Since I have the 85mm 1.8, I decided to go with the Plena instead of the 85 1.2. The 135 perspective takes a while to get used to, and it’s even impossible to use in some situations where the 85mm would be fine, but no lens is without limitations. I would be very interested in a 105mm Plena; or just a 105 1.4. Hopefully, they put the emphasis on rendering rather than sharpness.
Jeremy Green
June 30, 2024 11:08 am
I owned this lens for a short time. It just wouldn’t fit in my camera case with my other fast Z glass (50mm f:1.2 & Plena 135mm f:1.8), and I valued those more for my type of photography. It’s big & heavy, but if I was a professional portrait photographer this would be my go to lens.
Sedokun
June 16, 2024 4:05 am
Am I the only one person who is seeing kind of an issue with the 85mm 1.8S in the lens comparisons section sample photos ? I was indeed checking at the black pants of the lady sitting on the stool, especially between the 85 1.2S and 85 1.8S, because it is basically the same shot. I can easily tell that there is something weird with the 85 1.8S : Like a bright smoky effect tarnishing the contrast. I thought at first that is was just coming from the shot, and possibly the ambiant light during that shot. But then, we can see this exact same weird effect on the the next sample photo from the 85 1.8S. And when I was checking thoroughly at the pictures, I remembered the same comment from Jared Polin in one of his video when he was comparing the 1.2 vs 1.8. My question : Is there really an “issue” with this 1.8S or am I trippin ?
Rich
April 4, 2024 12:58 am
We’re lucky to have so many options. I personally still love the 105mm f1.4E look…..less sharp, less contrasty, less modern perhaps….but smooth and still a very beautiful look. Over the past decade there has been so much focus on sharpness, yet many photographers have recently debated clinical perfection vs character and I think we’re getting to the point where sharpness is becoming less of the deciding point vs contrast, colour and character….for portraits at least.
This is my absolute favourite website for reviews thank you! For an added thought, I wonder if PhotographyLife would consider a trial of a new section to the lens comparison section where an image is taken with the same conditions but with the variability being defined by the lens tested? For example, I’d love to see a full-body portrait comparison between the 85mm f1.2S, 85mm f1.8S, Sigma 85mm art, Nikon 70-200mm f2.8S @ 85mm and the Nikon 105mm f1.4E……all at their respective wide open apertures (given that we’d probably see less difference at f5.6 for example). Something similar has been done by Manny Ortiz on YT and I found this incredibly helpful in deciding on a focal length, but a visual comparison between similar lenses and focal lengths would really put the cherry on top for this excellent site since the visual end-product is always more important than the metrics. One couldn’t consider all applications for such comparisons, but for could be considered for some lenses which are most likely used more frequently for one or two types of genres. One could also focus on the types of shots where a difference is more likely to be seen (e.g. full length portrait bokeh vs headshots). Thank you for such fantastic work on this site!
Liv J.
March 22, 2024 5:41 am
How does field curvature affect sharpness measurements? Would you’d get the same results focusing in the corner? I’m surprised at the corner sharpness results, as this lens never ceases to amaze me with its consistent quality across the frame. For reference, I’m familiar with the 105E, 70-200S and 85 1.8S.
Our sharpness tests attempt to measure performance at low magnifications on a flat field, i.e., approximately how the lens would perform on a subject that is entirely at infinity, such as a distant overlook. We do not re-focus the lens at each different part of the frame. I understand the argument for re-focusing at different parts of the frame for portrait and wildlife lenses, however, my main consideration is consistency across all of our lens reviews. As it is right now, a lens with a lot of field curvature will look worse in our sharpness tests.
All that said, even our strict tests that incorporate field curvature show the 85mm f/1.2 to have very strong corners. It reaches over 2700 LW/PH in the corners, which is easily top 5% of all the lenses we’ve tested.
Troy Phillips
March 12, 2024 10:18 am
I have made some oddly similar decisions on my Nikon Z9 mirrorless system. Just before the Nikon Z85mm f/1.2.came out I purchased the 85mm f/1.8 . Do I love it ? No ! It’s ok . But when I see the 85 f/1.2 and the 1.8 side by side I think I made the right choice. I do shoot wide open 98% of the time. Then just before the Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S came out I purchased the Sigma Art 135mm f/1.8 and absolutely love it . I know by looking at side by side comparisons I made the right choice. It actually seems to focus faster and more consistently in low light concert high contrast situations. I just went through a ton of pictures and the Sigma 135mm F mount adapted had many more almost 100% hits . It is sharper and had a better rendering quality (to me) . I’ll still use that 85 f/1.8 S a lot . That focal length can tell a story somewhat vs 135 fov. I did just get the Voigtlander 65mm f/2.0 and i absolutely love love that lens for concerts and low light club settings over the 85mm fov. Boy it would be great if Nikon made a 65mm f/2.0 or even an f/1.2 S line lens . I’d scoop that up fast . Thanks for the review of this lens . As for the photos I preferred the 135 f/1.8 S and the 50mm f/1.2 S then the 85mm f/1.8 S in that order to the 85mm f/1.2 S . They all looked great and very close . I look at the background blur a lot and it’s rendering. The 85 f/1.2 had a slight dirty look to it compared to the others . Most people wouldn’t know the difference in any of these lenses. photographylife.com is my favorite place for lens and camera reviews. Thanks a ton y’all!!!
Also bought a (second hand) Sigma 135mm Art and i completely agree_ wide open it is awesome and spot on with a z8. Rendering is best of all my lenses… I both like the Nikon 1.2s and 1.8s lenses wide open better over my Sigma Art85mm f1.4. ever tried the 40mm 1.4 sigma Art? Gorgeous lens!
Since you’re already using adapted Sigmas, check out the 65/2 I-series. It’s awesome.
CAT Productions
March 7, 2024 6:50 pm
Excellent sample shots. Based on what we’ve seen with the 50/1.2 S, 85/1.2 S & 135/1.8 Plena, really looking forward to what Nikon does with the 35/1.2 S!
Norbert
March 7, 2024 1:24 pm
I’m surprised no one has mentioned it, so I will.
A small technicality: You claim that “Those who buy this lens are likely to be dedicated portrait, wedding, and documentary professionals, or advanced amateurs who are willing to pay through the nose to reach the coveted maximum aperture of f/1.2.”
While I agree that this is a more specialized than general-market lens, should not “through the nose” be replaced with “out the wazzoo?”
Thanks for the great review! And for the whole website too; I like that PL emphasizes photography over gear and puts the technical minutiae – sharpness, for example – in its proper context.
bg5931
March 7, 2024 5:21 am
I like the sample photos. Getting shallow DoF at high reproduction ratios (close up) is relatively easy even with more modest lenses. To me, the main advantage of very fast lenses such as the 85/1.2 appears to be that they preserve shallow DoF even at low reproduction ratios (e.g. the person in front of the tiled wall in the samples).
For other applications benefitting from fast lenses such as astrophotography, I would probably go for the 135/1.8 due to its high quality across the frame wide open and its (slightly) larger entrance pupil.
“To me, the main advantage of very fast lenses such as the 85/1.2 appears to be that they preserve shallow DoF even at low reproduction ratios (e.g. the person in front of the tiled wall in the samples).”
Precisely !
Jeff
March 6, 2024 9:30 pm
Is the difference between 1.2 and 1.8 a full stop as you wrote or is it 2/3’s of a stop?
Spencer is right. The difference to one decimal place is 1.2 stops or 1 and 1/5th of a stop. Though in reality using this lens it won’t be exactly that since f/1.2 may itself be an approximation. But theoretically you can calculate the difference as about 1.169925 stops.
It depends on the honesty of the marketing department. Technically, an f/1.2 lens ought to be exactly a ½ stop wider than an f/1.4 lens, which is ⅔ stop wider than an f/1.8 lens: ∴ an f/1.2 lens ought to be exactly (7/6) 1⅙ stop wider than an f/1.8 lens.
Precise values to 3 decimal places followed by common name: AV 𝑁=2^(0.5×AV) 0 1 f/1 ⅓ 1.122 f/1.1 ½ 1.189 f/1.2 ⅔ 1.260 f/1.3 or f/1.2 ❗️
Since I have the 85mm 1.8, I decided to go with the Plena instead of the 85 1.2. The 135 perspective takes a while to get used to, and it’s even impossible to use in some situations where the 85mm would be fine, but no lens is without limitations. I would be very interested in a 105mm Plena; or just a 105 1.4. Hopefully, they put the emphasis on rendering rather than sharpness.
I owned this lens for a short time. It just wouldn’t fit in my camera case with my other fast Z glass (50mm f:1.2 & Plena 135mm f:1.8), and I valued those more for my type of photography. It’s big & heavy, but if I was a professional portrait photographer this would be my go to lens.
Am I the only one person who is seeing kind of an issue with the 85mm 1.8S in the lens comparisons section sample photos ?
I was indeed checking at the black pants of the lady sitting on the stool, especially between the 85 1.2S and 85 1.8S, because it is basically the same shot.
I can easily tell that there is something weird with the 85 1.8S : Like a bright smoky effect tarnishing the contrast.
I thought at first that is was just coming from the shot, and possibly the ambiant light during that shot.
But then, we can see this exact same weird effect on the the next sample photo from the 85 1.8S.
And when I was checking thoroughly at the pictures, I remembered the same comment from Jared Polin in one of his video when he was comparing the 1.2 vs 1.8.
My question : Is there really an “issue” with this 1.8S or am I trippin ?
We’re lucky to have so many options. I personally still love the 105mm f1.4E look…..less sharp, less contrasty, less modern perhaps….but smooth and still a very beautiful look. Over the past decade there has been so much focus on sharpness, yet many photographers have recently debated clinical perfection vs character and I think we’re getting to the point where sharpness is becoming less of the deciding point vs contrast, colour and character….for portraits at least.
This is my absolute favourite website for reviews thank you! For an added thought, I wonder if PhotographyLife would consider a trial of a new section to the lens comparison section where an image is taken with the same conditions but with the variability being defined by the lens tested? For example, I’d love to see a full-body portrait comparison between the 85mm f1.2S, 85mm f1.8S, Sigma 85mm art, Nikon 70-200mm f2.8S @ 85mm and the Nikon 105mm f1.4E……all at their respective wide open apertures (given that we’d probably see less difference at f5.6 for example). Something similar has been done by Manny Ortiz on YT and I found this incredibly helpful in deciding on a focal length, but a visual comparison between similar lenses and focal lengths would really put the cherry on top for this excellent site since the visual end-product is always more important than the metrics. One couldn’t consider all applications for such comparisons, but for could be considered for some lenses which are most likely used more frequently for one or two types of genres. One could also focus on the types of shots where a difference is more likely to be seen (e.g. full length portrait bokeh vs headshots). Thank you for such fantastic work on this site!
How does field curvature affect sharpness measurements? Would you’d get the same results focusing in the corner? I’m surprised at the corner sharpness results, as this lens never ceases to amaze me with its consistent quality across the frame. For reference, I’m familiar with the 105E, 70-200S and 85 1.8S.
Our sharpness tests attempt to measure performance at low magnifications on a flat field, i.e., approximately how the lens would perform on a subject that is entirely at infinity, such as a distant overlook. We do not re-focus the lens at each different part of the frame. I understand the argument for re-focusing at different parts of the frame for portrait and wildlife lenses, however, my main consideration is consistency across all of our lens reviews. As it is right now, a lens with a lot of field curvature will look worse in our sharpness tests.
All that said, even our strict tests that incorporate field curvature show the 85mm f/1.2 to have very strong corners. It reaches over 2700 LW/PH in the corners, which is easily top 5% of all the lenses we’ve tested.
I have made some oddly similar decisions on my Nikon Z9 mirrorless system.
Just before the Nikon Z85mm f/1.2.came out I purchased the 85mm f/1.8 . Do I love it ? No ! It’s ok . But when I see the 85 f/1.2 and the 1.8 side by side I think I made the right choice. I do shoot wide open 98% of the time.
Then just before the Nikon Z 135mm f/1.8 S came out I purchased the Sigma Art 135mm f/1.8 and absolutely love it . I know by looking at side by side comparisons I made the right choice. It actually seems to focus faster and more consistently in low light concert high contrast situations. I just went through a ton of pictures and the Sigma 135mm F mount adapted had many more almost 100% hits . It is sharper and had a better rendering quality (to me) .
I’ll still use that 85 f/1.8 S a lot . That focal length can tell a story somewhat vs 135 fov.
I did just get the Voigtlander 65mm f/2.0 and i absolutely love love that lens for concerts and low light club settings over the 85mm fov. Boy it would be great if Nikon made a 65mm f/2.0 or even an f/1.2 S line lens . I’d scoop that up fast .
Thanks for the review of this lens .
As for the photos I preferred the 135 f/1.8 S and the 50mm f/1.2 S then the 85mm f/1.8 S in that order to the 85mm f/1.2 S . They all looked great and very close . I look at the background blur a lot and it’s rendering. The 85 f/1.2 had a slight dirty look to it compared to the others . Most people wouldn’t know the difference in any of these lenses.
photographylife.com is my favorite place for lens and camera reviews.
Thanks a ton y’all!!!
Also bought a (second hand) Sigma 135mm Art and i completely agree_ wide open it is awesome and spot on with a z8. Rendering is best of all my lenses…
I both like the Nikon 1.2s and 1.8s lenses wide open better over my Sigma Art85mm f1.4.
ever tried the 40mm 1.4 sigma Art? Gorgeous lens!
Since you’re already using adapted Sigmas, check out the 65/2 I-series. It’s awesome.
Excellent sample shots. Based on what we’ve seen with the 50/1.2 S, 85/1.2 S & 135/1.8 Plena, really looking forward to what Nikon does with the 35/1.2 S!
I’m surprised no one has mentioned it, so I will.
A small technicality: You claim that “Those who buy this lens are likely to be dedicated portrait, wedding, and documentary professionals, or advanced amateurs who are willing to pay through the nose to reach the coveted maximum aperture of f/1.2.”
While I agree that this is a more specialized than general-market lens, should not “through the nose” be replaced with “out the wazzoo?”
Thanks for the great review! And for the whole website too; I like that PL emphasizes photography over gear and puts the technical minutiae – sharpness, for example – in its proper context.
I like the sample photos. Getting shallow DoF at high reproduction ratios (close up) is relatively easy even with more modest lenses. To me, the main advantage of very fast lenses such as the 85/1.2 appears to be that they preserve shallow DoF even at low reproduction ratios (e.g. the person in front of the tiled wall in the samples).
For other applications benefitting from fast lenses such as astrophotography, I would probably go for the 135/1.8 due to its high quality across the frame wide open and its (slightly) larger entrance pupil.
“To me, the main advantage of very fast lenses such as the 85/1.2 appears to be that they preserve shallow DoF even at low reproduction ratios (e.g. the person in front of the tiled wall in the samples).”
Precisely !
Is the difference between 1.2 and 1.8 a full stop as you wrote or is it 2/3’s of a stop?
It’s a bit more than one stop. To go between any two full stops, you multiply by sqrt(2). In this case, 1.2 × sqrt(2) = 1.697… or approximately 1.7.
So, the difference between f/1.2 and f/1.7 is one stop, while f/1.2 versus f/1.8 is just a little more than one stop.
Spencer is right. The difference to one decimal place is 1.2 stops or 1 and 1/5th of a stop. Though in reality using this lens it won’t be exactly that since f/1.2 may itself be an approximation. But theoretically you can calculate the difference as about 1.169925 stops.
It depends on the honesty of the marketing department. Technically, an f/1.2 lens ought to be exactly a ½ stop wider than an f/1.4 lens, which is ⅔ stop wider than an f/1.8 lens: ∴ an f/1.2 lens ought to be exactly (7/6) 1⅙ stop wider than an f/1.8 lens.
Precise values to 3 decimal places followed by common name:
AV 𝑁=2^(0.5×AV)
0 1 f/1
⅓ 1.122 f/1.1
½ 1.189 f/1.2
⅔ 1.260 f/1.3 or f/1.2 ❗️
1 1.414 f/1.4
1⅓ 1.587 f/1.6
1½ 1.682 f/1.7
1⅔ 1.782 f/1.8
2 2 f/2
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/…mber_scale