85mm lens for Nikon Z

RHaghro said:

i have a nikon z5

and im looking for a new lens mainly portraits i guess

I did find out the meike 85mm 1.8 Z mount for 200$

my question is has anyone used this combination?

Should i go with this considering the price or should i pay more and go f mount + ftz2 or any other options?

I have found these (i have the ftz2):

sigma art 85mm 1.4 for 630$

and nikon 85mm 1.8 for 230$

Click to expand...

RHaghro said:

Hi

hope you are all well

i have a nikon z5

and im looking for a new lens mainly portraits i guess

I did find out the meike 85mm 1.8 Z mount for 200$

my question is has anyone used this combination?

Should i go with this considering the price or should i pay more and go f mount + ftz2 or any other options?

I have found these (i have the ftz2):

sigma art 85mm 1.4 for 630$

and nikon 85mm 1.8 for 230$

Click to expand...

DVF Photography said:

But if you are willing to pay $630 for a Sigma Art 85mm f/1.4 ... I can for all the world not understand why you wouldn't be willing to pay about the same or even less for a used copy of the brilliant Nikon Z85mm f/1.8S...

Click to expand...

NAwlins Contrarian said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

But if you are willing to pay $630 for a Sigma Art 85mm f/1.4 ... I can for all the world not understand why you wouldn't be willing to pay about the same or even less for a used copy of the brilliant Nikon Z85mm f/1.8S...

Click to expand...

I thought about posting the same--a new, native Nikon Z 85mm f/1.8 is only 10% more than that Sigma--but it occurred to me that some people see an f/1.4 lens as far more desirable than an f/1.8 lens. Personally I do not agree with that view. It's only an 0.67-stop difference. IMO the difference in depth of field / background blur is fairly subtle, and in this day of great sensors and amazing noise reduction, the difference between e.g. shooting at ISO 400 and ISO 640 is not important. But obviously more than a few people disagree.

Click to expand...

DVF Photography said:

DVF Photography said:

DVF Photography said:

But if you are willing to pay $630 for a Sigma Art 85mm f/1.4 ... I can for all the world not understand why you wouldn't be willing to pay about the same or even less for a used copy of the brilliant Nikon Z85mm f/1.8S...

Click to expand...

I thought about posting the same--a new, native Nikon Z 85mm f/1.8 is only 10% more than that Sigma--but it occurred to me that some people see an f/1.4 lens as far more desirable than an f/1.8 lens. Personally I do not agree with that view. It's only an 0.67-stop difference. IMO the difference in depth of field / background blur is fairly subtle, and in this day of great sensors and amazing noise reduction, the difference between e.g. shooting at ISO 400 and ISO 640 is not important. But obviously more than a few people disagree.

Click to expand...

Well, Nikon seems to agree with you as well, since their Z 50mm f/1.8 is S-line, and their new f/1.4 isn't...
And I'm also with you, up to a point. The only reason I would choose an f/1.4 over an f/1.8 is when the f/1.4 would be significantly sharper in quality - as seems to be the case in some examples. And methinks that should be the main reason to go for an f/1.4, not the gain in aperture, which as you correctly state is meagre at most.
Then again, I'm more of a zoom user: 80% of the time my Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 is mounted, so for the other 20% I feel it's noth worth investing heaps of money in a usually more expensive f/1.4 ;-)

Click to expand...

NAwlins Contrarian said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

But if you are willing to pay $630 for a Sigma Art 85mm f/1.4 ... I can for all the world not understand why you wouldn't be willing to pay about the same or even less for a used copy of the brilliant Nikon Z85mm f/1.8S...

Click to expand...

I thought about posting the same--a new, native Nikon Z 85mm f/1.8 is only 10% more than that Sigma--but it occurred to me that some people see an f/1.4 lens as far more desirable than an f/1.8 lens. Personally I do not agree with that view. It's only an 0.67-stop difference. IMO the difference in depth of field / background blur is fairly subtle, and in this day of great sensors and amazing noise reduction, the difference between e.g. shooting at ISO 400 and ISO 640 is not important. But obviously more than a few people disagree.

Click to expand...

Well, Nikon seems to agree with you as well, since their Z 50mm f/1.8 is S-line, and their new f/1.4 isn't...
And I'm also with you, up to a point. The only reason I would choose an f/1.4 over an f/1.8 is when the f/1.4 would be significantly sharper in quality - as seems to be the case in some examples. And methinks that should be the main reason to go for an f/1.4, not the gain in aperture, which as you correctly state is meagre at most.
Then again, I'm more of a zoom user: 80% of the time my Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 is mounted, so for the other 20% I feel it's noth worth investing heaps of money in a usually more expensive f/1.4 ;-)

Click to expand...

You say the only reason you would choose an f/1.4 over an f/1.8 is when the f/1.4 would be significantly sharper; fair enough. I say the only reason an f/1.4 would be significantly sharper than an f/1.8 is because it's on the whole designed to a higher standard. Historically and to some extent currently, f/1.4 and faster primes, and f/2.8 zooms, were designed with more emphasis on image quality and less emphasis on cost and weight. But there's nothing inherent about optical design that makes it so; the manufacturers could design top-performing f/1.8 or f/2 primes and f/4 zooms. Indeed, Medium Format Talk forum moderator / scientist Jim Kasson believes that to the extent there is truth to a 'medium format look', it's because on the whole the lenses have smaller maximum f-stops (e.g. 'normal' lenses of typically f/2.8 and at most f/1.7, versus FF normal lenses of typically f/1.4 and sometimes f/1.2) and therefore can be designed for better optical performance tradeoffs.

Click to expand...

NAwlins Contrarian said:

I have not used any of the Nikon Z f/1.8 S lenses, but they seem to have very good reputations.

Click to expand...

InkedMarie said:

Is there a reason you aren’t going with the Nikon Z 85/1.8? You can probably find one refurbished on the Nikon website or used on one of the reputable used dealers.

Marie

Click to expand...

DVF Photography said:

RHaghro said:

Hi

hope you are all well

i have a nikon z5

and im looking for a new lens mainly portraits i guess

I did find out the meike 85mm 1.8 Z mount for 200$

my question is has anyone used this combination?

Should i go with this considering the price or should i pay more and go f mount + ftz2 or any other options?

I have found these (i have the ftz2):

sigma art 85mm 1.4 for 630$

and nikon 85mm 1.8 for 230$

Click to expand...

I can recommend the Viltrox AF 85mm f/1.8 STM. I've used it on my Z6III for a while now, and while its performance may be not on par with the Nikon Z 85mm f/1.8S, it's more than good enough for me. Don't know about the Meike, but I've read good reviews about it.

But if you are willing to pay $630 for a Sigma Art 85mm f/1.4 - and I don't know if you already have the FTZ, but count an additional $200 if you don't - I can for all the world not understand why you wouldn't be willing to pay about the same or even less for a used copy of the brilliant Nikon Z85mm f/1.8S...

Click to expand...

NAwlins Contrarian said:

NAwlins Contrarian said:

But if you are willing to pay $630 for a Sigma Art 85mm f/1.4 ... I can for all the world not understand why you wouldn't be willing to pay about the same or even less for a used copy of the brilliant Nikon Z85mm f/1.8S...

Click to expand...

I thought about posting the same--a new, native Nikon Z 85mm f/1.8 is only 10% more than that Sigma--but it occurred to me that some people see an f/1.4 lens as far more desirable than an f/1.8 lens. Personally I do not agree with that view. It's only an 0.67-stop difference. IMO the difference in depth of field / background blur is fairly subtle, and in this day of great sensors and amazing noise reduction, the difference between e.g. shooting at ISO 400 and ISO 640 is not important. But obviously more than a few people disagree.

Click to expand...