D700 and 105mm VR.....

This lens is superb for portraits IMO. Sometimes I'm torn between this and the 85mm f1.4.

It didnt let me down....sometime Id like to try the 85 1.4 on my D90.

Absolutely superb and talk about a group of beautiful young ladies, wow. Got to love that lens but it would seem the photographer is pretty special.

Dave

Be careful. Using such a sharp lens on the wrong subject (older woman) may be cause for getting a camera bashed over your head.

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.

Very nice. I am impressed.

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

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.

Don't get me wrong. It's a great macro lens. It just not my favorite portrait lens.

In near 1:1 ratios you need smaller apertures anyway to have some depth of field....

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.

You're not alone, that's my opinion as well.

Really nice work w 105. I use mine on food shots and I'm still smiling. I need to try it for portait, only if my neices will allow me.