What is YOUR fave portrait lens? Check out the full specs: 85mm: geni.us/mnBiuNT 105mm: geni.us/Nikkor10514 70-200mm: geni.us/OHKfRPX Canon and Sony Versions are in video description. Show Steph some love! th-cam.com/users/artschooldropouts instagram.com/sphammytkd/
I have the 70-200 2.8 fl weighs a bit, 85mm 1.4 nice and light with very good bokeh and sharpness. I also got the z 85mm just to check it out its a pretty good lens but i prefer the f mount 85mm. Finally i got the new tamron 35mm 1.4 usd lens. I think im a horder. Overall i prefer 70-200 but draw back is it being heavy. Its a professional lens but not a social lens where you can take to your holidays. I like lightweight lens more now. I’m waiting for the z 70-200 to come out.
I like and use a 24-105 canon L series lens. I shoot at conventions on a APS-c camera. I have to back up 1.62 times as far from the subject than I would if I was using a full frame camera. Conventions are crowded and I don't get to choose the distance to subject. As they say the best lens is the one you got and use, and my subject don't complain, they like the photographs.
That was an incredible change in the Empire State Building. I had never used a landmark that large while swapping lenses with the INTENTION of looking at the background, and I'm just astounding at how much more magnified it was at 200mm compared to 85mm. That's amazing -- I will never not notice & pay attention to that ever again! That's such an important control.
The statement at 4:20 is confusing. If I switch from 85mm at f1.8 to 135 at f1.8 and keep the framing the same then the depth of field will remain the same. The background is more out of focus at the longer focal length but the depth of field centred at the subject will not change. I understood the statement as the depth of field would be shallower.
You Three make a great Team!.... I actually have all 3 lenses i love the 85/105 but i use the 70/200 more than the rest- even though its a big mess to carry around.
I started with primes, but after I added a 70-200 2.8, I almost never use my primes unless it's low light. I can shoot almost everything with my 17-55 2.8, 70-200 2.8, and if I add a third lens it's the 60mm 2.8 micro.
@@raskolnikovnazdravya2619 it's funny since this comment, I replaced all my primes with newer versions and now I shoot everything on my 35, 85, and 135. I only use my 70-200 during the ceremony if I want to be a bit more discrete, and I shoot much wider than I used to. My 15-30mm is one of my favorite lenses.
The BIG negative of the 70-200 when travelling is that it is really heavy to carry around and bulky. It may also push your luggage weight into another price range plus you might not be allowed to bring it as a carry-on. I love that lens but it has become a dust collector when I travel.
If I had to make the choice for someone who was looking into starting portrait photography, I would choose the 85mm f/1.4 (or variant such as the f/1.8) as a first lens. It's a good all round balance between cost, optical quality, weight and size. It's a great focal length to use both indoor and outdoors because you have a reasonable working distance to zoom with your feet and the larger aperture prime comes in handy to tame the ISO in low light situations.
85 is an excellent focal length but I think it became a “classic” for headshots (asMatt says) only since the advent of crop-sensor cameras. For full frame, 105 was always considered the true classic. Now of course, you can photograph anything with any lens or camera you wish, but getting tight on a person’s face (true head-neck-shoulders photo) with an 85 on a full frame camera is just not the best, IMO. Back off and do the portrait waist-up and then the 85 is going to be great. But for doing a tight headshot, 105 or longer is the way to go in order to keep the nose and chin most natural-looking.
Anthony C 85mm classic since APSC? Lol. Focal lenghts were classic long before the digital era, you know...and It's easy to say that a tight portait shot is not always the best ;)
@@jcphenix1 You've missed my points. The APSC crop factor has changed the perception of some focal lengths in people's minds because of the extended reach. For example, 50mm lenses on full-frame film cameras were never very useful by many photojournalists, studio photographers, etc. But now, there's this whole "nifty fifty" thing that has emerged in recent years because a 50 now has a little more perceived reach because of the crop factor (plus, they're cheap). Same with the 85, in terms of its role changing in the APSC era. The 85 was always well regarded in any era, but in full-frame film days (no different than full-frame digital days, in terms of perspective) it wasn't very commonly used for tight headshots as it is today, and that's because today it has extra reach due to APSC. And as for your last comment, there's no denying that a tight headshot with an 85 on full-frame will slightly exaggerate noses and chins compared to the same shot taken with longer focal lengths. And those exaggerated features are almost never considered flattering.
@@anthonyc1883 You must be tripping 50mm was the staple of photojournalists and standard kit lens for years on end on the film days. This is long before zooms were of the requisite quality the 50mm was king. Cheap, fast, and light. Studio photography of those days also involved larger or medium format film. And people used to go to a studio to get a portrait photo. Anyway a lot of cultural baggage to deal in a sort comment and the younger generation is often oblivious to how certain things (like min-max focal lengths in a zoom) come about or why.
The 135mm was my favorite shot, I shoot with a 5D II with a 100-400 f4-5.6 fairly often and I'm always blown away by the results! A 135mm f2.0 is definitely on my wish list. Also, NordVPN have had a security breach in 2018, not a huge issue but you might want to acknowledge it before people start trashing the comments section. Jayztwocents made a great video explaining the whole thing
I shot with the Canon 50mm 1.8 a lot when I started out with portraits. It was nice when I was starting out, but nowadays, I just love the compression you get from 85-100/105mms. I have some experience with several 70-200s, and they're too heavy for my preferences. My next lens will probably be either the Canon 85mm f1.8 or the underrated Canon 100mm f2.
I’ve got 85mm and 70-200mm Tamron G2. I bought both of mine like new used for GBP1400 the pair, which is incredible value for money. I love them both but use my 85mm more. Also like my Tamron 35mm G2 for environmental. Great comparison Matt 👍
Back to the time I spent at a daily newspaper in the late 1970s, it would be the Nikkor 105 mm f2.5 because it was the sharpest compared to the 85 mm f1.8. Zooms weren't good enough for anything but snapshots in those days. These days, that zoom is hilarious because it is so huge, but at least zooms are sharp enough now.
hey Matt, you might remember me from long ago. I have been commenting on your videos since 2012, when you were angry at the horses and said no wonder Italians eat you (the horses). I would really love if you could put those photos side by side, to have a better comparison. And since we are talking expensive lenses with superb low light capabilities, would probably be handy if we had bokeh comparison and which one achieves it best, since 1.4 on 105 is significantly wider than 2.8 on 70-200. To this day, I still don't know which one would give more separation.
As far as I understand you can calculate it like this: 85 / 1.4 = 60.7 105 / 1.4 = 75 200 / 2.8 = 71.4 The higher the number, the creamer the bokeh. So the 105 is the winner here.
Another great and informative video Matt and Steph! (Loved her reaction when you almost knocked over the 70-200mm f2.8.... her expressions throughout are priceless!). Got to agree, if you can only get one then the awesome 70-200mm f2.8 is it. Love mine! And I've got the 105mm macro version too, another great lens. Will say, when shooting portraits, the basic full frame 50mm 1.4 is incredible. (Even have another pro friend who makes $$$$$ that swears by it in his work too. Sharp edge to edge.) . Really enjoy all your videos, especially since Steph starting being in them because she not only brings valuable knowledge too but her personality shines through, her humor is, well, VERY funny and you guys work well together.
What about for a wide face? I find I'm fixing wide faces with liquefy when I use my 105. You think the 85 would give a good amount of distortion to flatter a wider face?
When you know the properties provided by focal length you can wisely pick the right one for particular situation. The subject will stay pretty much the same, all the difference is in the background.
LIke to understand more about the science... some say that 105mm for portrait is exactly what the eye sees and apparently plastic surgeons use this for that reason. I’m guessing the exact distance and focal length is what matters - so for a head and shoulders framing will dictate the distance you are away. Also from an aesthetic standpoint, genetics and age will impact the result: For age, our nose and ears continue to grow so to look younger, a larger focal length (e.g. 200mm) will be more flattering; However, for a young Asian it can make the face look too distorted and make the face ‘fatter’ and the nose too small.
Years ago my favorite lens was a Minolta Rokkor 100mm F2.0 , originally made for the pre- metered SR, which I bought used for $50, added a meter coupling lug to use on my SRT 101, it did need a big 62mm filter as it a 50mm front element, I did a lot of indoor ambient light hand held candid.
I use "D" lenses now for 24 years as a full-timer and love them all. In particular, the 80-200mm F/2.8D and the 180 F/2.8D are my favs along with the 17-35 F/2.8D. But also own a 28mm, 85mm, and 50mm. Truly all great on both my F100 and D750, D300, and D700.
It took me a while to fully understand this because the DOF tables say if you maintain the same subject framing and aperture when you change focal length then the DOF will be the same. And it is. What makes the background more blown out is the larger size of the out of focus objects in the background. If you scale down a background object of the 135mm image and compare it with the 85mm images the object in the background will be the same.
I've seen a lot of good videos on photography & lenses, but this one is exactly what I've been looking for - very informative. A big thumbs up! Thanks a bunch.
The biggest differences are in relative view angle and camera to subject distances. Indoors the 200mm is only going to work for head shots. The 85mm provides a wider view angle but the 105mm works equally well indoors and provides a slightly greater working distance. Except for professional models, people are not comfortable with a camera that invades their personal space. The discomfort is visible in the pictures when this is done. Indoors the only choices are a 85mm, 105mm, or a 70-200mm zoom lens. Outdoors a 70-200mm is very effective within its full range and can be used with individuals and with couples.
@@mattgranger Thank you very much! On that note, you're probably copy pasting your social media links, but i think you can take out that google plus link since google shot down that service.
85 1.8G $399.00, 105 2.8G VR Macro $800.00, 70-200 2.8G VRII $1900.00. All new, all on sale... 105mm favorite. 70-200mm best versatility (heavy) but ok on a tripod in the studio. 85mm, best inside hand held, because I have a small studio space.
Personally, I use the most recent AF-D 80-200 f/2.8 and I got that lens basically because it was really a great price and I'd dabbled a bit with the 85 f/1.8 but wasn't all that satisfied with it. When I'm travelling it's a great lens to use (misses focus more often than I'd like but AF-D lenses can be like that) and because of its versatility I've shot plenty of landscapes with it too. I'm still considering an 85 for street photography though, as it'd be much less intrusive. But since it's something I do so rarely, I'm not in a hurry.
T 80-200 is better then 70-200 At bokeh, the only problem is lack of stabilization. But if you put 80-200 on a body with IBIS(Z6/7), then it becomes better then the 70-200! Still needing sometimes a prime...f/1.4 makes an incredible look...so I would go for 85 1.4 and not 1.8(which is a less quality lens). On Z6, 85 mm 1.4 gets perfect focus each and every time and a splendid bokeh.
5:43 The amount of 'distortion' you get on the face is not a black and white issue, where less is always better. Sometimes you will want it, sometimes not. It depends on the amount of intimacy amongst other things.
Hi, great Video. Personally I use a Tamron 70-200 2.8 G2 on a D810 and the image quality is phenomenal. But the combi is as heavy as brick. I also own a 85 1.8D Nikkor but this one combines much better with my D750. My experience is that some bodies like certain lenses and vice versa.
I just bought a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART lens, and I love shooting with that focal length on my DX body. The 70-200 f/2.8 is the next one on my list, looking at Tamron since it's a LOT less than the Nikon and sharper (though not by a significant margin), though with slightly more chromatic aberration and vignetting, according to DxOMark.
brandishwar tamron lenses are unreliable at focus. I own a few. Totally useless. You have to calibrate them often. With that said, no saying when they will start missing focus again. Average lens life for me for a 2.8 should be around 5 years. Tamrons start showing their true colors in about 2-4months. Renting doesn’t expose you to this issue sadly. Save more, get a nikon version. Sigma also has same issues. But ofcourse, if you are on a mirrorless body, all the focus problems shouldnt exist in theory. But on a dslr, stay away from the scam that tamron or sigma is. You wont find much evidence to this on youtube cuz most popular youtubers only use lenses for reviews so they rent them, or if they own any, they keep changing lenses quite often, or even if someone had some issue, they wont come out publicly to criticise the brands because these brands are essentially keeping them cozy and warm (No hard feelings for them). Save and get Nikon.
Mine is the 105 f/1.4E on the D850, I also have a more flexible 70-210mm (f/2.8 is to heavy) but to carry really lighter I have a GX9 with a 75mm f/1.8 Olympus.
Theoretically they should be sightly worse than sony, actually. The shorter flange distance + larger mount = dust has a wider opening and needs to travel less to the sensor. That said, spend 10 minutes to clean your sensor every 1-6 months, depending on the environment you shoot in, and you'll be absolutely fine.
Right now... My favorite lens for outdoor portraits is the 85mm f/1.8 since I can blow out the background. However, for a Sony APSC camera, I really like the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. IMO, that is a bit short for head shots but, perfect for waist up portraits or wider. I have a 70-200mm f/4 G OSS lens but, I am looking forward to playing with the forthcoming Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8.
Answering this question, to me, is not about the lens or it's bokeh in the first place. It starts with features of the person you shoot. Based on the same framing, the longer lens gets you further away - which causes a different perspective. Straight head on shots do not illustrate this well (except the other way, going close and wide angle.) To learn to see this, start with focal lengths of at least a factor 2 or 0.5 difference.
My preference honestly is to have two bodies... in most cases one has either a 50 1.8 or a 24-70 on it, and the other has the 70-200. This provides the best flexibility, and when possible, I use the 50mm for the optics ( the 24-70 Z in this case, is a good lens, but the 50 1.8 is sharper and faster so better for low light). I also don't find the focal ranges below 50mm to be of much use for people photography unless I'm doing an environmental portrait... otherwise I'm at 50 or above if practical. In tight spaces, I'll probably use the 24-70 more but my preference leans more towards the 50 and the 70-200.
Matt, Thanks for this video. I must agree about the 70-200. I only have it a couple of months now, and I mostly use it for portraiture. It is not cheap (I'm just an amateur) but the results are superb. Till I had this 70-200 my portrait lens was a 85 1.8 G. But that one it is now in a bag and I don't think I will use it again.
I have a 85 f1.8 and a 70-200 f2.8. I see myself using the 70-200 much more in shoots but you can get 1 to 2 stops more light with the primes. So if I am trying to stop the action with no flash, like in a concert, or an indoor wedding, primes have there place for getting less noise.
I like my T70-200G2 for all around portrait but some find it too scary to be pointed by so I plan to get 85mm1.8G. My 105mmAIS f2.5 is a beautiful one but hard to work with as it is manual one. 90mm f2.8 macro gives super-nice results also.
I went with a Tokina 100/2.8 pro D macro to start as I wanted something super sharp and close focusing but not too expensive, the Tamron G2 is quite high on my wish list
I had my eyes on three lenses earlier today, now it's down to my main target and it's runner up: 1. Sigma 105mm f1.4 (168mm on a Crop Sensor) 2. Canon EF L 85mm f1.4 (~135mm on a Crop Sensor) 3. Sigma 50-100 f/1.8 (the third lens I had my eyes on!). (P.S: I own a Canon EOS 90D, but I want the shallow DoF, the really creamy bokeh + best portraits possible!).
I have probably asked this before, I just don't remember if you responded. What about 135mm? Like, have you ever tried the Samyang 135mm f2? According to basically all the videos about it I've seen, it's even better than Canon's 135mm f2L, which would be pretty amazing considering the price of it. Now I do have the Samyang 135mm and it is just amazing. I actually also own the Samyang 85mm which I actually bought because of your old video on it, and love it! For 105 I have the legendary f2.5 Nikon version. For me I don't really have a favorite one, they are all amazing, though I will use the 85mm when in tight situations, since I may not always have room for using the other 2 :)
Hello Matt again a nice comparison ! Thank you Tell me honestly, have you ever compared different camera brands in different colors? I mean skin colors ? One hears again and again the best skin color has canon or Fuji ? What do you say ? Can you make a comparison ? Nikon vs canon vs fuji vs Panasonic ? 😀 Greetings Mariooooooo
What an interesting review. Nothing about image quality, ergonomics, bokeh, colour fringing (CA), contrast, AF... I tested my 85mm 1.4 vs the 105mm 1.4 a couple of weeks ago and was amazed by the results.
Just FYI, the focal lengths of these lenses have no effect whatsoever on the perspective differences seen in the background. This is caused solely by the proximity of the photographer to the subject. Changing focal length cannot change perspective.
as with all things in life this is relative. in this case, it's relative to the focal length if you keep framing of the subject the same. thank you very much mr knowitall have a nice day
@@shigityshigityshwa Not exactly astonishing that you would conclude your mistake with a pointless insult but, nonetheless, telling. It is not relative. Focal length has no effect on perspective. Perspective is a 'proximity effect'.
85 is the sharpest lens you can get so that's a consideration.. they say it's the most flattering size. According to thumbnail I like the longer ones better..
My favorite, when I have the space. Usually on a tripod with a remote so I don't lose contact with my model 20 feet away! Outdoors, absolutely the best.
It's hard to compare these. It's like trying to compare a 2-door sports car with the family van. Both are in production and drivers are buying and using them, but for different purposes. Now, if we are talking about preferred look or aesthetics, I like the 135mm lenses most. Why? Just personal preference.
Reading through it - seems this happened to one server in Finland in March 2018 - it did not affect activity logs, usernames, passwords or any other servers. Seems it affected other VPNs at same time, and issue resolved now. Thanks for the heads up!
@@mattgranger the buzz around it is how Nord has handled it. Their disclosure and the length of time from knowing the issue to releasing a statement. Great video btw.
For most people in most cases, 70-200 is the safest bet, and longest keep, probably best value for money as well. In particular use case, 105 and 85 outshine 70-200. Again those occasions are few and far between for most people.
Great video, spanish native here sorry my english....what about, taking advantage being un NY a comparison Full body urban portraits between 24-70, 35mm and 85mm....Hope its a good idea...cheers
What is YOUR fave portrait lens? Check out the full specs:
85mm: geni.us/mnBiuNT
105mm: geni.us/Nikkor10514
70-200mm: geni.us/OHKfRPX
Canon and Sony Versions are in video description.
Show Steph some love!
th-cam.com/users/artschooldropouts
instagram.com/sphammytkd/
The Nikon 70-200 is $2000 right now. And, it had been $2200 U.S. forever.
I have the 70-200 2.8 fl weighs a bit, 85mm 1.4 nice and light with very good bokeh and sharpness. I also got the z 85mm just to check it out its a pretty good lens but i prefer the f mount 85mm. Finally i got the new tamron 35mm 1.4 usd lens. I think im a horder. Overall i prefer 70-200 but draw back is it being heavy. Its a professional lens but not a social lens where you can take to your holidays. I like lightweight lens more now. I’m waiting for the z 70-200 to come out.
200/2 (then 135/1.8 then 105/1.4), if there is not enough light - 105/1.4 is the first choice.
I like and use a 24-105 canon L series lens. I shoot at conventions on a APS-c camera. I have to back up 1.62 times as far from the subject than I would if I was using a full frame camera. Conventions are crowded and I don't get to choose the distance to subject. As they say the best lens is the one you got and use, and my subject don't complain, they like the photographs.
I'm looking at buying a new lens, torn between the 105mm and the Sigma Art 135mm (Canon mount). Which is your preference and why?
That was an incredible change in the Empire State Building. I had never used a landmark that large while swapping lenses with the INTENTION of looking at the background, and I'm just astounding at how much more magnified it was at 200mm compared to 85mm. That's amazing -- I will never not notice & pay attention to that ever again! That's such an important control.
just a tip, if you have 3 portrait photos, why not have them all side by side on a 16.9 video, easier comparison
i enjoyed the cut to edits. more of a 1 by 1 for a better honest reaction than nit picking side by sides.
I like the buildings in the background compression samples. It perfectly illustrates the effect.
"Here we have Steph, keep your eyes on the buildings" Are you kidding?
What buildings?
Right? lolol
But... there are no buildings.
I use the 85mm 1.8 for reason of cost and most shooting inside in a small space. The output is dreamy.
The statement at 4:20 is confusing. If I switch from 85mm at f1.8 to 135 at f1.8 and keep the framing the same then the depth of field will remain the same. The background is more out of focus at the longer focal length but the depth of field centred at the subject will not change. I understood the statement as the depth of field would be shallower.
You Three make a great Team!.... I actually have all 3 lenses i love the 85/105 but i use the 70/200 more than the rest- even though its a big mess to carry around.
I started with primes, but after I added a 70-200 2.8, I almost never use my primes unless it's low light. I can shoot almost everything with my 17-55 2.8, 70-200 2.8, and if I add a third lens it's the 60mm 2.8 micro.
İ just say Bravo! Tri perfect sniper 🎯 especially 60mm f2.8 and 70-200 f.2.8
@@raskolnikovnazdravya2619 it's funny since this comment, I replaced all my primes with newer versions and now I shoot everything on my 35, 85, and 135. I only use my 70-200 during the ceremony if I want to be a bit more discrete, and I shoot much wider than I used to. My 15-30mm is one of my favorite lenses.
There is certain creaminess at 105mm that I like a lot
The BIG negative of the 70-200 when travelling is that it is really heavy to carry around and bulky. It may also push your luggage weight into another price range plus you might not be allowed to bring it as a carry-on. I love that lens but it has become a dust collector when I travel.
It is not for travellers, you are right. But for a professional photographer, it is indispensable!
1:35 Stephanie using the LCD/view finder as a mirror 😝
Steph in the background while you’re explaining stuff is hilarious
Matthew Kaminski she is a little clown, so fun to watch!
@@richardsilva-spokane3436 She has no idea about what Matt is talking about, lol
Had a rewind a couple of times as she was soo distracting I'd totally missed what Matt was saying! :) :) :)
Steph is the bomb
If I had to make the choice for someone who was looking into starting portrait photography, I would choose the 85mm f/1.4 (or variant such as the f/1.8) as a first lens. It's a good all round balance between cost, optical quality, weight and size. It's a great focal length to use both indoor and outdoors because you have a reasonable working distance to zoom with your feet and the larger aperture prime comes in handy to tame the ISO in low light situations.
85 is an excellent focal length but I think it became a “classic” for headshots (asMatt says) only since the advent of crop-sensor cameras. For full frame, 105 was always considered the true classic. Now of course, you can photograph anything with any lens or camera you wish, but getting tight on a person’s face (true head-neck-shoulders photo) with an 85 on a full frame camera is just not the best, IMO. Back off and do the portrait waist-up and then the 85 is going to be great. But for doing a tight headshot, 105 or longer is the way to go in order to keep the nose and chin most natural-looking.
Anthony C 85mm classic since APSC? Lol. Focal lenghts were classic long before the digital era, you know...and It's easy to say that a tight portait shot is not always the best ;)
@@jcphenix1 You've missed my points. The APSC crop factor has changed the perception of some focal lengths in people's minds because of the extended reach. For example, 50mm lenses on full-frame film cameras were never very useful by many photojournalists, studio photographers, etc. But now, there's this whole "nifty fifty" thing that has emerged in recent years because a 50 now has a little more perceived reach because of the crop factor (plus, they're cheap).
Same with the 85, in terms of its role changing in the APSC era. The 85 was always well regarded in any era, but in full-frame film days (no different than full-frame digital days, in terms of perspective) it wasn't very commonly used for tight headshots as it is today, and that's because today it has extra reach due to APSC. And as for your last comment, there's no denying that a tight headshot with an 85 on full-frame will slightly exaggerate noses and chins compared to the same shot taken with longer focal lengths. And those exaggerated features are almost never considered flattering.
Exactly. You know of course this is a venue where they don't know that and won't accept it.
@@anthonyc1883 Yes, you are correct in that the 85mm lens was designed as a full-frame, portrait lens and not a headshot lens.
@@anthonyc1883 You must be tripping 50mm was the staple of photojournalists and standard kit lens for years on end on the film days. This is long before zooms were of the requisite quality the 50mm was king. Cheap, fast, and light. Studio photography of those days also involved larger or medium format film. And people used to go to a studio to get a portrait photo. Anyway a lot of cultural baggage to deal in a sort comment and the younger generation is often oblivious to how certain things (like min-max focal lengths in a zoom) come about or why.
The 135mm was my favorite shot, I shoot with a 5D II with a 100-400 f4-5.6 fairly often and I'm always blown away by the results! A 135mm f2.0 is definitely on my wish list. Also, NordVPN have had a security breach in 2018, not a huge issue but you might want to acknowledge it before people start trashing the comments section. Jayztwocents made a great video explaining the whole thing
I shot with the Canon 50mm 1.8 a lot when I started out with portraits. It was nice when I was starting out, but nowadays, I just love the compression you get from 85-100/105mms. I have some experience with several 70-200s, and they're too heavy for my preferences. My next lens will probably be either the Canon 85mm f1.8 or the underrated Canon 100mm f2.
I’ve got 85mm and 70-200mm Tamron G2. I bought both of mine like new used for GBP1400 the pair, which is incredible value for money. I love them both but use my 85mm more. Also like my Tamron 35mm G2 for environmental. Great comparison Matt 👍
Which was the led light you were using. What’s it called and is it battery operated?
What is the light you used? Great video.
I'm watching this mostly for Steph - what wonderful energy! Oh, and the lens info is cool, too...
Back to the time I spent at a daily newspaper in the late 1970s, it would be the Nikkor 105 mm f2.5 because it was the sharpest compared to the 85 mm f1.8. Zooms weren't good enough for anything but snapshots in those days. These days, that zoom is hilarious because it is so huge, but at least zooms are sharp enough now.
Would the performance remain the same In a camera with crop sensor?
About 1.5 zoom factor on aps-c
hey Matt, you might remember me from long ago. I have been commenting on your videos since 2012, when you were angry at the horses and said no wonder Italians eat you (the horses). I would really love if you could put those photos side by side, to have a better comparison. And since we are talking expensive lenses with superb low light capabilities, would probably be handy if we had bokeh comparison and which one achieves it best, since 1.4 on 105 is significantly wider than 2.8 on 70-200. To this day, I still don't know which one would give more separation.
MAtt ate some Italian guys horse?
As far as I understand you can calculate it like this:
85 / 1.4 = 60.7
105 / 1.4 = 75
200 / 2.8 = 71.4
The higher the number, the creamer the bokeh. So the 105 is the winner here.
Nils Florian Bühler what are those numbers ? I hope not DOF because DOF never changes it’s not depending on focal length
Nils Florian Bühler and 200mm will obliterate 105mm 1.4E . Even if it was 200mm 3.5
So I have the 85 f/1.8 and the 105mm f/2.8 macro and would love to see more portraits with the macro lens!
Another great and informative video Matt and Steph! (Loved her reaction when you almost knocked over the 70-200mm f2.8.... her expressions throughout are priceless!). Got to agree, if you can only get one then the awesome 70-200mm f2.8 is it. Love mine! And I've got the 105mm macro version too, another great lens. Will say, when shooting portraits, the basic full frame 50mm 1.4 is incredible. (Even have another pro friend who makes $$$$$ that swears by it in his work too. Sharp edge to edge.) . Really enjoy all your videos, especially since Steph starting being in them because she not only brings valuable knowledge too but her personality shines through, her humor is, well, VERY funny and you guys work well together.
Used Sigma 70-200 2.8 is the best value for a quality lens. 90% of the performance of a Nikon and 1/4 the price
Wonderful video! What type of field spot light is that?
Matt - what Fotodiox light are you using?
What contious light did you use for this?
Hey, there's a dust particle on the sensor of your video camera
What about for a wide face? I find I'm fixing wide faces with liquefy when I use my 105. You think the 85 would give a good amount of distortion to flatter a wider face?
When you know the properties provided by focal length you can wisely pick the right one for particular situation. The subject will stay pretty much the same, all the difference is in the background.
No, the look of the subject changes with distance. A head shot using 35 gives dog nose effect.
@@stevek8829 that's why specified "pretty much the same" ;)
LIke to understand more about the science... some say that 105mm for portrait is exactly what the eye sees and apparently plastic surgeons use this for that reason. I’m guessing the exact distance and focal length is what matters - so for a head and shoulders framing will dictate the distance you are away. Also from an aesthetic standpoint, genetics and age will impact the result: For age, our nose and ears continue to grow so to look younger, a larger focal length (e.g. 200mm) will be more flattering; However, for a young Asian it can make the face look too distorted and make the face ‘fatter’ and the nose too small.
i think you’ve got the thumbnails mixed up for 105 and 200 😂 but great video keep up the amazing work
Years ago my favorite lens was a Minolta Rokkor 100mm F2.0 , originally made for the pre- metered SR, which I bought used for $50, added a meter coupling lug to use on my SRT 101, it did need a big 62mm filter as it a 50mm front element, I did a lot of indoor ambient light hand held candid.
Everyone seems to forget the 200m/2.8 prime
Is an amazing lens, really light and most of the times cheaper than the 85 or 105...
I use "D" lenses now for 24 years as a full-timer and love them all. In particular, the 80-200mm F/2.8D and the 180 F/2.8D are my favs along with the 17-35 F/2.8D. But also own a 28mm, 85mm, and 50mm. Truly all great on both my F100 and D750, D300, and D700.
You should do a video on background compression using the backdrop out in Dumbo (Washington and Water St)
My Sigma 135mm f/1.8 rarely comes off my D850. I use it for portraits, families, and even large groups (by standing back a ways :) )
Great advice indeed by taking a zoom and afterwards check in the metadata what focal length you mostly shoot at
It took me a while to fully understand this because the DOF tables say if you maintain the same subject framing and aperture when you change focal length then the DOF will be the same. And it is. What makes the background more blown out is the larger size of the out of focus objects in the background. If you scale down a background object of the 135mm image and compare it with the 85mm images the object in the background will be the same.
12:38 Look just how nervous steph stared the zoom lens wiggling out...scary to look that lens tipping off given its for an expensive price.
I'm a beginner photographer, would Nikon 85mm 1.8G be a good option for me?
I've seen a lot of good videos on photography & lenses, but this one is exactly what I've been looking for - very informative. A big thumbs up! Thanks a bunch.
The biggest differences are in relative view angle and camera to subject distances. Indoors the 200mm is only going to work for head shots. The 85mm provides a wider view angle but the 105mm works equally well indoors and provides a slightly greater working distance. Except for professional models, people are not comfortable with a camera that invades their personal space. The discomfort is visible in the pictures when this is done. Indoors the only choices are a 85mm, 105mm, or a 70-200mm zoom lens. Outdoors a 70-200mm is very effective within its full range and can be used with individuals and with couples.
Hi Matt! You said you'd put example files to download into the description, could you add them please?
oh yeah! poop! FORGOT. Will do now and add to video description.
@@mattgranger Thank you very much! On that note, you're probably copy pasting your social media links, but i think you can take out that google plus link since google shot down that service.
geni.us/tjkBS3
Nice video!!! Could you use a 105 macro as a regular 105?
@Matt, were any filters used on any of the lens?
85 1.8G $399.00, 105 2.8G VR Macro $800.00, 70-200 2.8G VRII $1900.00. All new, all on sale...
105mm favorite.
70-200mm best versatility (heavy) but ok on a tripod in the studio.
85mm, best inside hand held, because I have a small studio space.
Personally, I use the most recent AF-D 80-200 f/2.8 and I got that lens basically because it was really a great price and I'd dabbled a bit with the 85 f/1.8 but wasn't all that satisfied with it. When I'm travelling it's a great lens to use (misses focus more often than I'd like but AF-D lenses can be like that) and because of its versatility I've shot plenty of landscapes with it too.
I'm still considering an 85 for street photography though, as it'd be much less intrusive. But since it's something I do so rarely, I'm not in a hurry.
T 80-200 is better then 70-200 At bokeh, the only problem is lack of stabilization. But if you put 80-200 on a body with IBIS(Z6/7), then it becomes better then the 70-200!
Still needing sometimes a prime...f/1.4 makes an incredible look...so I would go for 85 1.4 and not 1.8(which is a less quality lens). On Z6, 85 mm 1.4 gets perfect focus each and every time and a splendid bokeh.
Being shy on cost like I am, Sigma and Tamron G2 series brand new for half to almost half the price
Did you remove the former comparison video in Sydney? I did like it.
5:43 The amount of 'distortion' you get on the face is not a black and white issue, where less is always better. Sometimes you will want it, sometimes not. It depends on the amount of intimacy amongst other things.
Hi, great Video. Personally I use a Tamron 70-200 2.8 G2 on a D810 and the image quality is phenomenal. But the combi is as heavy as brick. I also own a 85 1.8D Nikkor but this one combines much better with my D750. My experience is that some bodies like certain lenses and vice versa.
I just bought a Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART lens, and I love shooting with that focal length on my DX body. The 70-200 f/2.8 is the next one on my list, looking at Tamron since it's a LOT less than the Nikon and sharper (though not by a significant margin), though with slightly more chromatic aberration and vignetting, according to DxOMark.
brandishwar tamron lenses are unreliable at focus. I own a few. Totally useless. You have to calibrate them often. With that said, no saying when they will start missing focus again. Average lens life for me for a 2.8 should be around 5 years. Tamrons start showing their true colors in about 2-4months. Renting doesn’t expose you to this issue sadly. Save more, get a nikon version. Sigma also has same issues. But ofcourse, if you are on a mirrorless body, all the focus problems shouldnt exist in theory. But on a dslr, stay away from the scam that tamron or sigma is. You wont find much evidence to this on youtube cuz most popular youtubers only use lenses for reviews so they rent them, or if they own any, they keep changing lenses quite often, or even if someone had some issue, they wont come out publicly to criticise the brands because these brands are essentially keeping them cozy and warm (No hard feelings for them). Save and get Nikon.
@@SarveshParakh very true
Were you shooting this video with a Sony? The sensor dust was quite noticeable.
Nikon mostly
Mine is the 105 f/1.4E on the D850, I also have a more flexible 70-210mm (f/2.8 is to heavy) but to carry really lighter I have a GX9 with a 75mm f/1.8 Olympus.
85mm vs 100mm for close up portraits & headshots?
How do you clean the view finder?
Bring it to a service center😂
Hello from Tampa Florida... Enjoyed another informative video filled with valuable and fun content. Be well and stay encouraged!!!
What did you film this on? There's dust on the sensor. I've heard the Z series cameras are as bad as the sonys when it comes to sensor dust.
Theoretically they should be sightly worse than sony, actually. The shorter flange distance + larger mount = dust has a wider opening and needs to travel less to the sensor.
That said, spend 10 minutes to clean your sensor every 1-6 months, depending on the environment you shoot in, and you'll be absolutely fine.
Right now... My favorite lens for outdoor portraits is the 85mm f/1.8 since I can blow out the background. However, for a Sony APSC camera, I really like the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8.
IMO, that is a bit short for head shots but, perfect for waist up portraits or wider.
I have a 70-200mm f/4 G OSS lens but, I am looking forward to playing with the forthcoming Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8.
I have a 135 mm Minolta Rokkor objective that I used on my Minolta XG2 camera for many years. It still is my favorite portrait objective.
135mm all the way for me😉
Thats a rediculous statement. That will set you way back.
One4All All4One thx doctor😉
I love the look of the 105 but you can’t deny the versatility of the 70-200.
Answering this question, to me, is not about the lens or it's bokeh in the first place. It starts with features of the person you shoot. Based on the same framing, the longer lens gets you further away - which causes a different perspective. Straight head on shots do not illustrate this well (except the other way, going close and wide angle.) To learn to see this, start with focal lengths of at least a factor 2 or 0.5 difference.
My preference honestly is to have two bodies... in most cases one has either a 50 1.8 or a 24-70 on it, and the other has the 70-200. This provides the best flexibility, and when possible, I use the 50mm for the optics ( the 24-70 Z in this case, is a good lens, but the 50 1.8 is sharper and faster so better for low light). I also don't find the focal ranges below 50mm to be of much use for people photography unless I'm doing an environmental portrait... otherwise I'm at 50 or above if practical. In tight spaces, I'll probably use the 24-70 more but my preference leans more towards the 50 and the 70-200.
Excellent instructional video, Matt! Nice work.
Matt, Thanks for this video.
I must agree about the 70-200. I only have it a couple of months now, and I mostly use it for portraiture.
It is not cheap (I'm just an amateur) but the results are superb.
Till I had this 70-200 my portrait lens was a 85 1.8 G. But that one it is now in a bag and I don't think I will use it again.
I have a 85 f1.8 and a 70-200 f2.8. I see myself using the 70-200 much more in shoots but you can get 1 to 2 stops more light with the primes. So if I am trying to stop the action with no flash, like in a concert, or an indoor wedding, primes have there place for getting less noise.
I like my T70-200G2 for all around portrait but some find it too scary to be pointed by so I plan to get 85mm1.8G. My 105mmAIS f2.5 is a beautiful one but hard to work with as it is manual one. 90mm f2.8 macro gives super-nice results also.
I went with a Tokina 100/2.8 pro D macro to start as I wanted something super sharp and close focusing but not too expensive, the Tamron G2 is quite high on my wish list
Thanku so much sir..u hav done some amazing comparison videos n those are such informative n very helpful for beginners..loved ur work♥️🙏
Matt; what has been different as in good bad or indifferent with these on a Z7? Love your videos!
I had my eyes on three lenses earlier today, now it's down to my main target and it's runner up:
1. Sigma 105mm f1.4 (168mm on a Crop Sensor)
2. Canon EF L 85mm f1.4 (~135mm on a Crop Sensor)
3. Sigma 50-100 f/1.8 (the third lens I had my eyes on!).
(P.S: I own a Canon EOS 90D, but I want the shallow DoF, the really creamy bokeh + best portraits possible!).
Sigma it is
I have probably asked this before, I just don't remember if you responded.
What about 135mm? Like, have you ever tried the Samyang 135mm f2?
According to basically all the videos about it I've seen, it's even better than Canon's 135mm f2L, which would be pretty amazing considering the price of it.
Now I do have the Samyang 135mm and it is just amazing.
I actually also own the Samyang 85mm which I actually bought because of your old video on it, and love it! For 105 I have the legendary f2.5 Nikon version.
For me I don't really have a favorite one, they are all amazing, though I will use the 85mm when in tight situations, since I may not always have room for using the other 2 :)
Hello Matt again a nice comparison !
Thank you
Tell me honestly, have you ever compared different camera brands in different colors?
I mean skin colors ?
One hears again and again the best skin color has canon or Fuji ?
What do you say ?
Can you make a comparison ?
Nikon vs canon vs fuji vs Panasonic ?
😀
Greetings Mariooooooo
I have made some comparisons for myself, yes. Check out Tony Northrup - he did something on his channel about this not too long ago.
Matt Granger
Yeah, thanks. I'll take a look.
THE LIGHT YOU USED OUTSIDE I LIKE THAT WHAT MODEL WAS IT
What an interesting review. Nothing about image quality, ergonomics, bokeh, colour fringing (CA), contrast, AF... I tested my 85mm 1.4 vs the 105mm 1.4 a couple of weeks ago and was amazed by the results.
He provided the results so you can see for yourself. That's all that matters.
Great vid Matt and Steph. Not just for Nikonians. Useful information for everyone. Always a lot to learn, thank you. Anyway 70-200 is my own fav. 🤗
I have a Tamron 70-200 g2. My friend suggested that I sell it and get a couple of other lenes. I'm mainly dioing portaits.
70-200mm my favorite portrait lens ever.
Agreed.
Just FYI, the focal lengths of these lenses have no effect whatsoever on the perspective differences seen in the background. This is caused solely by the proximity of the photographer to the subject. Changing focal length cannot change perspective.
as with all things in life this is relative. in this case, it's relative to the focal length if you keep framing of the subject the same. thank you very much mr knowitall have a nice day
@@shigityshigityshwa Not exactly astonishing that you would conclude your mistake with a pointless insult but, nonetheless, telling. It is not relative. Focal length has no effect on perspective. Perspective is a 'proximity effect'.
12:40 "She was like 'oh oh there goes the 70 to 200 into garbage' :)" Love the expressions. :)
best part of the entire video hahaahasdahaja
85 is the sharpest lens you can get so that's a consideration.. they say it's the most flattering size. According to thumbnail I like the longer ones better..
This was the perfect excuse to pop out the 200mm F2.0, Matt!
My favorite, when I have the space. Usually on a tripod with a remote so I don't lose contact with my model 20 feet away! Outdoors, absolutely the best.
I love the way Steph hams it up to the videographer!
I already have a 70-200 tamron but i am looking at the 85 or 105. Also she is very pretty.
Great video. Simple concise explanations.
It's hard to compare these. It's like trying to compare a 2-door sports car with the family van. Both are in production and drivers are buying and using them, but for different purposes. Now, if we are talking about preferred look or aesthetics, I like the 135mm lenses most. Why? Just personal preference.
wahts that light stand at 3:50? thanks alot
NotdVPN had a major security breach....
Thanks for the heads up - I hadn't heard. I'm looking into it now.
Reading through it - seems this happened to one server in Finland in March 2018 - it did not affect activity logs, usernames, passwords or any other servers. Seems it affected other VPNs at same time, and issue resolved now.
Thanks for the heads up!
@@mattgranger the buzz around it is how Nord has handled it. Their disclosure and the length of time from knowing the issue to releasing a statement. Great video btw.
For most people in most cases, 70-200 is the safest bet, and longest keep, probably best value for money as well. In particular use case, 105 and 85 outshine 70-200. Again those occasions are few and far between for most people.
What is the model's imstragram or facebook?
I learned a LOT from this video. Thank you for teaching me.
Steph's hair is looking gorgeous!
I have an old Nikon 105mm F-2.5 and a Nikon 105mm 1.4 refurb by Nikon.
Great video, spanish native here sorry my english....what about, taking advantage being un NY a comparison Full body urban portraits between 24-70, 35mm and 85mm....Hope its a good idea...cheers
Love the T shirt Matt ... Great video too
You left off the best of the best, the Nikkor 200mm f/2. When I have the space for it I use it. Otherwise 105mm.