There's some good wisdom here and I agree lighting and posing will make more of an image than the f-stop in most cases. With that said, I want a tool that can give me as much flexibility and support as much creativity as possible. Fast lenses do this (other than being heavy and expensive). All the lighting and posing you can do may not make up for the distracting background that you're stuck with.
105mm f1.4E vs 85mm f1.8S.......Both beautiful lenses, but the 105mm produces soft and beautiful artistic images that you just can't get with the 85mm f1.8S in a number of circumstances. Comparisons are best when shown with full body portraits, not close ups. The 85 1.8S is more than fantastic for a headshot or similar, it's lightweight, sharp and contrasty. Beautiful lens, but with a full body portrait with some details close to the subject, the 105 is very difficult to beat.
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.
Both lenses are exceptional -- or stellar even. I can easily make a case for owning both --as well as adding in the 58/1.4 and 50/1.2S-- especially if you shoot a lot of people/lifestyle.
End of day, the Z lenses are about as close to optical perfection as we have seen to date. However, there are a few golden oldies that render in a classic way with gorgeous fall-off and bokeh. As a plus they get new life breathed into them due to the accuracy of mirrorless AF at varied apertures. And the 105/1.4 and 58/1.4 are at the top of that list
I keep FTZ's mounted to both of them at all times. Yes that makes them bigger and a little heavier, but they're 100% worth it. Stated another way, if I needed money today, I'd sell my Z primes then move to a few of my zooms before ever selling my cherished 58 or 105 1.4's...
Both lenses are exceptional -- or stellar even. I can easily make a case for owning both --as well as adding in the 58/1.4 and 50/1.2S-- especially if you shoot a lot of people/lifestyle.
End of day, the Z lenses are about as close to optical perfection as we have seen to date. However, there are a few golden oldies that render in a classic way with gorgeous fall-off and bokeh. As a plus they get new life breathed into them due to the accuracy of mirrorless AF at varied apertures. And the 105/1.4 and 58/1.4 are at the top of that list
I keep FTZ's mounted to both of them at all times. Yes that makes them bigger and a little heavier, but they're 100% worth it. Stated another way, if I needed money today, I'd sell my Z primes then move to a few of my zooms before ever selling my cherished 58 or 105 1.4's... ...Show more →
I have the 58 as well. I would have kept the 105 but use my 70-200 FL instead for focal length flexibility. The zoom and the 85 z are workhorse lenses. I would not rule out reacquiring the 105 if I was doing paid work.
urbanwild wrote:
There's some good wisdom here and I agree lighting and posing will make more of an image than the f-stop in most cases. With that said, I want a tool that can give me as much flexibility and support as much creativity as possible. Fast lenses do this (other than being heavy and expensive). All the lighting and posing you can do may not make up for the distracting background that you're stuck with.
105mm f1.4E vs 85mm f1.8S.......Both beautiful lenses, but the 105mm produces soft and beautiful artistic images that you just can't get with the 85mm f1.8S in a number of circumstances. Comparisons are best when shown with full body portraits, not close ups. The 85 1.8S is more than fantastic for a headshot or similar, it's lightweight, sharp and contrasty. Beautiful lens, but with a full body portrait with some details close to the subject, the 105 is very difficult to beat.
You accurately describe the key differences here. The 105 makes an exceptional outdoor full length portrait wide open from a certain distance. Nothing like it (same as a 58 albeiit at difference distances). It is just not practical to keep in the bag due to weight considerations. I have to admit that the exceptional shot capability vs the workhorse utility questions and tradeoffs have always tied me in knots. I updated the post to simply state that in the end I found the 85 1.8S a compelling alternative. Its the only mirrorless lens I own. I have a series of images where I shot the 85 1.8s against the 105 and in 4 out of 5 situations I found I preferred the 85mm FOV for adding more context. But on that 5th situation the 105 distinguishes itself and makes a beutiful image. The 85 on the other hand will generate more usable pictures in the grand scheme.
Lot of great comments here, I also have owned both and they're both exceptional. I settled on the 105/1.4 due to the added focal length and the extra light sure didn't hurt either - just suits my work more. 20 more mm and the extra half stop of light gives a very different look in certain situations.
The 85S is a technical marvel though. tack sharp and just so smooth to operate. And who can complain about the small size and light weight.
Agree and that’s why I’m keeping both 😁. One could argue to wait for the 85 1.2S but at this point I feel like I have the best of both worlds at a lower price (the 105 is an excellent used copy). Having the 85 1.8s as my usual carry around portrait lens is perfect but for the more special times I’ll bring the 105 every time.
aerospace99 wrote:
You accurately describe the key differences here. The 105 makes an exceptional outdoor full length portrait wide open from a certain distance. Nothing like it (same as a 58 albeiit at difference distances). It is just not practical to keep in the bag due to weight considerations. I have to admit that the exceptional shot capability vs the workhorse utility questions and tradeoffs have always tied me in knots. I updated the post to simply state that in the end I found the 85 1.8S a compelling alternative. Its the only mirrorless lens I own. I have a series of images where I shot the 85 1.8s against the 105 and in 4 out of 5 situations I found I preferred the 85mm FOV for adding more context. But on that 5th situation the 105 distinguishes itself and makes a beutiful image. The 85 on the other hand will generate more usable pictures in the grand scheme....Show more →
Well I did get the 105 1.4 back to pair with the 85 and am finally at peace. Not having the 105 always nagged me. The 70-200 is a great lens and I even tried the Z version but nothing can compare to the 105.
So the 85, being lighter, smaller is part of a 3 lens kit for grab and go. When I want more deliberative work, out comes the 28 1.4 and the 105. I have finally let the 58 go as I find the lack of subject detail at lower apertures to still be somewhat challenging on the Z7 and prefer the 50 1.8S or the 85 1.8S in this range. YMMV.
