I agree with Lance here. If you are serious as a work horse lens getting shots the 85S is amazing. Sure if you have more time focused on more timely portraits the 105E is superb.
When I said the 105 is a bit soft I meant you can see a fair amount of improvement between 1.4 to 1.8, sort of like the 85 1.4D and G. The Sigma 105 1.4 has been shown to be sharper wide open. A study of Flickr and my own pics show that at 1.4 its very good but still a bit soft as compared to 1.8. But it is totally usable and I am not complaining here. I have a lot of very nice pics at 1.4. I am being very critical here I admit. I love the lens and will not let it go under any circumstances.
aerospace99 wrote:
When I said the 105 is a bit soft I meant you can see a fair amount of improvement between 1.4 to 1.8, sort of like the 85 1.4D and G. The Sigma 105 1.4 has been shown to be sharper wide open. A study of Flickr and my own pics show that at 1.4 its very good by still a bit soft as compared to 1.8. But it is totally usable and I am not complaining here. I have a lot of very nice pics at 1.4. I am being very critical here I admit. I love the lens and will not let it go under any circumstances....Show more →
There is nothing wrong with using the 105E, or any other f/1.4 lens at f/1.8. You have less vignetting, less cat's eyes, and possibly more creamy and brighter bokeh than you'd get with a f/1.8 lens.
AcuteShadows wrote:
There is nothing wrong with using the 105E, or any other f/1.4 lens at f/1.8. You have less vignetting, less cat's eyes, and possibly more creamy and brighter bokeh than you'd get with a f/1.8 lens.
Totally agree. Stopped down just a smidgeon this lens is superb. The only reason why I would consider the 85 is that indoors, the 105 can be a bit tight and the Z6 would have lower noise than my D810. Its sort of on my short list right now to get that combo.
I don't have the 85 S to compare with the 105 E. I tried other 85mm but I didn't gel to the focal. Either too tight or too short. I much prefer the 58mm focal, it's more versatile of a lens for me.
Yet I have been tempted by the 105 E. If Nikon had a modern fast 135mm I would have bought it for sure. I got the opportunity to buy a used 105 E for $1,200 (missing hood, rear cap, and a slight, barely visible rub on the front element).
I still love the 58mm but the 105 E is now my favorite. I don't know why the OP refers to it as sometimes soft. I would call the lens phenomenal. I try to use its widest setting as much as I can.
I use the lens with a D850 and more and more on a Z6 with the FTZ.
...Show more →
I too have the 58 and the 105 I agree that the 105 is an amazing lens with plenty of sharpness at 1.4. But if I can only keep one, it will be the 58 that stays. I like its versatility, size, stronger character and smooth bokeh. The downside is the sharpness at wide open, but sharpness is rarely the defining attribute of a great image anyways...
I have both and love them both. I fell in love with the 105 when I got it and the same with the 85. While the 85 is more versatile, not sure I could live with myself selling the 105 as it not only let's me get a little more depth of field on some portraits when I really want it, but is awesome when shooting things like dance when outside (see 3rd image)
mholdef wrote:
I have both and love them both. I fell in love with the 105 when I got it and the same with the 85. While the 85 is more versatile, not sure I could live with myself selling the 105 as it not only let's me get a little more depth of field on some portraits when I really want it, but is awesome when shooting things like dance when outside (see 3rd image)
I have landed on the 58/105 combo and will forgo the 85 for now. I did get the Z6 and am happy with the 58 living on this camera while I use the 105 on the D810. Would not rule out the 85 down the road but there is no way I am giving up the 105 and the 58. No way.
aerospace99 wrote:
Some really good responses here. After posting I considered why I bought the 58 and 105 to begin with and think I would be crazy to unwind that position. The whole thing was started by my desire to get the Z7 as a second body to go with my D810. The idea of having a native lens is attractive but not compelling enough at this time. I demo'd the Z6 and do not find the FTZ to be a big problem. The idea of having the slight autofocus nits of the 58 resolved by the Z7 is promising. If I did not have the 58 then the decision to drop down to the 85 would be a lot easier here. Also, I find the 105 to be capable of the exceptional shot which in the end always beats out utility in my book. For me, this is the critical component of the decision. I see the advantages of the 85 in a lot of situations but I am wondering if I would give up too much of the character I love in the 105. I probably will just wait until I actually get the Z7 to consider this further. I also need to evaluate what the 58 on a Z7 really looks like. The theory that the 58/105 pair can eliminate the need for an 85 is valid. Having a 58 and an 85 and a 105 and a 70-200 is just a bit too much for my needs. I probably will have to do some comparisons with all 3 lenses at the same time to get a handle on this difficult decision. The idea of the 70-200 FL taking up the slack here is plausible but I just got through reviewing some shots of kids on a big tree swing in the shade and the extra 2 stops of the 105 made a huge difference. I love 2.8 zooms but for me at least they all deliver a certain mediocrity in a lot of situations so I cannot lean to heavily on that. No, I am staying pat for now, will plan on getting the Z7 and see what shakes out after that. ...Show more →
Wel here it is 2+ years later and I switched to the Z7 and as expected, the 58 and 105 never looked better. I did try the 85 1.8S side by side and it is a fine lense, but does not have the same nuance that the 105 is capable of. Tremendous value though in a light weigth for, But the extra 20mm of the 105 creates some possibilities, and keeps me out of a 135. Only question now is considering adding back a 70-200 zoom to pair with this.
I’m rediscovering the 58mm 1.4G and 105mm 1.4E on my Z9, and loving them. Hadn’t used them for more than a 18 months but these are two very special lenses.
It was my biggest mistake when I sold 28/58/105 reading a lot of opinions in this forum. Not a bad lenses at all when saying about Z line up. And nothing special but very very busy harsh bokeh. So I must admit that I was wrong. It's true. And now I'm paying my price buying 28/58/105 once again. Absolute magic in glass
I'm totally with 105/1.4 and there is no another way
Interesting video comparing these lenses:
I decided to land on the 85 1.8 Z and the 70-200FL instead of the 105 which is a great lens but I found that the 105 FOV restrictive at times. when you have the conditions that make use of that focal length then there is no better lens. I was very happy with the AF performance of the 105 on a Z7 however. But the reduced weight and bulk of the 85 were very compelling reasons to go with the 85.The extra flexibility of the 70-200 allows me to adjust to conditions and not force the shot. But I will easily concede that the images shot with the 105 in many situations were exceptional. Just found that many times I could not use it the way I wanted to because i was in too tight.
This video really shows the differences quite well. It amazing though what 20mm can do. The 85 and the 70-200 pair give an amazing amount of flexibility. Eventually I will pair the 70-200 on a D850 and the 85 on the Z7 for a great combo in a portrait shoot. YMMV.
One more thing, the 105 I think performs better on the Z7 than on the D850 and was sharper wide open in more situations. I found the same to be true with the 58mm. The 70-200 FL on the on other hand works so nicely on the D850 but on the Z7 it is very usable nevertheless. A fair amount of chatter in AFC in some situations however..
The 105mm focal length provides a more pleasing picture of people than a 85mm focal length. I would take a 105mm f/2.8 macro over a 85mm f/1.4 lens any day. I was forced to use a 85mm lens in the days of APS-C cameras but as soon as I got my hands on a D3 the 85mm was sold and I replaced it with the Nikon 105mm f/2.0 DC lens.
Not only is perspective better with the 105mm focal length but also the camera to subject distance is increased and this helps to relax people and to make use of light modifiers like flags and reflectors when shooting.
aerospace99 wrote:
Wondering if anyone can comment on how these 2 lenses compare for general portraits. Besides the obvious difference in FL, are you seeing that the 105 deserves its price premium when compared to the 85? I have been impressed with what I have seen so far from the 85 but cannot see having both. I first would have to acquire a Z7, but would not rule out swapping out the 105 for the 85 as I have the 70-200 FL as well. I just find the 105 a bit tight at times, and I rarely shoot it wide open as it can be just a tad soft at 1.4, but its capable of some great shots. Just wondering if anyone else sold off the 105 in favor of the 85. I really think I would get more use out of an 85 but I know that the 105 is capable of some very special looks. My plan would be to keep my 70-200 pretty much fixed on my D810 and use the Z7 for the 35/58/85 trio. I really am trying to avoid having too much glass and like I said, would rule out having both....Show more →
Well I can not comment on either of those two specific lenses but I can comment on the focal lengths because I have owned and shot extensibly with a 85, 105, 135 and the 70-200. For me when shooting portraits I let the location dictate the focal length of the lens. I always shoot with as long of a focal length as possible. If shooting outside on location my favorite portrait lens is a 400 f2.8 or 300 f2. I love compression and mush backgrounds. When I used to shoot weddings those lenses were too long and too heavy to cart around all day at a wedding. So outside it was the 70-200. Inside a church it then dropped down to the 105 or mostly the 85. If I was shooting portraits in the studio and the studio had enough length, again it was the 70-200. Smaller studios it was the 135 or 105mm. I love the look of the 105mm focal length for single subjects, head and shoulders. I never selected the 85 first unless the setting dictated it due to available room.
All the gibber gabber about bokeh and lens characteristics are of such little importance when it comes to creating portraits that sell and that people cherish. Those things are only important to people who want to compare lenses and argue which one is better. If you are wanting to be a pro and create memorable images. Here are some factors that are far far far more important than those things. If you are shooting people; learn lighting, learn lighting, learn lighting. Also learn to pose people, really well. One person is hard, each additional person adds another level of complexity. Bokeh and lens characteristics will not help you there. If you are shooting people at events, like sports, weddings, concerts learn to capture and and anticipate moments. Capturing expressions is a real art and bokeh and lens characteristics will not help you here either. There is an age old saying about shooting people, expression trumps perfection. A real expression will sell to those who love the person in the picture even if the photo is out of focus, has bad lighting or a horrible pose.
Therefore, I recommend native lenses and purchase what you can afford, don't break the bank for ultra fast lenses. Learn thie other more important things about photography and you will be a great photographer in spite of your gear.
MRomine wrote:
Well I can not comment on either of those two specific lenses but I can comment on the focal lengths because I have owned and shot extensibly with a 85, 105, 135 and the 70-200. For me when shooting portraits I let the location dictate the focal length of the lens. I always shoot with as long of a focal length as possible. If shooting outside on location my favorite portrait lens is a 400 f2.8 or 300 f2. I love compression and mush backgrounds. When I used to shoot weddings those lenses were too long and too heavy to cart around all day at a wedding. So outside it was the 70-200. Inside a church it then dropped down to the 105 or mostly the 85. If I was shooting portraits in the studio and the studio had enough length, again it was the 70-200. Smaller studios it was the 135 or 105mm. I love the look of the 105mm focal length for single subjects, head and shoulders. I never selected the 85 first unless the setting dictated it due to available room.
All the gibber gabber about bokeh and lens characteristics are of such little importance when it comes to creating portraits that sell and that people cherish. Those things are only important to people who want to compare lenses and argue which one is better. If you are wanting to be a pro and create memorable images. Here are some factors that are far far far more important than those things. If you are shooting people; learn lighting, learn lighting, learn lighting. Also learn to pose people, really well. One person is hard, each additional person adds another level of complexity. Bokeh and lens characteristics will not help you there. If you are shooting people at events, like sports, weddings, concerts learn to capture and and anticipate moments. Capturing expressions is a real art and bokeh and lens characteristics will not help you here either. There is an age old saying about shooting people, expression trumps perfection. A real expression will sell to those who love the person in the picture even if the photo is out of focus, has bad lighting or a horrible pose.
Therefore, I recommend native lenses and purchase what you can afford, don't break the bank for ultra fast lenses. Learn thie other more important things about photography and you will be a great photographer in spite of your gear.
