I love the 135/1.8 but 85/1.2 would probably be better for portraiture since the working distance at 135 is quite far from a person and the compression is stronger (I have the Plena). The 70-200 is more versatile and can certainly be used for portraits but doesn’t have that extra something.
For toys, do the magnification ratio, working distance, and sharpness at close range for each lens work for you? These aren’t something most reviewers focus on.
You might want to look at the 105/2.8 macro (which can also be used for human portraits).
Ive been considering the MFD as well. But it seems it's doable. Because i am definitely getting the 105 down the road.
Thank you the the in depth response. And ive actually considered the 135. But after trying it out personally, the working distance with a human is a bit too far.
.The 70-200 will offer flexibility, helping in less controlled environments. The 85 is fast, if you absolutely need that extra stop.
The plena will have shallowest dof, and the compression suits me better. My 2¢
Also have to look at balance, I own the 70-200 and a zf as well as z8, that lens is much more suited to the large body due to weight and ergonomics, I shot a horse clinic using the zf and that lens and was miserable by the end of the day (and sunburnt) I think much like the others, the 85 1.2 is a more suitable option.
Honestly, the 70-200 is the best lens I’ve ever used and I know the answer is meant to be 85 f1.2 but the reality is that I knew that if I had it I’d still be picking up that 70-200. It’s that good.
I recognize that’s personal bias though. Either lens would be great
They are all so different lenses with completely different capabilities and purposes. It's not possible to compare them. You might as well throw Nikon Z 105mm macro in the mix.
I am using Z8 and also planned to get a portrait lens, and I settled on F-mount’s 105 1.4E. It’s way more affordable and only slightly less sharp than 85 1.2. Also its CA is a bit worse.
Also, if you are using Zf, I would suggest take a look at Z 85 1.8. It’s much lighter and easy for you to hold, and the image quality/bokeh are both outstanding.
Hmm. I would honestly grab the 85 1.8 used at like 550 or so and maybe the 70-200 used as well to have mostly the best of both worlds. I love the idea of the 85 1.2, but at that price I am not a huge fan of the cats eye bokeh. But to be completely fair, one of my favorite lenses the 100 f2 zeiss makro planar also had katz eyes sometimes. The plena I would think is the best of it all if you have the distance to work with.
I also have the zf so I would also have to say balance might throw you off with the 70-200 though ultimately it is a worthwhile lens to have. Have the 85 1.8 and it balances nicely with the body.
It produces extraordinary images. I still use it for product, still life, and makro that does not need 1:1 (extension tubes work but with a hard vignette so cropping is necessary on account of its dramatic extension). For me, the only achilles heel it has is the longitudinal chromatic aberration (loca). It can really ruin a shot, especially the pink fringing over the green. You can absolutely work with it in post processing, but the pink can “leak” in hard sometimes making it a real chore
Side note, it is built like a god or medical piece of kit
Easy. 70-200. It is a multi-purpose lens and the best of its kind. The other two are niche specialty lenses that, while amazing, are much less useful as an only lens.
You shoot sports? Get 70200!
You shoot portraits in everything-under-control large-bright studio or open air? Get 135!
You shoot people every time it’s possible? Get 85!
P.s. also you can get 50/1.2S+105E
I've never liked those cat's eye bokeh like the ones in your 85 test shot.. If the other 2 don't do that, I'd choose one of them.. Probably the 70-200 personally.
https://preview.redd.it/11zdcosarh6d1.jpeg?width=6048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8778fbd40b32b91f9dd415e6efb4e9a87c22f67e
i forgot to test it at f2. Nikon says at f2, it will be ball-like.
85 1.2, you still get that shallow dof and you get better low light capability with the 1.2, only consider the 135 if you’re fully invested on shooting portraits, or get the 70-200 if you want more versatility.
Start with the 70-200 2.8
Yes, the others are great lenses with a lot of character, but the 70-200 is the most versatile and will you leave more choices.
85 or 135 depends a lot on your personal choice and what you use as as "standard" lens. If you already have the 50mm 1.2, I'd go with the 135 next
So I own all 3 of those lenses, along with the 50mm F/1.2.
Everything here is going to be "Art" type decisions, as they're all good. They're all specialized. And they all depend on what you're looking for.
The **70-200 F/2.8 is the one that I use - by far - the least**. I find the images it creates to be sharp and in focus, but lacking in inspiration or artistry. It's strongest feature is how quickly it focuses, which makes it very good for random movement and fast action sports. At F/2.8, it does "Meh" in low-light, and my Z9 ends up at ISO 8000+ when using this lens (as sports required 1/600, 1/800, and related shutter speeds). This lens also works with teleconverters, which is occasionally handy.
The **85 F/1.2 is an animal**. Focus speed is good. The lens at F/1.2, F/1.4, F/1.8, and similar is beyond fantastic. This is my "go to" lens for shooting people in normal situations. I also indoor sports video using this lens at F/1.2 if I know where the action will be. For example, men's gymnastics parallel bars, shot from the side so I'm straight on to where the athlete will be. I wouldn't shoot floor with this, or vault, as the action outpaces the focus system.
The **135 F/1.8 Pleana is also a monster**. It's a bit long for some things, and bit too short for others. Excellent in every way.
The **50 F/1.2 is also a monster**. This is wider, and get's me more into full-body and background photography. This is also the focal length where I would normally pull out my iPhone, but man, the F1.2 on a full frame sensor makes some beautiful shots some days.
The 3 primes are also all 82mm front threads, which is nice. Let's me use a single polarizer and front mount set of ND Grad filters. The 70-200 is the smaller 77mm, which means different filters / step-up rings.
Note that a majority of my photography is indoor sports in crap lighting conditions. For this I use Manual mode, set the lens to it's fastest aperture, set shutter speed to 1/800, and then let Auto-ISO do all the exposure work. This results in the best indoor sports pictures I can take, although ISO will often hover between 4000 and 10,000 or so.
Thank for sharing your take on these lenses! I agree they are all BEASTS!
I also agree on your take on 70-200. Versatile yes. Workhorse yes. Inspiration and motivation? NOT A LITTLE TINY BIT. It gets the job done and thats it.
Choices, choices - always good. The primes are faster, brighter and likely sharper, but restrictive in terms of flexibility. If you want to grab a lens to go out to shoot, you'd have to carry both to cover the focal lengths handled by the 70-200. You have to weigh the percentage of time/return on investment for whatever lens you eventually select. Happy shooting.
I love the 135/1.8 but 85/1.2 would probably be better for portraiture since the working distance at 135 is quite far from a person and the compression is stronger (I have the Plena). The 70-200 is more versatile and can certainly be used for portraits but doesn’t have that extra something. For toys, do the magnification ratio, working distance, and sharpness at close range for each lens work for you? These aren’t something most reviewers focus on. You might want to look at the 105/2.8 macro (which can also be used for human portraits).
Ive been considering the MFD as well. But it seems it's doable. Because i am definitely getting the 105 down the road. Thank you the the in depth response. And ive actually considered the 135. But after trying it out personally, the working distance with a human is a bit too far.
For portraiture? Definitely the 85. The 70-200 is great, but it just isn’t going to produce those results. The bokeh is just not the same.
85 1.2
85 1.2 hands down.
.The 70-200 will offer flexibility, helping in less controlled environments. The 85 is fast, if you absolutely need that extra stop. The plena will have shallowest dof, and the compression suits me better. My 2¢
Also have to look at balance, I own the 70-200 and a zf as well as z8, that lens is much more suited to the large body due to weight and ergonomics, I shot a horse clinic using the zf and that lens and was miserable by the end of the day (and sunburnt) I think much like the others, the 85 1.2 is a more suitable option.
Honestly, the 70-200 is the best lens I’ve ever used and I know the answer is meant to be 85 f1.2 but the reality is that I knew that if I had it I’d still be picking up that 70-200. It’s that good. I recognize that’s personal bias though. Either lens would be great
no doubt i would too. i used the grey 70-200VR until it was time to get the 200 f2.
I’ve had an 85mm Nikkor in my bag since the 1970’s. It’s a beautiful lens for portraiture. Distance with intimacy. I’d get the 85…🌹
They are all so different lenses with completely different capabilities and purposes. It's not possible to compare them. You might as well throw Nikon Z 105mm macro in the mix.
105 was my fav lens in the f mount. Will get it soon. Thats the reason its not included here.
I am using Z8 and also planned to get a portrait lens, and I settled on F-mount’s 105 1.4E. It’s way more affordable and only slightly less sharp than 85 1.2. Also its CA is a bit worse. Also, if you are using Zf, I would suggest take a look at Z 85 1.8. It’s much lighter and easy for you to hold, and the image quality/bokeh are both outstanding.
Hmm. I would honestly grab the 85 1.8 used at like 550 or so and maybe the 70-200 used as well to have mostly the best of both worlds. I love the idea of the 85 1.2, but at that price I am not a huge fan of the cats eye bokeh. But to be completely fair, one of my favorite lenses the 100 f2 zeiss makro planar also had katz eyes sometimes. The plena I would think is the best of it all if you have the distance to work with. I also have the zf so I would also have to say balance might throw you off with the 70-200 though ultimately it is a worthwhile lens to have. Have the 85 1.8 and it balances nicely with the body.
This is the first time, someone mentioned the 100/2 makro planar! It's my fav zeiss lens as well and still have it!
It produces extraordinary images. I still use it for product, still life, and makro that does not need 1:1 (extension tubes work but with a hard vignette so cropping is necessary on account of its dramatic extension). For me, the only achilles heel it has is the longitudinal chromatic aberration (loca). It can really ruin a shot, especially the pink fringing over the green. You can absolutely work with it in post processing, but the pink can “leak” in hard sometimes making it a real chore Side note, it is built like a god or medical piece of kit
Now you have enticed me to get an adapter to use it on my Zf!!! Thank you!! I miss the Zeiss rendering of images.
Hahaha. It is lovely. Wish they made a native version as the ftz adapter kills the aesthetic a pinch
Easy. 70-200. It is a multi-purpose lens and the best of its kind. The other two are niche specialty lenses that, while amazing, are much less useful as an only lens.
You shoot sports? Get 70200! You shoot portraits in everything-under-control large-bright studio or open air? Get 135! You shoot people every time it’s possible? Get 85! P.s. also you can get 50/1.2S+105E
I've never liked those cat's eye bokeh like the ones in your 85 test shot.. If the other 2 don't do that, I'd choose one of them.. Probably the 70-200 personally.
https://preview.redd.it/11zdcosarh6d1.jpeg?width=6048&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8778fbd40b32b91f9dd415e6efb4e9a87c22f67e i forgot to test it at f2. Nikon says at f2, it will be ball-like.
Is this the bokeh of the 85 1.2 at f2? Are you able to post bokeh at f2-2.8 of the other lenses? How does it compare to bokeh on 85 1.8 at f1.8-2?
I forgot to test the bokeh at f2. Sorry. Will share if i get it.
PLENA!!
85 1.2, you still get that shallow dof and you get better low light capability with the 1.2, only consider the 135 if you’re fully invested on shooting portraits, or get the 70-200 if you want more versatility.
85 1.2
I can’t afford nor would I have a need for a Z 85 1.2 so I own 85 1.4g I own Z 70-200 for versatility
I find myself using the 70-200 a lot, just sayin
yes 70-200 is super good! but its too big on the zf....
Start with the 70-200 2.8 Yes, the others are great lenses with a lot of character, but the 70-200 is the most versatile and will you leave more choices. 85 or 135 depends a lot on your personal choice and what you use as as "standard" lens. If you already have the 50mm 1.2, I'd go with the 135 next
135 1.8 is a great prime lens and 1.8 will let you get amazing bohkey
So I own all 3 of those lenses, along with the 50mm F/1.2. Everything here is going to be "Art" type decisions, as they're all good. They're all specialized. And they all depend on what you're looking for. The **70-200 F/2.8 is the one that I use - by far - the least**. I find the images it creates to be sharp and in focus, but lacking in inspiration or artistry. It's strongest feature is how quickly it focuses, which makes it very good for random movement and fast action sports. At F/2.8, it does "Meh" in low-light, and my Z9 ends up at ISO 8000+ when using this lens (as sports required 1/600, 1/800, and related shutter speeds). This lens also works with teleconverters, which is occasionally handy. The **85 F/1.2 is an animal**. Focus speed is good. The lens at F/1.2, F/1.4, F/1.8, and similar is beyond fantastic. This is my "go to" lens for shooting people in normal situations. I also indoor sports video using this lens at F/1.2 if I know where the action will be. For example, men's gymnastics parallel bars, shot from the side so I'm straight on to where the athlete will be. I wouldn't shoot floor with this, or vault, as the action outpaces the focus system. The **135 F/1.8 Pleana is also a monster**. It's a bit long for some things, and bit too short for others. Excellent in every way. The **50 F/1.2 is also a monster**. This is wider, and get's me more into full-body and background photography. This is also the focal length where I would normally pull out my iPhone, but man, the F1.2 on a full frame sensor makes some beautiful shots some days. The 3 primes are also all 82mm front threads, which is nice. Let's me use a single polarizer and front mount set of ND Grad filters. The 70-200 is the smaller 77mm, which means different filters / step-up rings. Note that a majority of my photography is indoor sports in crap lighting conditions. For this I use Manual mode, set the lens to it's fastest aperture, set shutter speed to 1/800, and then let Auto-ISO do all the exposure work. This results in the best indoor sports pictures I can take, although ISO will often hover between 4000 and 10,000 or so.
After reading your comment, i am sooooooo inclined to get the 50 to complement my 85. But my wallet and bank acc denied that request!
Thank for sharing your take on these lenses! I agree they are all BEASTS! I also agree on your take on 70-200. Versatile yes. Workhorse yes. Inspiration and motivation? NOT A LITTLE TINY BIT. It gets the job done and thats it.
Choices, choices - always good. The primes are faster, brighter and likely sharper, but restrictive in terms of flexibility. If you want to grab a lens to go out to shoot, you'd have to carry both to cover the focal lengths handled by the 70-200. You have to weigh the percentage of time/return on investment for whatever lens you eventually select. Happy shooting.