Do you think it's worth hanging on the 58 1.4G or goto the 50 1.2 or the 85 1.2? I know you have experiences with all of these, and i'm curious to see see if you think the 58 1.4G still holds its own.
absolutely hang on to the 58 1.4g - as long as you’re happy with the sharpness and how it resolves at higher resolutions! that lens has that magic touch. the 50 1.2 is a wonderful lens, but it’s MUCH larger and heavier. the 85 is an entirely different perspective all together so it’s you’re call on that one lol
Heya. Have you tried the 135? I sometimes use both on a wedding day. Makes for a heavy/expensive bag gf course. The 50 does most of the work for me. Take care, lovely video and chat as always, Simon.
You mention how it has little distortion compared to some of canons new lenses like the 35mm 1.4, but i think its not a fair comparison because the canon 85mm lenses also have very little distortion. wider lenses generally have more, as well as smaller and lighter lenses. the new sony 28-70 f/2 is smaller and lighter than the canon, but does so at the expense of more distortion, which is automatically corrected, and it seems like this is the trend now. so its not necessarily a brand issue, its a size/weight and focal length issue. the canon 35mm 1.4 is smaller and lighter than the EF version - every lens is a compromise, and reasons for designing a lens with uncorrected geometric distortion include lower cost, smaller size, lighter weight, reduced complexity, and improved correction of aberrations not software correctable.
I own the Nikon 85 1.2 and love the output. However, the look that I was imagining in mind shooting with this lens had to be adjusted because the transition areas between out of focus to sharp is so sudden. I got a lot closer to what I imagine in my mind with the GFX 110 f2 on the GFX 100 II. But the Nikon focuses significantly better and I learned to work with the smaller format DOF.
It also has perfectly circular bokeh balls all the way to the edge of the frame at f/2 and up - something I don't believe the competitors do either. -PD
What are your thoughts on the 85 1.8 S, in terms of the tradeoff in weight / price / bokeh differences? (didn’t finish watching yet so my apologies if you covered this 🙂)
The size/weight/price penalty is so high I frankly don’t think I’d care about the bokeh difference-so long as the AF was ripping fast. Nikons solid and affordable S primes are one reason I’d buy into that system and not look back. Pretty affordable.
The lens that often stops me in my tracks when I see a shot from it is the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 - even more than the Plena, there's something about the microcontrast or something that makes it nicer than any other lens IMO. Pure magic, shame it isn't in Z mount. The new Viltrox 135mm f/1.8 Z is also getting rave reviews, I heard, but I haven't seen many results yet.
This is interesting because I was able to use this lens for just a couple of days and I found that sometimes it had the effect you were describing and sometimes it didn’t. I took a few photos that looked like they were taken with a tilt shift effect and other shots that just look like normal bokeh you would expect from an 85 1.2. I almost wonder if there’s a defect in it and sometimes interior glass is shifting or something.
there's no real reason to - it's a lot of photographers doing it, and it's not worth the pushback from an entire photographers' audience. i get enough crap on threads whenever i call people out directly haha
Maybe I’ve seen too many lenses at this point, but this one isn’t blowing me away for the size and price. Yes, it’s a nice lens.
the AF speed/accuracy is excellent though - not sure i made that point clear enough
Do you think it's worth hanging on the 58 1.4G or goto the 50 1.2 or the 85 1.2? I know you have experiences with all of these, and i'm curious to see see if you think the 58 1.4G still holds its own.
absolutely hang on to the 58 1.4g - as long as you’re happy with the sharpness and how it resolves at higher resolutions! that lens has that magic touch. the 50 1.2 is a wonderful lens, but it’s MUCH larger and heavier. the 85 is an entirely different perspective all together so it’s you’re call on that one lol
@@iamsamhurdphotography Thanks 🙂
amazing captures! Can you share the other photographer's photos? im curious to see what the images looked like
i’ll reach out to them and see what they say!
Heya. Have you tried the 135? I sometimes use both on a wedding day. Makes for a heavy/expensive bag gf course. The 50 does most of the work for me. Take care, lovely video and chat as always, Simon.
i have the canon 135 RF, which I LOVE, but i can't bring myself to buy a nikon 135 as it's a focal length i would shoot maaaaaybe 1% of the time.
Sam how does the 85 balanced out in the Zf, do you use any additional grip?
balances wonderfully - and i just use a metal smallgrip usually
You mention how it has little distortion compared to some of canons new lenses like the 35mm 1.4, but i think its not a fair comparison because the canon 85mm lenses also have very little distortion. wider lenses generally have more, as well as smaller and lighter lenses. the new sony 28-70 f/2 is smaller and lighter than the canon, but does so at the expense of more distortion, which is automatically corrected, and it seems like this is the trend now. so its not necessarily a brand issue, its a size/weight and focal length issue. the canon 35mm 1.4 is smaller and lighter than the EF version - every lens is a compromise, and reasons for designing a lens with uncorrected geometric distortion include lower cost, smaller size, lighter weight, reduced complexity, and improved correction of aberrations not software correctable.
I own the Nikon 85 1.2 and love the output. However, the look that I was imagining in mind shooting with this lens had to be adjusted because the transition areas between out of focus to sharp is so sudden. I got a lot closer to what I imagine in my mind with the GFX 110 f2 on the GFX 100 II. But the Nikon focuses significantly better and I learned to work with the smaller format DOF.
It also has perfectly circular bokeh balls all the way to the edge of the frame at f/2 and up - something I don't believe the competitors do either.
-PD
yup, looks like it! it's a remarkable lens, no doubt
You should try an extension tube.
You talk about lens correction software, I think it would be very interesting to hear your thoughts about this in a video, cheers!
maybe i’ll make a dedicated post about the topic/issue, but i want more time to see where the industry is going and what the tradeoffs are.
What are your thoughts on the 85 1.8 S, in terms of the tradeoff in weight / price / bokeh differences?
(didn’t finish watching yet so my apologies if you covered this 🙂)
The size/weight/price penalty is so high I frankly don’t think I’d care about the bokeh difference-so long as the AF was ripping fast. Nikons solid and affordable S primes are one reason I’d buy into that system and not look back. Pretty affordable.
The lens that often stops me in my tracks when I see a shot from it is the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 - even more than the Plena, there's something about the microcontrast or something that makes it nicer than any other lens IMO. Pure magic, shame it isn't in Z mount. The new Viltrox 135mm f/1.8 Z is also getting rave reviews, I heard, but I haven't seen many results yet.
i used to have that sigma back in my nikon dslr days! i agree is incredible - as are many sigma lenses (tho, not *all* haha)
The sigma? I had it, but it is a flat lens.. I much preferred the canon 135 f2 lens or Nikon 105 1.4 for microcontrast and 3d look!
This is interesting because I was able to use this lens for just a couple of days and I found that sometimes it had the effect you were describing and sometimes it didn’t. I took a few photos that looked like they were taken with a tilt shift effect and other shots that just look like normal bokeh you would expect from an 85 1.2. I almost wonder if there’s a defect in it and sometimes interior glass is shifting or something.
i feel like that would be widely reported by now, right?
Great video! I'm now very curious about the photographer you are talking about🤔 Can you tell me the name?
He's doing his best not to mention his/her name, so I'm sure he'll just drop it in the comments....
there's no real reason to - it's a lot of photographers doing it, and it's not worth the pushback from an entire photographers' audience. i get enough crap on threads whenever i call people out directly haha
I don’t like the look of 85mm focal length. Especially for full body photos. American cut or headshots are fine. 50mm is just so more pleasing
I feel like both photos of Nathan looked medium formatish
yeah! it’s in the realm, but - it’s still a ways off.
How tf that old 85, 1.4 f mount look better than this lens?