Thank you for sharing that ...
The transition from in-focus area to out-of-focus area is very smooth, and yet able to maintain some 3-D look.
Very interesting lens indeed...
I'll have to shoot more pictures in daylight to get more out of this lens, but, so far, it looks very promising...
Paul Yi wrote:
The transition from in-focus area to out-of-focus area is very smooth, and yet able to maintain some 3-D look. Very interesting lens indeed..
Yes, it's an interesting phenomenon, and probably belongs in the "3D" thread.
I tend to agree with Brainiac's idea that plasticity is, at least partly, caused by good micro-contrast. - But this lens breaks that rule. Another that does so is the Vivitar Series-1 135/2.3 (early Komin, non-vmc version)
Hmmm. Perhaps they don't break that rule. Could these lenses have high micro-contrast, yet only medium sharpness? I must admit, I've never really understood what micro-contrast is.
Your second shot (the girl's head) just SCREAMS 3D to me, and not just because of the OOF areas. That pic definitely belongs in the "What Is 3D?" thread.
I'm glad this thread came up because I was wondering how this lens compares to the 105 f/2 DC and the 105 f/1.8 Ai-S. Ken Rockwell, claims the 105 f/1.8 and 105 f/2.5 are equally good at all apertures, but I'm sure I've read the f/1.8 is not so good wide open. Then again I've read the opposite too.
It also is a nice flower lens, very sharp wide open as everyone says. All the shots here are nice except that I think we start to abuse the '3D' word too much nowadays . Here's to share a flower shot: http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2536/4034277384_a721c4c98d_b.jpg
There's a 3D thread? I have the original Nikon 105 f/2.5, that has been AI'd by a good buddy. I consider the first edition to be the best of the lot. But, the following versions are very good.You can't go wrong with any of them.
Thanks, Paul. My eyes are medium, but getting the right diopter strength and setting made all the difference. If only I had a tazer for when i tried to shoot kids with MF, I'd be set.
Cableaddict, if you tried 4 copies and were dissatisfied with all of them, you simply got 4 duds.
This is strange, because i've never heard of one of these being bad, although the AI and older copies are supposed to be better than the latest AIS- or maybe that is just physical build/handling.
My AI copy is one of the best lenses i've ever used. It just kills.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
I'm glad this thread came up because I was wondering how this lens compares to the 105 f/2 DC and the 105 f/1.8 Ai-S. Ken Rockwell, claims the 105 f/1.8 and 105 f/2.5 are equally good at all apertures, but I'm sure I've read the f/1.8 is not so good wide open. Then again I've read the opposite too.
I've owned 3 copies of the 1.8 AIS, and i currently have a 2.5 AI. I have not used the f2 DC.
The 1.8 has lower contrast, sharpness, and some falloff when wide open to about one stop down, then it is about on par with a 2.5... about.
I think both lenses wide open, the 2.5 looks much better- but it is slower. This is much made up for, to me, by its small size and low price.
ISO1600 wrote:
i've always heard that the AIS is good, but not as good (might just be handling issues or something) as the older ones.
That bird shot is awesome, Paul.
I have an AiS and P-C version. They are both VERY similar in image look and feel. The AiS has an edge on sharpness but not by a lot. The P-C version has a slightly more buttery bokeh, though again, just by a bit.
The P-C version has a loose bearing, so I am trying not to use it until I can get it fixed.
The main difference in the two versions of the lens is ergonomic. The P-C has the scalloped focus throw and a slightly less accessible aperture ring. The AiS has the standard AiS bumpy grip. The P-C definitely feels like you are using a lens that is a blast from the past. The AiS feels more modern in the hand. Not placing judgment, just an observation.
The AiS has a built in hood. The P-C has a pop on hood that fits a little loose but is stable.
. Here's to share a flower shot:
