Well I'm not sure how much credit the lens takes for these given the beautiful young ladies and your obvious portraiture skill. Very nice, all of them.
I hate to go against the grain here, but I must say that only the first photo rings true to me. The rest seem too soft, even more so than is necessary on a portrait.
I like this lens a lot, but it often hunts focus, especially on low to dim light. I'm always grab the 70-200 for portraits...
Macro is another thing tho, totally love it. (MF for speed tho)
StefanosL. wrote:
I like this lens a lot, but it often hunts focus, especially on low to dim light. I'm always grab the 70-200 for portraits...
Macro is another thing tho, totally love it. (MF for speed tho)
p.s. Did you make them with a crop body or FF?
Thanks
You are right...it does hunt, and it's very annoying. I was using the 105mm for all these portraits to make sure I wanted this focal length in a different lens (105mm f/2 dc). It realyl didnt give me too many problems for AF on Sunday night though. In brighter light, I think when it is more contrasty, it can really hunt alot. This was soft light outside mostly, and soft light in the 'studio' I set up.
These were all done on the D700....my D90 never left the bag.
I have most of my experience with this lens with my D300.
I think that if the had a third option to the focus switch (strictly for macro) things would be better.
I also don't like the fact that from a certain distance and below it's a f3.5 and not a 2.8.
I've read & understand why this is happening, but still it feels like i did not buy a "true" 2.8 lens. I feel a bit "cheated" by Nikon.
It is a wonderful lens no doubt, but it could be better at these things. (I believe at least...)
StefanosL. wrote:
I have most of my experience with this lens with my D300.
I think that if the had a third option to the focus switch (strictly for macro) things would be better.
I also don't like the fact that from a certain distance and below it's a f3.5 and not a 2.8.
I've read & understand why this is happening, but still it feels like i did not buy a "true" 2.8 lens. I feel a bit "cheated" by Nikon.
It is a wonderful lens no doubt, but it could be better at these things. (I believe at least...)
Also agree with you here, because I had been using it ona D300 previously. For head and shoulder length shots, yes it's 'wide open' at 3.2-3.5 unfortunately. Dont know how much difference it realyl makes, but it is bothersome. I got a taste of a 135mm f/2 recently, and I could really see myself adding the 105mm f/2 version (I didnt love the 135 FL).
It does have its own character, and probably why I will always have one. Thanks for looking and for commenting.
StefanosL. wrote:
I have most of my experience with this lens with my D300.
I think that if the had a third option to the focus switch (strictly for macro) things would be better.
I also don't like the fact that from a certain distance and below it's a f3.5 and not a 2.8.
I've read & understand why this is happening, but still it feels like i did not buy a "true" 2.8 lens. I feel a bit "cheated" by Nikon.
It is a wonderful lens no doubt, but it could be better at these things. (I believe at least...)
I don't know of any macro lenses that stay f2.8 when focusing at this distance.
IMHO this 105VR is Nikons best value f2.8 lens. This lens behaves like a macro lens so in my eyes I don't feel cheated.
luminosity wrote:
I hate to go against the grain here, but I must say that only the first photo rings true to me. The rest seem too soft, even more so than is necessary on a portrait.
