agelessphotog Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
MRomine wrote:
I don't know, is the bokeh better on a 135 mm f2 vs a 70-200 f2.8 at 200 mm and f2.8? It probably is at 135mm. I don't know and I don't really care much about bokeh after a certain point because none of my client will care. Because they can't see the difference in fact photographers can rarely tell the difference unless you put two samples side by side. Either way, you can't charge more for more bokeh.
The whole focus breathing thing, meh. That's like all pixel peeping done a DxO. All the 'D' series lenses that I have used or owned are dogs in comparison to the AF speed of the newer N and G series lens made by Nikon. Plus the 105 and 135 DC lenses have a fair mount of purple fringing that the newer lenses don'w have.
...Show more →
I get it that Bokeh is just a small part of the overall photo, but I wouldn't say it's not important. If that were the case I would have saved a lot of money on lenses. I have done side by side comparisons with the 135 DC and my 1.8G lenses and the bokeh looks noticeably better and creamier on the DC lens. I guess it's more important to some than others. We shoot weddings but primarily get most of our business from senior portraits. I'm not saying the 135 DC is a better portrait lens than the 70-200 2.8 VR2 for everybody, i'm just saying I can see where some people might think so. Both great but different. I just disagreed with your post that the 70-200 was hands down better. I guess since this is in a wedding thread I would agree it's way better for weddings because of the better AF, just not for portraits in general. One thing that annoys me though is more than half of the people I see complaining about it blame the lens for being soft or the copy they have, when in most cases it just needs a 60 second fine tune adjustment to correct front focusing causing the softness. I get consistently sharp shots out of mine.
I agree with you about the purple fringing, on some lighting conditions I just use the 85 and don't even bother with the 135 DC. But that's pretty rare. We also shoot at 2.8 or 3.2 also, not at 2.0, might also be why it's not a big issue for us. I have compared the same shots taken with the 85 1.8G and the 135 DC, and after the fine tune adjustment the 135 DC produces much better results IMO, no comparison. Part of that though is I just prefer the 135 focal length also. I thought about purchasing the 200 F2 but I really do not want a lens that heavy. I really wish Nikon or Sigma would come out with a smaller, lighter 200 1.8 than the big and heave 200 F2 we have right now. Cheaper would be nice also, I know it's an amazing lens but $5,700 is a little much for me.
|