Probably doing a decent amount in post. That could be a "technique" he is referring to. These modern lenses tend to produce very flat image compared to like a Zeiss 85mm f1.4. Hell he could even be stopping down the lens a little bit because the background being completely obliterated can sort of flatten an image as well. Gradual dropoff might be a bit more pleasing. As far as bokeh the can be a technique thing like focusing on specular highlights and things of that nature which will produce interesting bokeh
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
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 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.
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
Hint: A little closer to the subject = about 8' or so away - and bokeh is a little overexposed ... the photog you mentioned may be exposing more for bokeh and lifting subject curve in post with a mask. Obv a guess
I see the argument…but maan have i never seen a lens that renders such gorgeous images… it has so much pop but its still so hypersmooth in the focus transitions, esp. foreground bokeh looks absolutely unreal to me…to me even „regular snapshots“ full body with some headroom just look straight magic with this thing…the only other lens that evoked this kind of reaction for me was Sony 135GM, but its a lot harder to use 135 and Sonys colours were always a struggle…but this 85 1.2 is the best and most artistic inspiring portrait tele ive ever used or seen…
Check out the Brenizer method aka bokeh panorama. Allows creating 35mm f/0.5 equivalent looking images using lenses like this without any fake background blur.
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.
@@Dieguitocontenidoi compared the sigma 104 on the z8 vs. This 85 1.2…sigma is close, but in comparison looks very flat, is massively bigger and heavier (its unfathomable for a wedding) and the focus transitions are not so smooth…. This 85 has the smoothest transitions ive ever seen an subjects absolutely pop unlike any other lens…
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.
great lenses for the price especially, but i’d personally only use it as backup for many reasons - build quality, less reliable AF in low light, etc. very similar mindset to how i use silver ring va red ring canon lenses, which i have a previous video specifically about!
is that the leica noctilux or something else? i have my noctilux paired with the auto focus adapter on my nikon zf and its incredible. i even prefer it to the leica m bodies
@ it’s a Mitakon 50mm f/0.95 full frame. It renders the bokeh like 120mm on Pentax 67. It’s fantastic! Remember the Contax 645 with 80mm f2. But, always I see some super artistic picture the photographers are doing with 135 1.8, far background compositions and a lot of photoshop 😅
@@iamsamhurdphotography I recently saw a video where the photographer raved about the Zf with the Voigtlander 50mm f1.0. Manual focus only, but with the Zf it is doable, just slower. He was returning the Leica Q3 43mm he reviewed because he preferred the Zf/Voigtlander combo and had a Q3 for the 28mm focal length.
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.
and it’s a trend i think should not be happening. i’m very aware of the tradeoffs. distortion is NOT automatically applied to raw still frames when you open them in a raw editor - you have to do it yourself, and it creates all kinds of issues that i don’t want to deal with
@@iamsamhurdphotography I agree bro. We know all of them have made lenses with minimal distortion and high image quality, and are big and expensive, but the market for that is smaller. I think Canon is trying to strike a balance to reach as big an audience as possible.
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
![เป็นไปได้ไหม - WanMai [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/_6lZ6b3_7Vo/mqdefault.jpg)
I see lots of armchair commenters here. As long as the clients love the look from the lens, that's all that matters. Great review btw.
Probably doing a decent amount in post. That could be a "technique" he is referring to. These modern lenses tend to produce very flat image compared to like a Zeiss 85mm f1.4. Hell he could even be stopping down the lens a little bit because the background being completely obliterated can sort of flatten an image as well. Gradual dropoff might be a bit more pleasing. As far as bokeh the can be a technique thing like focusing on specular highlights and things of that nature which will produce interesting bokeh
yup, i think you're spot on
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
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!
that's surprising. the sigma 135 definitely has a pop to it!
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.
indeed - 85 1.2 has an extremely shallow depth of field
hmm 9:32 that was pretty significant difference imo for 85mm..
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 🙂
Hint: A little closer to the subject = about 8' or so away - and bokeh is a little overexposed ... the photog you mentioned may be exposing more for bokeh and lifting subject curve in post with a mask. Obv a guess
hmmm can you explain this a little further?
I see the argument…but maan have i never seen a lens that renders such gorgeous images… it has so much pop but its still so hypersmooth in the focus transitions, esp. foreground bokeh looks absolutely unreal to me…to me even „regular snapshots“ full body with some headroom just look straight magic with this thing…the only other lens that evoked this kind of reaction for me was Sony 135GM, but its a lot harder to use 135 and Sonys colours were always a struggle…but this 85 1.2 is the best and most artistic inspiring portrait tele ive ever used or seen…
glad you’re loving it! it’s definitely a solid lens
Check out the Brenizer method aka bokeh panorama. Allows creating 35mm f/0.5 equivalent looking images using lenses like this without any fake background blur.
yeah! big fan of that look
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.
I think 105 1.4 is better,sigma Lena and more cheaper than this lens
@@Dieguitocontenidoi compared the sigma 104 on the z8 vs. This 85 1.2…sigma is close, but in comparison looks very flat, is massively bigger and heavier (its unfathomable for a wedding) and the focus transitions are not so smooth…. This 85 has the smoothest transitions ive ever seen an subjects absolutely pop unlike any other lens…
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 totally agree
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.
great lenses for the price especially, but i’d personally only use it as backup for many reasons - build quality, less reliable AF in low light, etc. very similar mindset to how i use silver ring va red ring canon lenses, which i have a previous video specifically about!
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!
I love my 50mm f0.95 to get incredible shallow DoF.
is that the leica noctilux or something else? i have my noctilux paired with the auto focus adapter on my nikon zf and its incredible. i even prefer it to the leica m bodies
@ it’s a Mitakon 50mm f/0.95 full frame. It renders the bokeh like 120mm on Pentax 67. It’s fantastic!
Remember the Contax 645 with 80mm f2.
But, always I see some super artistic picture the photographers are doing with 135 1.8, far background compositions and a lot of photoshop 😅
@@iamsamhurdphotography I recently saw a video where the photographer raved about the Zf with the Voigtlander 50mm f1.0. Manual focus only, but with the Zf it is doable, just slower. He was returning the Leica Q3 43mm he reviewed because he preferred the Zf/Voigtlander combo and had a Q3 for the 28mm focal length.
smart move!
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.
and it’s a trend i think should not be happening. i’m very aware of the tradeoffs. distortion is NOT automatically applied to raw still frames when you open them in a raw editor - you have to do it yourself, and it creates all kinds of issues that i don’t want to deal with
@@iamsamhurdphotography I agree bro. We know all of them have made lenses with minimal distortion and high image quality, and are big and expensive, but the market for that is smaller. I think Canon is trying to strike a balance to reach as big an audience as possible.
i think so too - they just really need to make it clear with some kind of label when correction is required vs not required IMO
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?
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 should try an extension tube.
for macro shots?
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
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 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?
the 85 1.4 D?
@@iamsamhurdphotography G
i think this one is definitely sharper than the G or D series
It doesn’t
I hate this new KI Translate VOICE Feature!
are you referring to the new youtube translate feature?