Joseph. wrote:
What I'm seeing is that the 105 1.4 aint no 200 f/2. Not close.
However, the shooter didn't play much with backgrounds and a lot of these look like simple snapshots.
If you don't compose well, even the 200 f/2 can give mediocre results.
This is what I am seeing. I am really in doubt though why they wouldn't show images where this lens will shine. Instead they have these meh street shots. They might be trying to hide something.
Depth of Feel wrote:
I am really in doubt though why they wouldn't show images where this lens will shine. Instead they have these meh street shots. They might be trying to hide something.
Have we not seen these same comments about every new lens Nikon has introduced in at least the last 10 years, prior to the release of the lens.
Depth of Feel wrote:
Why keep the 200? What are you both seeing? Im seeing modern performing fast telephoto. Bokeh isnt blowing my mind but the one natural setting shot really shows you the subject isolation.
Really? this looks a lot closer to the 85 to me than the 200, the focal length and compression, isolation look a lot better to me on the 200 F2. Not saying these images don't look great, they do, and I eventually want this lens. More for convenience though, so I can leave my 200 F2 home sometimes. But this lens definitely doesn't WOW me nearly as much as the 200 F2.
agelessphotog wrote:
Really? this looks a lot closer to the 85 to me than the 200, the focal length and compression, isolation look a lot better to me on the 200 F2. Not saying these images don't look great, they do, and I eventually want this lens. More for convenience though, so I can leave my 200 F2 home sometimes. But this lens definitely doesn't WOW me nearly as much as the 200 F2.
I see you shoot weddings... I want to see how practical that 200 is for weddings
I would love to own a 70-200VRII and a 200/2 but that's just not gonna happen.
So I got rid of the 200/2 and bought the 70-200VRII for the fourth time.
IMHO, for the price of the chub, it's more practical to own a 105E and 70-200VRII, especially for weddings.
If you need that 200mm, you'll have it, albeit not as juicy as 200/2. Just my .02
Elijah wrote:
Wow... it did make me realize to keep my 200 as well! But too late now, I already swapped it for a 70-200VRII
Sounds like it's time to swap the 70-200 VRII back for the 200 F2. I will never sell my 200 F2, unless Nikon brings out a 200 that looks about as good and is a lot lighter.
Elijah wrote:
I see you shoot weddings... I want to see how practical that 200 is for weddings
I would love to own a 70-200VRII and a 200/2 but that's just not gonna happen.
So I got rid of the 200/2 and bought the 70-200VRII for the fourth time.
IMHO, for the price of the chub, it's more practical to own a 105E and 70-200VRII, especially for weddings.
If you need that 200mm, you'll have it, albeit not as juicy as 200/2. Just my .02
We don't really shoot weddings anymore. Got tired of dealing with Bridezilla's and couples that didn't treat us very well. Working 13 hours a day and being fed a nasty stale meal sometimes just didn't cut it for us. Don't get me wrong, some of the couples were great. But some weren't. So we shoot 90% high school seniors, the rest is family, child, corporate head shots and real estate. If I was mostly shooting weddings, I would agree with you, the 200 F2 isn't practical at all.
Next39 wrote:
I'm totally, 100% with you on a 135. I'm guessing it will easily be more than $3,000 though. Not a cheap lens.
But back on topic, looking forward to some real world reviews of the 105E.
Yeah I can't wait on the reviews. And I think this will eventually replace my 85 1.8g. But looking at the photo's I can already tell it's not going to be a long enough focal length I can sell my 200 F2. I am impressed with the samples though, bokeh and sharpness are nice! I will own this lens one day. Just for me, at that focal length, I'm not like "I need to have it now"
Elijah wrote:
More sample photos! The first image was very surprising... I honestly thought it was shot at f/2.8 or something...
That first images is really the one that sings out of this set. For a second I thought, "I need this lens in my life!" But then I remembered that this subject, in this light, would probably sing with an 85 f/1.4, or maybe one of the previous 105's, a 70-200 of any flavor, or one of my go-to portrait lenses (85 f/1.4d & 180 f/2.8d). Maybe if they had a sample shot on the 85 that looked like dirt, maybe that'd push me over the edge .
Looks like an amazing lens, just too close to the 85 for me, I like the 105 focal length more but it's just too close. If they come out with a 135 with the same specs, I will order it on day 1.
I have the ZF135 and that first shot definitely has the Zeiss 135/2 microcontrast punch to it... and that's at 1.4 with AF!! No back and forths here.. I'm going ALL IN on this lens.
If you want a 200 f/2 type isolation on the 105, you can always frame tight and do a multiple shot pano. What the 105 gives you over the 200/2 is portability and less working distance so you won't have to be shouting at your models when directing them. This is especially helpful if you shoot toddlers and kids.
.
No back and forths here.. I'm going ALL IN on this lens.