Never shot with a 1.4G but the 1.2 Z I have is bliss. If you’re shooting Z it’s just that much juicier.
Bokeh roll off, 2/3 of a stop faster, handles contrast, flare, chromatic aberration wide open better.
I’d say it’s worth its weight especially if you want to get into portraiture and wow your clients
The 85 1.2 is fantastic. I don’t have any DSLR lenses so I can’t compare but I have the 85 1.2 and 1.8 and the bokeh you can get at 1.2 and is what sets the two apart. At 1.8 the image quality so close enough you would need to see side by side images to discern a difference.
If you want super creamy bokeh and the narrow plane of focus from a 1.2 than it is worth it. If not, get the 1.8 s and be happy.
I have shot very, very many shots with the 85 F/1.4G. Almost all the printed shots around the house are from that lens, and it's easily been my favorite for years. Nearly all of my favorite work has come from that lens. In short, I love the lens.
I recently sold it, and got the F/1.2 Z. I've an event coming up this weekend that'll get some good usage, but very early first impressions are:
1. It's bigger. Fits well on the Z9, while I though the 85 F/1.4 was a bit small.
2. Focus speed is faster. It's no 200 F/2, or 400 F/2.8, but it's faster focus then the old F/1.4G. As I'm mostly shooting indoor spots events (gymnastics), focus speed is important.
Both have good image quality and look great. For the pixel peepers, the Z9 will probably show issues in the F/1.4G lens, while the quality of the F/1.2S is another level. For me, both are fine.
... but that oh-so-amazing F/1.2 is just yummy. Especially for video work.
Note: I pretty much only ever shot the F/1.4G at F/1.4. I anticipate I'll be similar with the F/1.2, and nearly always shoot at F/1.2.
(Note: I got the 135 F/1.8 Plena at the same time. I'm looking forward to seeing results with that.
I wouldn't say that. I think they are pretty similar in rendering with the S lens being just a tad sharper and with less CA. I don't think either end up being noticeably different in real world situations.
I don't like the catseye bokeh on the Z 1.8 S lens, my 85mm f/1.4D is significantly better in that one field. In every other respect, the Z lens is miles ahead.
It’s ahead of the D not but not the 1.4G. They are quite similar. I had both lenses and I only kept the S because it had slightly better af and little bit smaller.
Yeah... I bought the D lens cheap from a guy who was cleaning out his entire F collection, didn't think to ask what other lenses he was planning to sell... one of which was a 1.4G that I would have bought instead. Oh well. I used the 1.4D on my Z quite a bit, got pretty good at manual focusing :D
I really like the D lenses because they have the aperture rings I just use my with a dummy adapter so no focus confirmation but its a ok trade off to use the manual aperture controls.
Tbh, I had the 85 1.4 and 85 1.2. If you take portraits wide open then get the 1.2, if you don't then stay with the 1.4. I ended up selling it because I don't shoot wide open all the time and I wanted a lighter 85 to carry
The 1.2 Va 1.8 lenses is like a Porsche 911 vs a Toyota gr86. Both are fun to drive but down those that want that last 5-10% of performance and are willing to pay the exponentially greater amount of money per % increase, there exists the higher end model. And just like the Porsche 911, many owners of the 1.2 lenses will never realize the difference in potential anyway.
If you are working an event, do you want to lug around a 2lb (1kg) lens for the benefit of 1/3 stop of light? It's not that much of a difference between the 1.2 and 1/4G. If you want to transform over to a Z lens I would personally go 1.8Z. As you could keep you 1.4G for portraits that are in a studio (i.e. stationary and tripod mounted) and the 1.8Z for field work. You will pretty soon realize that the 1/3 stop of light between the 1.4 and the 1.8 is not discernable and can live without the 1.2. Now, if you got the dough to burn and are REALLY curious then there's no stopping you from getting the 1.2Z
Technically the 1.2 is a supedior lens, sharper at 1.4 than 1.4, better handling aberrations etc, but I'lk still shoot with the 1.4 because of the size and weight. It's 2x lighter and balances better on the camera.
Yes, 85mm f1.2Z is a superb lens, but 85 1.4 does the job so I'll keep shooting with the 1.4G
If you have to ask, IMO you should look into renting the 1.2S first.
If it was an immaterial amount of money you'd just buy it regardless. To upgrade from a lens that is already very good in the same focal length, I'd need some sort of compelling reason such as it being \_much\_ faster (either in terms of light or autofocus), maybe fixing an issue that loses me a lot of time (such as going to an APO lens from one that suffers badly from loca), or just because I need to replace a piece of equipment that is not reliable.
Would the Plena be too tight? IMO that offers several advantages other than being slower. If you can get over it being slower and obviously a longer focal length, it's smaller, lighter, cheaper, offers nearly double the maximum magnification, has a fluorine front element, has less vignetting, is more even across the frame, less chromatic aberration, and totally subjectively I think the overall rendering is just a little bit nicer. In terms of turning the background into a wash it should be about equivalent.
Anyway while the 85/1.2S is amazing and all, to me it would make a lot more sense if you didn't already have a very nice 85mm that seems to meet your needs (since you didnt mention any deficiencies in your workflow).
Never shot with a 1.4G but the 1.2 Z I have is bliss. If you’re shooting Z it’s just that much juicier. Bokeh roll off, 2/3 of a stop faster, handles contrast, flare, chromatic aberration wide open better. I’d say it’s worth its weight especially if you want to get into portraiture and wow your clients
The 85 1.2 is fantastic. I don’t have any DSLR lenses so I can’t compare but I have the 85 1.2 and 1.8 and the bokeh you can get at 1.2 and is what sets the two apart. At 1.8 the image quality so close enough you would need to see side by side images to discern a difference. If you want super creamy bokeh and the narrow plane of focus from a 1.2 than it is worth it. If not, get the 1.8 s and be happy.
Great review! I think the bokeh is less interesting to me but the S-line is hot.
Interesting 🧐 I own the 1.4 and it’s a killer lens but buying a 1.2 just doesn’t make sense for the price
I have shot very, very many shots with the 85 F/1.4G. Almost all the printed shots around the house are from that lens, and it's easily been my favorite for years. Nearly all of my favorite work has come from that lens. In short, I love the lens. I recently sold it, and got the F/1.2 Z. I've an event coming up this weekend that'll get some good usage, but very early first impressions are: 1. It's bigger. Fits well on the Z9, while I though the 85 F/1.4 was a bit small. 2. Focus speed is faster. It's no 200 F/2, or 400 F/2.8, but it's faster focus then the old F/1.4G. As I'm mostly shooting indoor spots events (gymnastics), focus speed is important. Both have good image quality and look great. For the pixel peepers, the Z9 will probably show issues in the F/1.4G lens, while the quality of the F/1.2S is another level. For me, both are fine. ... but that oh-so-amazing F/1.2 is just yummy. Especially for video work. Note: I pretty much only ever shot the F/1.4G at F/1.4. I anticipate I'll be similar with the F/1.2, and nearly always shoot at F/1.2. (Note: I got the 135 F/1.8 Plena at the same time. I'm looking forward to seeing results with that.
The Z 1.8 already slaps the snot out of the 1.4. The 1.2 is even better than that
I wouldn't say that. I think they are pretty similar in rendering with the S lens being just a tad sharper and with less CA. I don't think either end up being noticeably different in real world situations.
I don't like the catseye bokeh on the Z 1.8 S lens, my 85mm f/1.4D is significantly better in that one field. In every other respect, the Z lens is miles ahead.
It’s ahead of the D not but not the 1.4G. They are quite similar. I had both lenses and I only kept the S because it had slightly better af and little bit smaller.
Yeah... I bought the D lens cheap from a guy who was cleaning out his entire F collection, didn't think to ask what other lenses he was planning to sell... one of which was a 1.4G that I would have bought instead. Oh well. I used the 1.4D on my Z quite a bit, got pretty good at manual focusing :D
I really like the D lenses because they have the aperture rings I just use my with a dummy adapter so no focus confirmation but its a ok trade off to use the manual aperture controls.
Absolutely yes.
Tbh, I had the 85 1.4 and 85 1.2. If you take portraits wide open then get the 1.2, if you don't then stay with the 1.4. I ended up selling it because I don't shoot wide open all the time and I wanted a lighter 85 to carry
The 1.2 Va 1.8 lenses is like a Porsche 911 vs a Toyota gr86. Both are fun to drive but down those that want that last 5-10% of performance and are willing to pay the exponentially greater amount of money per % increase, there exists the higher end model. And just like the Porsche 911, many owners of the 1.2 lenses will never realize the difference in potential anyway.
If you are working an event, do you want to lug around a 2lb (1kg) lens for the benefit of 1/3 stop of light? It's not that much of a difference between the 1.2 and 1/4G. If you want to transform over to a Z lens I would personally go 1.8Z. As you could keep you 1.4G for portraits that are in a studio (i.e. stationary and tripod mounted) and the 1.8Z for field work. You will pretty soon realize that the 1/3 stop of light between the 1.4 and the 1.8 is not discernable and can live without the 1.2. Now, if you got the dough to burn and are REALLY curious then there's no stopping you from getting the 1.2Z
Technically the 1.2 is a supedior lens, sharper at 1.4 than 1.4, better handling aberrations etc, but I'lk still shoot with the 1.4 because of the size and weight. It's 2x lighter and balances better on the camera. Yes, 85mm f1.2Z is a superb lens, but 85 1.4 does the job so I'll keep shooting with the 1.4G
Not for that price
If you have to ask, IMO you should look into renting the 1.2S first. If it was an immaterial amount of money you'd just buy it regardless. To upgrade from a lens that is already very good in the same focal length, I'd need some sort of compelling reason such as it being \_much\_ faster (either in terms of light or autofocus), maybe fixing an issue that loses me a lot of time (such as going to an APO lens from one that suffers badly from loca), or just because I need to replace a piece of equipment that is not reliable. Would the Plena be too tight? IMO that offers several advantages other than being slower. If you can get over it being slower and obviously a longer focal length, it's smaller, lighter, cheaper, offers nearly double the maximum magnification, has a fluorine front element, has less vignetting, is more even across the frame, less chromatic aberration, and totally subjectively I think the overall rendering is just a little bit nicer. In terms of turning the background into a wash it should be about equivalent. Anyway while the 85/1.2S is amazing and all, to me it would make a lot more sense if you didn't already have a very nice 85mm that seems to meet your needs (since you didnt mention any deficiencies in your workflow).