aerospace99
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
aerospace99 wrote:
I agree with all of this. The 85 indoors is impressive for the reasons you stated. There is a subtlety to its rendering that is artistic in nature. But I have a 58 that I can step in with and get some of that. You also mentioned the clinical aspect and swirly effects of the 105, all true. But I did think that the 85 lacks just a hair of color saturation and can look just a shade bland at times, but nothing that cant be tweaked in post. The bokeh quality is superior. I opted for the 105 in the end because its resolution at 1.4 is just so good, particularly in low light. The AF on the 85 with FTZ adapter is stellar, never misses a shot. It is a tough choice to be sure. I use the 135 Zeiss Sonnar a lot now and need the AF performance of the 105 is some situations. With the 85 1.8S even in DX mode and the 105 1.4, Zeiss 135, I no longer carry a 70-200....Show more →
Updating this POST:
I have a sequence of images shot in natural light in my house of grandkids (young girls) in various situations including sitting in front of window with sunlight, eating at the tables, sitting on the couch and so on. I shot these kids with a 105, 85 1.4, 85 1.8S and 58 1.4. I just reviewed these images closely again. The 58 has some very compelling images even at <2.0 aperture but the subject distance can be very tricky as anybody who has this lens knows. The resolution fall off is pretty steep as you step back. The color was the best of all the lenses. I love the color that the 58 delivers for human subjects. It is in my opinion one of the best lenses I have ever used in this area. The 105 of course is tight but makes the most dramatic image by the sheer weight of subject detail with very nice bokeh, color and separation. But can be too tight at times as can be expected. The 85 1.8S has really good saturation but its bokeh of course is neutral. It lacks some of the artistic rendering that the 1.4G has. There is a pastel flavor to the 85G lens.....think French impressionist working with pastel paint. I have to admit, for human subjects indoors, without flash, the 85 1.4G was the most versatile. If I could only have 1 lens from this group, it will be: drum roll......the 85 1.4G. It is really a steady performer. But the 105 and 58 work somewhat as a tandem. The 85 1.8S has better AF if subject motion is in play and is lighter. For these reasons, I have moved away from the 85G as it confuses my decision making. Thats just me though. I see Coralnuts position on this lens.
Outdoors, it would be no debate, the 105. It remains the sharpest lens I have ever used at any distance. And that includes the 70-200 2.8S, the Zeiss 135 Sonnar, Sigma 85 and135 ARTS and Zeiss 85 Milvus. I know the Nikon 85 1.2 and Plena will take it down but only by a hair. A hair I am not interested in splitting. I have no desire for the icy sharp.
I am happy with the 58/105 though as the pair will give me some even better shots at times than the 85G but of course you have to be very selective in their use.
To the OP, given the bulk factor of the 105, the 85 1.4G is a compelling choice for run and gun people photography, especially on a Nikon mirrorless as it splits the middle of all of these lenses quite well. For inanimate objects, the 85 1.8S is the most versatile. But you rightly asked about the AF. Both the 85 and 105 are a bit slow. For the dance question in low light, that's tough. I know a good photographer that is using the 105 in that situation and seems to be happy. The 82mm element does allow for a little more light. I was surprised how good the eye focus is on the 85 1.4G using my Z7II even in low light at distance. It is a close call, but for theater work, if it were me, I would go with the 105. Its great at distance. The 85 might roll off a bit. The extra 20mm in that situation in low light could make a difference,
Decisions, decisions.......
|
