let’s go down the line….
These Z lenses are better than equivalent RF or don’t exist on RF: 800mm, 600mm, 400mm, 600pf, 400 4.5, 180-600, 70-200, 24-70, 135, 14-24, 105 macro, 24-120, 85 1.8, 50 1.8, 85 1.2, 50 1.8, 50 1.2, 24 1.8, 20 1.8, 24-70 f4, 28-400
RF does have some unique options like the 16mm, 28-70, 800/600 f11 (lol), 24-105 2.8, 70-200 f4 but over all Z mount has a better lineup.
F1.2, usable image quality at F2.8, presumably 😂
It is already very good on a 45Mp body wide open (and perfect on a 24Mp one). Most photographers don't need optical perfection, but rather exceptionnal rendering (which this lens has).
Most overrated/overpriced Nikon Z lens to date and this review clearly showed it!
Completely disagree. It’s amazing and class leading.
This review definitely did not show it was overrated. Overpriced really depends on your budget/use.
This is a great lens aimed at professionals.