MagicNikon wrote:
Yes, one SB800 in a shoot thru, triggered via Radio Popper JRs. These were from the end of the shoot, so I brought out the flash and umbrella. Basic 45 degree up and over the subject and positioned 45 degrees or so to the side. I was aiming to get a good balance which didn't scream "OCF!" in these. Some others used a hard bare light, but I will post them later for your comparison.
Awesome! Thanks Josh! I see your point that it doesn't appear to be "OCF!" but the lighting is so perfect that i had to ask!
MagicNikon wrote:
So, broke out the 105mm VR for some portraits tonight for fun ( I know it's not everyone's favorite portrait lens...) but I still like it.
Why do people dislike 105mm VR in portrait work? That lens is something I've been considering to be a replacement for my 85/1.8D with D700.
I want dust/moisture sealing and macro ability is also nice. I think f/2.8 combined with VR is better suitable for me than f/1.8 without VR.
VilleK wrote:
Why do people dislike 105mm VR in portrait work? That lens is something I've been considering to be a replacement for my 85/1.8D with D700.
I want dust/moisture sealing and macro ability is also nice. I think f/2.8 combined with VR is better suitable for me than f/1.8 without VR.
because it's so sharp it exposes flaws. I have the non-VR that I picked up cheap right before the VR came out. Love it.
VilleK wrote:
Why do people dislike 105mm VR in portrait work? That lens is something I've been considering to be a replacement for my 85/1.8D with D700.
I want dust/moisture sealing and macro ability is also nice. I think f/2.8 combined with VR is better suitable for me than f/1.8 without VR.
I have used the 105 vr on and off since its release. I have sold and re-bought it 3 times. I like the size vs the 70-200 vr. It is sharp. But I like sharp eyes. I can digitally soften skin or other blemishes. For me, its great on D700. I might use it more for people than I do for macro.
Ninerref wrote:
I think this is a great set in a great location.
Last time I passed that location they were doing a bunch of work still. Construction equipment doesn't always make the best back drop.
I used it again tonight for a bridal session. There is a perfect view of the BofA builidng in the background, unobstructed. Adds a nice touch for Charlotteans.
Great shots and love them. I used to have 105VR, 105DC and 135DC for portraits too. After having picked up 70-200VRII, however, I rarely find any need for those three great glasses for portraits any more. Perhaps that's just me.
I think that your model is better looking than Jennifer Aniston also. In fact, I don't know why Jennifer Aniston is considered attractive. Courteney Cox on Friends was much more attractive. But that's my opinion.
LA_Sportsman wrote:
because it's so sharp it exposes flaws. I have the non-VR that I picked up cheap right before the VR came out. Love it.
Very nice photographs and a beautiful woman. I also had the non VR 105mm AFD F2.8 Micro, the version before this lens and a 105mm F2.8 Ais, the version before that. With the 105 F2.8 AFD I did a similar shoot in Chicago with the buildings behind the model. I used available light. I was attempting to make the lens become my "go to" lens with a 50mm and a 35mm as a kit (my favorite focal lengths for people). The problem that I experienced with the AFD Micro lens was the slow AF and the "hunting". I had to get an 85mm because of that. The 85mm was a much better "all around" lens for me. I could not cpmplain about the sharpness of the 105mm Micro AFD, as it was very sharp. Perhaps the new VR lens is better in AF ability. I have read that a lot of photographers use the lens for all around use including "studio" work. Times change. You have really got to own them to know them.
