The differences are so damn small these days but damn Nikon always have absolute superb files. Comming from a lifetime Canon guy

Yes they did. I would not dare, though, comment on skin tone being more natural - because the images are "raw processed" with Adobe Camera Raw and I don;t know what profile was applied. And. And. Microcontrast - don't understand what you mean with that. Contour sharpness? Looking at DxO Mark for 1.2L glass they seemed not very sharp and with a T-stop of 1.5 at f/1.2 they were as "fast" as another vendor's f/1.4G that also tested at T-1.5. Or detail? That depends on the quality of raw processing and some detail related slider settings. The Z 85/1.8S is the sharpest lens in DxO Mark with the Z 50/.8S second, IIRC. I have all these 1.8S primes and they're great. Yes, AF has its moments of hunting that I need to solve with MF (that's manual focus, not mother f... - even when that's what I think occasionally). The Nikon shots to me were extremely easy to identify with a perfect score. It's not in the skin tone but in the blue in the model's sweater. Nikon is really better at that colour. The Z 85/1.2S? I had said I would not need such a lens in the past. I shot medium and large format - who needs a lens faster than f/2.8 ;) ? Only SLR shooters who get a dark viewfinder when daylight disappears, but at medium format we did not need that even. Well, after Matt Irwin's video on the Z 85/1.2S I went from "never" to "on the fence". In the meantime, I also bought the Z 105/2.8S macro lens for its 1:1 ability and being a great lens. Well, its rendition is beautiful. You have to test that! I don't need a 135 next to that. If you have a Z 70-200/2.8S accidentally (I never shot zoom lenses) then note that at 200/2.8 that lens has a depth of field comparable to the 85/1.2 . (I am well aware of the Circle of Confusion in the Depth of Field formula (*).) (*) Next to distance, focal length, aperture, Depth of Field depend on a parameter that is a composite of a few things: film/sensor resolution, lens resolution, processing, print/display size, viewing distance to print/display.

I would wait for the finished version and the running-toward-camera reviews to come out first. Jared said this pre-release model was great (I think) in the walking-toward-camera test, so that's a good sign. Running is altogether another beast. And, this one's an f/1.2 lens (very shallow depth of field), so the margin to misfocus increases over, let's say, the physically smaller-size aperture of an f/1.8 85mm lens. But, who knows - mirrorless focus technology has come a long way, so I'd rather just wait for the official final retail version and take it from there. 👍

I have the RF 85 1.2 and its really snappy. I can’t account for other brands however.

You just have to look at Sony with their ultra fast linear motors to know what is possible. Time will tell if Nikon does as good a job.

Manny did comment how fast it was in his review. But, as said above I would def wait to see how the final production performs before the dive in.

​ @pianofinger The best qualifier to me is nervous. You can feel that it has a lot of work and that there is reason why Canon used their big boy USM motor. The AF performance considering the amount of glass is impressive.

Landscape?

​@@johndavolta3124 Some people might want to get creative or express themselves in different styles. This includes landscapes where everything isn't pinsharp corner to corner.

@@TheDeltaMoo good point

I had the same problem with 85 f/1.8 on Nikon Z9, today I have the same problem on Nikon Z8. If I close the aperture down to f/2.2 the problem goes away. But that's not what I want to do with this lens. Haven't found another solution yet. Maybe the solution would be to buy 85 f / 1.2

@@KGMSSMGK I have this slightly problem with my 14-30 f4 as well... Jared showed this on the Z8 review as well...

They chose the biggest mount but to feed the bigger rear element, all glasses have to be bigger (I think)

Big and heavy lenses look pro. People don't want small 50mm f/1.2 like the Sony GM. Cameras need to be big and heavy like the Z9, and the lenses need to be heavy and long like the Nikkor.

I believe so, focus breathing is very controlled on the 85mm f1.2 also.

Even with the shitty price of it had been a 24mm 2.8 or lower it would be an auto buy for me. That would be 35mm equivalent on aps-c and then 24mm on full frame? That would own.

Any lens over like 300-400 is more than im willing to invest in.

I had the same problem with 85 f/1.8 on Nikon Z9, today I have the same problem on Nikon Z8. If I close the aperture down to f/2.2 the problem goes away. But that's not what I want to do with this lens. Haven't found another solution yet. Interesting that on Z6II it works fine.

Have we gotten too picky about the microscopic in/out of focus?

ISOs are not the same on different cameras. It has nothing to do with the lenses.

@U.S. Grant Yes, correct. Most of us already know that technical aspect. My comment was aimed at the obvious difference in appearance of the images taken at the exact same settings and ambient conditions. I didn't want to get technical in my initial post as most are only interested in the visual result of the image. Nonetheless, thanks for your input as it is helpful for those who may still not be aware of such facts. 👌

@@USGrant21st you should research t-stop (Light Transmittance in a Lens).

@@Joseph-iu6ip LOL. You are assuming too much. T-stop is not a secret to anybody and variations are usually quite insignificant, as the coatings and the number of elements are broadly comparable. You can see the difference in pictures of at least 1/3 stop, it's clearly the result of camera ISO.

@@USGrant21st good I see you’ve done some research.

For this test, a higher shutterspeed is preferred vs iso performance, since the higher shutterspeed will "eliminate" any chance of camerashake. But dont know if this is the reason behind this, in his test, or just a coincidence.

It's Pennsylvania. You need all the ISO you can get. I'm a native of the Keystone State, BTW.

Jared had a video where he answered this question, but I couldn't find it with a quick search of his channel. He locks in a fast shutter speed to avoid any issue with the subject moving (sensor stabilization should handle camera shake). With cameras like the Z9 and R5, having the ISO float as high as ISO 1600 has little image quality effect.

Yes as demonstrated close ups focus perfectly but full body portraits tend to be an issue

Is it Worth buying bro I shoot weddings and alot of portraits

Because they can, and it helps their bottom line as they compete with the larger business (Canon is about 5x and Sony about 25x). I think very few photographers will say, "I would have bought it for $2300, but I refuse to for $2800." It also lets them discount it from time to time and still keep it over $2000.

me too, sigma 85mm 1.4 is sharp, and price good.

Never tried the Sigma, I have the other two, and several more recent lenses. I still consider the 85 1.4D my best portrait lens. Not the sharpest, but beautiful rendering, unique. Never going to sell it.

@@ilmatanela1816 I had the AF 1,4D, but it got a problem with the aperture, so i brought it to the service, it took more than two months to get parts from japan... So i bought the AFS 1,8, and got short after a good deal for the Sigma... As i take pics from bands and now theatre, i like the low light and fast focus possibilities. But for "normal" portraits, its too sharp.... Need only the AFS 1,4 to make a compair, and then choose which stays....

I think the camera is in the same place due to the fov of the background, but I think the model is 1/2 a step further back in the Nikon shot, hence the slightly flatter look. I like the color rendition on the Nikon more than the canon.

Not if the 1.4 is working for your needs.

What will 10-20% improvement do for you? Better images for your clients? Yes, upgrade. More satisfaction of taking the best image you can, and feeling challenged to match your abilities with the camera/lens? Yes, upgrade. Anything else, probably stick with the 85mm f/1.4G.

@@UnconventionalReasoning the f1.4 from the F mount is indeed a wonderful lens, and I think most of us that shoot with it are gonna think long and hard 0:14 before making the switch. But at the end of the day, if you shoot portraits in studio - this may be the most important focal length in the camera bag, and probably worth getting the bear in class lens if we can manage it.

@@johnpeterson7264 Yes, that's what I meant by "better images for your clients". Though studio portraits may minimize the advantages of the 85mm f/1.2S over the 85mm f/1.4G. Environmental portraits may be where the new lens separates itself.

It's true. Why do I even bother to try taking pictures with the Z7II?!? It's hopeless!

@@UnconventionalReasoning I threw my Z9 in the River!

That 200 - 600 is in b&h cart right now and after using it in Xmas I'm in love.

It’s cause it has better glass.

Hiring a model costs a lot less than either lens.

On Z6II it works great. On Z8 or Z9, there is such a problem both in full-length portraits and in facial ones. The only solution I found is to close it to f/2.2

The creamier background was the exact intent of the lens design. I noticed the same thing, especially with the tree in the mural behind Sydney. [9:30]

It depends on how often during a photo session the better lens causes the "Wow!" reaction. Getting that early in the session can help the subject relax and make the whole experience better, That quickly justifies the price difference, and amazing lenses help achieve that. Also, the size also helps create a sense of trust in the photographer, even if it's for the wrong reasons. At a wedding, it gives the photographer more of a commanding presence, and people are more cooperative. At least, those have been my experiences with lenses of this quality level.

​@@UnconventionalReasoning This is a strange explanation. The very small differences in quality are not visible on a small LCD in the first place. Even when tethered to an iPad or laptop, there are no differences. You really need to process the RAW file first and look at it on a calibrated screen. If you want the 'wow' effect, simply apply a contrast curve and boost the colours beyond realism.

@@harpenfluit I think the differences between a good lens and an exceptional lens are more easily apparent, even in the camera's jpg.

@@UnconventionalReasoning The difference here is between an excellent lens (the Nikon 85mm/1.8) and another excellent lens (the Nikon 85mm/1.2). You will not see any difference between these two lenses from f/1.8 and above on an LCD. Really, but rent the lens and do some tests. Most people who buy very expensive lenses convince themselves that the differences are obvious, but I have done some blind tests in the past (with another lens of course) and about 50% of the time the more expensive lens was chosen as the best. ;)

@@harpenfluit sorry, that was too mean even by internet standards. Sometimes the best response, for me, for perceived dismissiveness and condescension is snark.

My Z6-2 does not have this problem, but I have the same problem on Z9 and Z8

Viewfinder image uses the currently selected Picture Control (Standard in this case). Lightroom ignores that. If you use NX Studio or manually select Camera Matching->Standard in Lightroom you should see nearly identical results.

LMAO 🤣🤣🤣

I hope when and if Sony make their new 85 1.2. It wont be so heavy and big. Otherwise.. 1.4 it is. For me at least. Also Sony lenses are generally cheaper than Canon/nikon.

@@sgpork for now sony is always making the lens as compact as they can, but nikon does the opposite lol

@@rofi3930 yea. True to certain extend tho. Still depends on lenses. Hmm sony 50 1.2 is good example tho. It is smaller lighter and cheaper than the nikon/canon. And its not a bad lens in any means.

@@sgpork yes but the Sony is also not actually a 50mm. It's a 50-ish mm, something around 46mm or 47mm I believe. It doesn't make any practical difference though.

I'm very happy with my Z7II. I can appreciate what it does really well and not worry about the 3% differences here and there.

Only you know the scale you would use for "much better". For what I do, the 105 f/1.4G is still great. If I got hired to photograph a wedding later this year, I would reserve a 85 f/1.2S rental immediately, especially if the 35mm f/1.2S is also released this year.

@@CabbitCast 135 f/2 or f/1.8, it is unclear which.

@@CabbitCast right below them are the 28mm f/2.8 and 40mm f/2 on the same line. We are also counting on the 35mm f/1.2S, which I do hope happens, though it could be a 35mm f/1.4. You're probably right that it will be a 135mm f/1.8. I do think the size savings with f/2 may be worth it.