My favourite Portrait lenses

You can stay up to date with Matts latest work at www.mattgrange... - join the mailing list!
Check out the Nikon Expert Setup Guide: learn.mattgran...
/ _mattgranger
/ mattgranger

[@mattgranger]

What's your favourite focal length for portraits?? Check out Compagnon bags: geni.us/Compagnon Check out the 85mm 1.4 at B&H: bhpho.to/2KPUjVF And at Amazon: geni.us/Mfh8v And you should definitely check the bargain f1.8 version: geni.us/pU7m1F The 105mm at B&H: bhpho.to/2lRSwk3 Amazon: geni.us/Nikkor10514 70-200mm f2.8e B&H: bhpho.to/2zLz7Lu Amazon: geni.us/70200e Also the much cheaper Tamron 70-200: bhpho.to/2K46BJA Amazon: geni.us/tCGt This is the Flash I used: geni.us/ProfotoA1

[@mavfan1]

For portraits or just for headshots? Sorry, it's just my pet peeve that so many people say "portrait lens" when they mean "headshot lens" because they're talking about the distortion issue and it's just not an issue in environmental portraits where 24mm or 35mm can be ideal.

[@hawg427]

I have a 105mm F2.5 from film days, a Zeiss 100 F2 macro MF and if I had to get a new lens the new 105 1.4 would be the one. All Nikon lenses.

[@socratesvela8285]

Matt Granger 200mm

[@Dan.gibson.photographer]

I own a 135mmf1.8 a 85mm1.4 but I like the 70-200 cause of his versatility 😉

[@RealRaynedance]

135mm, which makes me wish the primes weren't so expensive. My current portrait lens is an 80-200 f/2.8 and the back focusing problem is abominable.

[@KeithDonegan]

Love Steph's smile!

[@relaxerization]

I think 70-200 is the best =) so universal, portraits, sports, fashion events etc...

[@reginaldbowls7180]

Steph is absolutely Gorgeous.

[@FinalManaTrigger]

She's an absolute work of art.

[@ldstirling]

The 85mm and 105mm f/1.4 lenses are really kind of niche lenses that are fantastic but designed to appeal to particular shooters. It's hard to argue against the 70-200mm f/2.8 as the general purpose portrait lens given its flexibility and price. The 70-200 also works well for landscape shots, weddings, and sports, giving it a more broad appeal and better bang-for-buck factor. In terms of value, I think the Tamron 70-200mm G2 lens offers incredible performance for the money and would definitely be my choice.

[@pawelhener5338]

Especially Nikon F Mount offers nice alternatives for the 85 1.4 and 105 1.4 / you could go afs 85 1.8 G/ af85 1.8 D af85 1.4d / af dc 105 2.0 / MF 135 2.8 / MF 135 3.5 / MF 105 2.5 / af 180 2.8... Tamron 70-200 2.8G2 most of these lenses are way cheaper than the lenses shown and will - imho - offer similar if not better results (yes I am looking at you, AF 105 2.0 DC!)

[@JohnDrummondPhoto]

Grimace427 I was thisclose to buying the Tamron for the same reasons you did. Until I picked one up. Knowing I would soon be backpacking in mountainous country on vacation, I opted for the much lighter Canon 70-200 F/4L IS instead. But the Tamron is great for the price point.

[@KevinZJR]

ldstirling The 70-200 is just a dumbell...

[@ldstirling]

Actually, I don't own the Tamron lens, or even a 70-200mm f/2.8. I use the Nikon 70-200mm f/4G and I think it does about 90% of what I would use the f/2.8 lens for. One place where I miss the f/2.8 is when shooting indoor sports or dance where the light is very low and the ISO is pegged at 6400.

[@ldstirling]

I agree with you. I shoot a Nikon 70-200mm f/4G myself and love this lens for it's sharpness and much smaller size/weight. For about 90% of what I want to shoot, the f/4 lens is perfect and not worth spending the money on the f/2.8 for me.

[@MichelDetailleur]

For my combination I have chosen the 104 f1.4 and the 70-200 mm F4. A beautyful combination. If I need wide app it's the 105 that does the job, if more flexibility is needed the 70-200 f4 does a perfectly job at at less open appertures. Very good quality, nice Bokeh and the VR imbedded. This combination with the d850 is a really suburb toolcombo ! Thank you for your educating channel. i'm a fan!

[@williamdyer1099]

Matt, thank you for this video. It gives a solid example of lens perspective via focal length. I have the Nikon 85 1.4G, the 105 f2 DC, 70-200 2.8 E FLD, and Sigma 135 f1.8. I use the 85 for 1/2 to full length shots, the 105 f2 DC for tighter head shots especially for older clients as while it's sharp it's not too sharp. The 70-200 E FLD is sharp, fast focusing, and versatile. For weddings, tight portraits and rapidly changing framing, nothing is better. Finally the Sigma 135 f1.8 has razor sharp resolution, beautiful bokeh, and fast focusing. For portraits that can stand the critical view. Each has its place and use and I plan to keep them all

[@stanimal8]

IMO, 85mm on a full frame body is much too wide for tight head shots, 135 is my sweet spot, and allow me to be a little over 6 feet away from my subject . For APS-C sized sensors, 85mm works pretty well. The geometric distortion of the face is due to distance to the subject. Now if my subject has very prominent facial features, I might go with a longer lens and step back an extra 2-4 feet to minimize distortion of their features.

[@Calispeedboi]

I love the look of the 85mm for full length fashion photos

[@GarnettLeary]

I love my 70-200 F2.8. I dumped my 85 and a 200mm prime for it. I typically end up zoomed to around 135mm. If I go in tight and wide it’s on a 50mm prime. 105mm is what forensics and medical shooters use because of it’s most accurate representation of faces. I prefer a slightly more compressed 135. If I wasn’t in USA I might feel differently. Here most everyone is overweight and a little flattery goes a long way toward keeping happy clients.

[@WeR804]

Is it good on crop sensor camera? Like nikon d7200

[@prawirafadjar]

Hey, interesting that you've mentioned about forensic and medical shooters using 105mm due to true representation of the face. Do you have article or source for this? Would like to understand more. Interestingly enough too, Canon doesnt have 105mm in their line up, unless they go with Sigma

[@creepyloner1979]

i've shot great portraits with everything from 15mm to 300mm. it all depends on what sort of look you're going for, how intimate you want the photo to feel, what distance to subject is most flattering for any particular model's face shape, etc...

[@ajaxrodriguez8956]

My Tamron 7070-200mm G2 on my D850 is my go to portrait lens. For full body, I bring out my Tamrom 24-70mm G2.

[@socratesvela8285]

That bag looks nice, but also says, rob me!

[@stanimal8]

I can't imagine using a leather camera bag. How well would it hold up in use? My Domke little bit bigger bag has served me well for 3 decades. Looking to switch to backpack in the future as I get older, to distribute the weight across both shoulders.

[@Rashadmcka]

Before I clicked, I thought “Didn’t he just do a video on this not long ago?” Little did I know, it was has been many years! I probably watched it a couple years after it come out tho, can’t remember.

[@marcelomachado9703]

In my opinion, when you talk about portraits, the 135mm replicate her face more close to the real. 85mm give a "rounding effect" and 200mm make her more skinny that she really look. Thanks for share!

[@AykutArgun]

I really like the second part with the bokeh difference. However, I think the distortion differences are mostly about facial expressions. I believe it is possible to do the same tests with picking such photos from the shots in a way that 200mm would look the most distorted. A more realistic test would have been a photo of a statue head for experimental distortion comparison.

[@jasonandrews7355]

I preferred 105 for the tight headshot. To me, 135 and 200 compressed the face a bit too much, and 85 was slightly too exaggerated. That said, if I saw any 1 of them in isolation, I don't think I would notice distortion or compression.

[@shaolin95]

105mm stilll shows clear distortion. 135mm should be the shortest you use for headshots.

[@doctorkdsify]

Many decades ago my favorite lens was the 105 f/2.7 on my Nikon F. There was an article showing the same 85, 105 and 135 comparison. The 105 looked the best then and now. The 105mm today would be in my bag if I could afford it.

[@genyosha16]

70-200. I have the Sigma version and it is my go to lens for nearly everything. 135mm is my preferred focal length for portraits

[@drewcunningham2]

I don't see much distortion, she just has a wider smile thus more squished cheeks in the first image - the difference between the various lenses is next to indistinguishable in my opinion and in that studio environment - now outdoors, I am sure there is a big difference in bokeh and distance compression

[@jessehughes88]

I think the 70-200 takes the cake. Even in the teaser still for this video, you see a definite winner in contrast and I think it’s definitely a solid winner. I’m glad I bought that one (well the G cause I don’t like the reversed controls of the E)

[@mrbrownkayumangi]

Very beautiful model and excellent choice of portrait lens. With these combo it’s very hard to take a bad photo even for an average skill photographer but no doubt a very good in marketing.

[@lescobrandon3047]

My favorite is the Nikkor 105mm VR macro lens. I know I must be violating some rule, but it does work very well for me.

[@StanleyKowalski.]

i am contemplating between 85 and 105. besides that, i love Steph's smile and facial expressions

[@iloper]

Noon. Best hour for portrait

[@ChrisTopheRaz]

I worked 6 years in a studio with 300 locations back in the early 90s. Mayima RB67 medium format with a 105mm portrait lens. We even had our own dark room and did all of our developing and printing. They used a 105 for a good reason and it’s always confused me when all these new photographers keep saying 85mm is the best. Weird.

[@joelcrow]

The 105 is so smooth and the color beautiful as well. But, I would buy the 70-200!! for its versatility and especially the focus speed/accuracy. 1.4 is often too shallow for my liking, believe it or not. I'd end up shooting it at f2 anyways...

[@PhiggysDOTcom]

135mm focal length is great for the head shot so the 70-200mm is probably the best compromise as it covers all and more of the focal lengths

[@N0rdman]

If you want us to pick up on the technical details, you should ask Steph take the pictures of YOU as it is hard to see past her. What a gorgeous model and the smile, she looks like she can hold that smile forever! Thank you for the comparison of; was it lenses you say? ;) No, it was very enlightening actually. Nikon isn't my cup of tea but the same goes for any brand at the same focal length and aperture.

[@Xetenor]

Awesome video Matt! I started my portraits with a nifty 50mm :) I started with a 50mm 1.4G and then switched to the 50mm 1.8D, and added the 85mm 1.8G (I really love this lightweight gem, its so good value too). Then added the nikon 85mm F/2 ais, nikon 85mm 1.8D, nikon 105 2.5 ais, and eventually the tamron 70-200 2.8 G2 (got it brand new for less than $1000 so it was a steal), Sigma 105 1.4. It's all a matter of taste but having most recently shot with the 70-200 and 105 I must say the versatility of the 70-200 is absolutely amazing and should be in everyone's camera bag wherever they go. Once I shot with the 105 1.4 I was blown away. Each lens I got has some characteristics about them; like the 85mm F/2 ais manual focus. I love that one since it gives me really nice smoother skin tones and beautiful backgrounds when I can shoot with MF. In events I absolutely rely on my 70-200 2.8. I plan to add the tamron 85mm 1.8 and nikon 85mm 1.4 as well just so I have a 85mm 1.4. I got bad case of gear acquisition syndrome...can't help it haha. If I had to absolutely pick a focal length that is most appealing to me it would have to be the 105mm. There is just something about that focal length that makes the human face features appear very natural and appealing!

[@jeffrydemeyer5433]

Depends on the model, 200mm is generally to long for head shots, great for 1/2~2/3 bodies (or kids) 300 for adults upright. pretty much a personal and cultural preference though. People are getting used to having their faces distorted by seeing wide shots made with a phone

[@jimdailey1018]

She looks great in all of them.

[@leonisimus]

I like the 135 (have FD F2.5 for film) and I like the 85 on APSC for headshots (have 1.8 this one is really beautiful for portraiture)

[@geekdomo]

Ive been using 100-400 GM for portraits outside lately. The compression is amazing.

[@djdottor]

I'm on DX so the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 G and the Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 VC are my favourite lenses for portrait.

[@magnusclaesson5843]

The 70-200 is the one that have made the most money for portrait photographers over the years. Sidenote: For DX on a budget the tamron 100 mm macro 2.8 is a good choice.

[@ramonacosta7579]

I have been watching your videos for years. Nice work! For exterior work I love the 135mm f2 ! I think that adding a side angle video to see how far you were for every focal length would be a great way to really see the distance between you and the model.

[@greatpix]

The way I used to tell customers at the camera store I worked at is, to get a natural looking perspective 35mm is best for head to toe shots, 50mm best for head to knee, 85mm for head to waist, and 105mm for head to chest. I suppose you could continue on and say 135mm is head only but my personal opinion is that 135mm starts to flatten the face and make the ears more prominent. Which is why I wish all the camera manufacturers would make a 35mm-105mm again but make one an f2.0 or faster.

[@mattgranger]

Each to their own, but imo 35mm for head to toe is far from a natural perspective

[@riciy]

We talking FF here, right? I always liked the 85 on crop..

[@ezbron]

Which in reality, will coincide with your eye for an 135mm. I use my 85 on my crop body when i want more reach! so, if you get a full frame, you would like that 105 or 135 even!

[@riciy]

Bruno Conceição yep, That's what I wanted to imply :)

[@ShitStefanShoots]

I shoot (sensual/nude) portraits and happen to own the AF-S 1.8 85 G and AF-S 2.8 70-200 G VR II. Truth be told, I still own an 85, but I use only the 70-200. Great performance, versatile, reliable.

[@johncantrell614]

Steph just lights up a room with that smile of hers......

[@wfp9378]

I really don’t miss my f1.2 and 1.4 primes. Compared to the versatility of the 70-200 or the look of the 200 f2.0 I doubt I will buy another one.

[@patricshaw]

I prefer 135mm when shooting fashion with the 70 to 200 it seems I continue to fall on 135mm on the lens and the compression looks the most natural my eye

[@terrywbreedlove]

The best portrait lens well I guess that might be very subjective. I think the 70-200 is best in most cases. The ability to get tight headshots at anything over 85mm kind of gives it a huge advantage also too compress the background. The 85mm and 105 lenses only real advantage is shallow depth of field and that is a one trick pony.

[@andreasschon1518]

Amazing. Looking at the maths I always thought that a longer focal length would make a ball less ball like. (The reproduction ration is proportional to focal_length / distance. The shorter the focal length is and thereby the distance for a given reproduction ration, the more the reproduction ratio decreases for each cm which makes the back parts visible on left and right of the head smaller, doesn‘t it?) Either my maths is wrong or the Nikon lens have strong „lens“ distortions? At 6:05 one can see that the crops are completely different. At 200mm the head is so much broader that the used reproduction rate had to be reduced.

[@AstroDenny]

I am a fan of the 70-200 for portraits- I use a first gen VR model with my D800 and it is absolutely my go-to portrait lens. It's dated but still amazing. I definitely want to play with either the Sigma or Nikon 100(-ish) 1.4 and the Sigma 135 1.8 even though I've heard about some focus and sharpness problems with the latter. Another really cool video!

[@TheGreatLoco]

I have the Nikkor 105mm 1.4E ED, Zeiss classic APO Sonnar 2/135 and the 180mm 2.8D ED IF. I would like to have the 200mm 2.0VR, but it’s terribly expensive, even the VR I version. Good willing will have the Sigma 135mm 1.8 Art soon. Maybe it’s somewhat similar to the 200VR, in terms of fast AF and background, without the prohibitive price, size and weight.

[@jeankueo]

great compare! i have owned a 70-200 2.8 and 55 1.8. After this video i am again satisfied with my choices again :D

[@MeAMuse]

I use a macro lens for my portraits. These tend to be very sharp, but you do compromise with the bokeh though. Still F2.8 is pretty good. What's your thoughts on Macro for portraits Matt?

[@JDubyafoto]

I've always thought the Nikon 105mm lenses were the best portrait lenses ever made & I use Canon! I've got the 85mm f/1.2 & 70-200mm f/2.8 that I use for portraits, depending on how tight I need to shoot. The Nikon 105mm is tack sharp and for my tast, the best bokeh out there. I wish Canon would make a lens that could compete with that. I also shoot Sony, but that's a different animal lens-wise. I know you're mainly a Nikon shooter, but perhaps you could do a comparison like this using Sony lenses some time in the future. I always enjoy your videos and learn a lot even though I've been shooting for longer than you've been alive.

[@acsaiyanbalce4610]

I’d love to see you add the Prime 200 f2 to your arsenal!! 👍👍

[@GeneWaddle]

He has one

[@acsaiyanbalce4610]

Gene Waddle he shoulda compared that then!!

[@Olafleflibustier]

Hi ! Really wise lenses choice for a comparison ! And Steph is wonderful !

[@MostakAhmed]

I have Tamron 70-200 F2.8 G2 and I'm happy with that, I was planning to buy new 85, but after looking at this video I might think agin to spend my money. Thanks for great video

[@christianvolkner2028]

I think I prefer 85 more because of it’s perspective distortion. It is more organic and less flat like the backside of a bus:-) It gives more of a feeling that the person is a little closer to yourself. But nonetheless, 135 is really really nice for headshots!

[@Athaeus]

Sign me up for that Budget Portrait Shoot-out! Throw in your favourite portrait lens to compare with!

[@Camrographer]

Hi Matt, Given that the shorter focal length lenses produce a substantial amount of distortion is it even reasonable to give a client a sub-par image? And if one seeks to take advantage of a longer lens then a larger shooting space is required. Is it reasonable to say that few home-studio can accommodate a longer lens, which means that a studio or out-door environment is required.

[@bobsuzy1]

Including a 50mm prime like a Sigma Art 1.4 would have been interesting. I have been thinking about an 85mm but I'm not sure its worth it? Maybe go straight to the 70-200?

[@jlsc4125]

Need a little information on processing. Lightroom does a great job of correcting lens distortion, are you using that or is it just straight out of camera ?

[@alancalvert953]

I am assuming that this comparison was done on a full frame camera. What would the results be like if you were utilizing a crop sensor camera like most of us amateurs use?

[@MannyOrtiz]

This was a video I had planned to do you thief! Haha

[@MuzzFury5]

Manny Ortiz I’ll still watch your version as well! 👍

[@pawelhener5338]

Well just do the Sony version :-)

[@subirthapa8542]

@Manny Could you include the Sony 85 1.8 on your comparison as well ?

[@ramonacosta7579]

You two have very different styles, I would definitely watch yours as well!

[@oasean]

Manny Ortiz, perhaps you'll show us how well postproduction can amend the barrel distortion of an 85mm headshot.

[@ayhancapan]

So better i buy 135 mm for my APSC a6000 for head shot portrait photography... Thanks.

[@wysysi516]

D5 IS INDESTRUCTIBLE TOO😀

[@yousifalmadani6610]

i have got the new 70 to 200 mm 2.8 fl e..... its amazing lens for portrait

[@beaupfeifferrecordings]

my next gear order is a 85mm nikkor 1.8 D but the one that does not say D on the side the one that says D on the side sucks in dust when it in focus mode through the rear element Ive heard

[@DennisMoncla]

Great comparison video despite some strange comments below. I have a question: Are you implying that all 85mm lenses will distort like yours did if you get close? I'm going to pull my Sony 1.8 and my 70-200 tomorrow and test it on my daughter.

[@jaypob]

Come on guys, everyone knows the best portrait lens is the portrait mode on the iPhone X. /s (in case anyone misses it)

[@jtes1442]

Would have been cool to also add the Sigma 135 1.8 to the mix . Thank you for the video Matt .

[@oasean]

Matt Granger's demonstration and discussion here are helpful. Yet how well can a lens profile in postproduction undo the barrel distortion from an 85mm headshot?

[@jaymack9442]

My 1st thought was you did this already. But you answered it within the 1st 20 seconds

[@mattgranger]

Thanks - you must be a long time viewer - the first one was over 5 years ago!

[@riotrob]

I was thinking the same thing. True, long time watcher, however i just watched that video a week or two ago.

[@acsaiyanbalce4610]

Matt, I’m assuming that the 85 mm stretches the image left to right. With that said, landscape orientation will look great for group head shots. Your thoughts?

[@agentcrm]

Would love to see some more bugetography and cropped sensor stuff. That said I know there's not many fast DX / APS-C lens out there.

[@tristanwilhelm9600]

Dude! Lol don't anger Matt... Haha. Awesome video guys, love the material and antics. I have 85 1.8 and tamron 70-200 2.8 g2 and find I use the tamron much more

[@terryhatcher6042]

I like them all but the 70 to 200 would be my pick because you are not just limited to 105 or 85 I might sit back and just watch the comments it is not like I know anything but it is my 2 cents wworth

[@markfarber4571]

Well done video. I find your videos time-efficient and practical. And this is very timely for me. I'm a Canon 5D-IV shooter, and the Canon 70-200 f4 IS is my favorite lens. I use the f4 because it's lighter/smaller for landscape, urban landscape, documentary. I carry it for hours and most of my images need f5.6-11 for sharpness. For portraits, f4 can work if you want an environmental portrait or (as you demonstrate nicely) if you pick a tighter uniform background instead of a blurred background. But I'm doing more portraits (rarely as tight as head shots) and now considering the Canon 85/1.4 or Tamron 85/1.8, both IS which is huge advantage. So would you still pick the 70-200 if it's the f4 and not the f2.8?

[@mattgranger]

sounds like the F4 will suit you!

[@Pastronomer69]

Oh god those dimples!!!

[@mattgranger]

stop it, im blushing

[@Pastronomer69]

What can I say Matt, you're a beautiful man.

[@obsidian00]

I mean...

[@Jrome719]

Question (big one): with the 70-200, should one attach the Black rapid to the trip pod mount; or is the body capable of handling the lens weight (Nikkor 70-200 & D750 w/grip)?

[@MrMoonpie001]

Matt, would love to see the budget lens, that's where I am at, so it would help greatly. Love your videos with Steph, she has a smile that lights up the world and seems to be just a good influence on everything, nice spirit. Moonpie

[@completelystupid87]

Beautiful model, they all look fine to me

[@shadowmihaiu]

The 105 makes the model smile harder.

[@sergiusblessed]

Best portrait lens is Canon 135/2.0 I use it on Sony A7 III :)

[@tj9382]

Fantastic video. I’ve been wanting to know about focal length re distortion of facial features and this sums it up concisely. Nicely done.

[@tonyturner7676]

Great video and very informative. You’ve opened my eyes to using the longer focal lengths for portraiture and love the results.

[@henrystrickland5958]

Looking at the four images on my screen the 105mm and the 200mm look the best.

[@Lon1an]

Thank you for the review. I Already own the 70-200 fl ed and was thinking of buying the 105 f1.4 but I am totally happy with the 70-200 as a potrait lens. This review makes me want to spend my money on something else instead, like tamron 100-400. =) !

[@herebarian]

I feel too much compression robs the photo of its inherent depth. I'm more of an environmental photographer, so I guess I'm biased... but the photos with the 135 and 200mm focal lengths feel especially 'flatter'. And is it just my screen, or do the photos not have much 3D rendering? Any thoughts?

[@maigonis.elleris]

Something from old D glass, other vintage would be nice to see.

[@eagletheblue]

Shame that canon has no first party 105mm :( I was looking into the 135mm, but I feel that it could be too tight :/

[@andrewpage8235]

hey Matt. Nice video on portrait lenses. Could you do a video on portrait lenses for crop cameras for a cheaper price? Thanks

[@StevenPaulTassi]

The bottom line is, there is no single focal length that's best for portraiture. Headshots, half body, 3/4 body, full body, and environmental portraits require different focal lengths for optimal results.

[@fabryal6995]

Matt, what do you think of the older NIKON 80-200 f2.8 ED, would it be a valuable cheaper option to the 70-200 in your view?

[@steventhomas7622]

Hi Matt, Great video! You mentioned you were going to make these files available for download. I do not see a link to do so.

[@strelnikoff7]

What about the profile correction in Lightroom ? It won't sort out the background, but doesn't it fix the distortion?

[@eversonottani1779]

I really apreciate your vídeo thank you my friend. Iam going with 70-200 2.8E.

[@Niggipoo]

That smile tho.

[@sewing1243]

For APC Sensor cameras, should one stay with the same actual focal length lens used in the video, or use lens that calculate out to the equivalent focal lengths?

[@MrGoodfried]

Hey Matt! Great comparison video. Thank you ! I‘d like to see how the Sigma 135 Art compares to the other lenses. Greedings from Germany!

[@serpentkit]

105 is my favorite now !!!

[@shawnvine4918]

An interesting video, as always. I would be interested in the budget options, as well. Thanks.

[@jsquared3650]

I just wish there wasn't so much discrepancy between the comparison of lenses! One person says it's the best lens that he has ever used, the other one says not worth the money! Why don't they come up with some Standard comparisons, and go from there. I realize there's going to be some judgment calls between individuals, but to say I like this lens because of the way it feels or the results I get doesn't give very much information as far as the quality of the image or the construction of the lens. Lets have some standardized testing for Lens comparison! If I can get the same image quality with a $600 lines as compared to a $2600, that's the kind information that would be much more helpful to me! I like your videos, and I do appreciate the information that you put out. But it seems like there should be some standard testing that every lines should go through. If a manufacturer produces a lens that is not up to their standards we should know about it!

[@poli4869]

with a model like this, who cares about which lense is better? any lense is good😍

[@bachmannmanuel1562]

my Faovrite is the 56mm f/1.2 (85mm) Fuji