A Review of the Nikon NIKKOR Z 85mm f/1.2 S Lens

The new Nikon NIKKOR Z 85mm f/1.2 S lens is here, and it brings with it the promise of some of the most uncompromising optical performance ever seen from the company. Can it live up to that promise in practice, though? This excellent video review takes a look at the new lens and the sort of performance and image quality you can expect from it in practice. 

Coming to you from Matt Irwin Photography, this great video review takes a look at the new Nikon NIKKOR Z 85mm f/1.2 S lens. Wide-aperture 85mm lenses have long been the tool of choice for portrait and wedding photographers, but as mirrorless has taken over, their optical quality has taken a leap forward, particularly at those maximum apertures, with multiple lenses from different manufacturers demonstrating superlative performance. And now, it seems like it is Nikon's turn, with the NIKKOR Z 85mm f/1.2 S turning it very impressive performance, even at f/1.2, which is sure to please bokeh fanatics everywhere. And while the lens is unsurprisingly expensive, its price is in line with similar lenses, such as the Canon RF 85mm f/1.2 L USM. Check out the video above for Irwin's full thoughts on the new lens. 

Alex Cooke's picture

Alex Cooke is a Cleveland-based portrait, events, and landscape photographer. He holds an M.S. in Applied Mathematics and a doctorate in Music Composition. He is also an avid equestrian.

Log in or register to post comments
Jeff D's picture

I'm really looking forward to getting this lens, but what I don't quite get is the cost compared to the Z 50mm f/1.2 S. The 50mm not only has more glass, but more specialty glass as well, along with more specialized coatings, such ARNEO. Both lenses are otherwise constructed similarly with respect to materials, are about the same size and weight, and both have dual stepping motors -- and the 50mm even has an OLED panel, which I would imagine adds to the cost of construction. Why, then, is Nikon launching the 85mm f/1.2 at $700 US more than the 50mm f/1.2? I wonder if their answer is simply: "Because we can."