agelessphotog wrote:
Took some shots in a high school gymnasium today and the autofocus was HORRIBLE. It kept trying to focus on the basketball net and not the person. Had to use manual focus. Any tips for next time? my other lenses focused just fine, and my 105 focuses perfect outdoors...
Were you using center point? I have used the 105mm for hockey and it works great. Usually use dynamic 9 point af.
If the camera was trying to focus on the net rather than the person, I'd have to think you had too many focus points activated and the camera was just finding more contrast in the net than the players.
Some amazing shots in this thread... I am sure one day I will pick up one of these 105/1.4's... Until then, for our portraits, we will have to stick with our Zeiss 135/2, Nikon 200/2, 180/2.8D, and of course, our ~$200 105/2.5 ai-s which I used for the following shot. I know, it is not 105/1.4, but hey, it is still 105mm , and it is, in fact, an example showing how almost all Nikon glasses in this focal length have always been great...
And again something completely different.
We have a small potted Christmas tree outside our kitchen window.
Last week we noticed a nest built by a Red-Whiskered Bulbul.
I've been photographing the three hatchlings with a long lens.
However, lighting was less than ideal today so decided to try the 105mm.
A very different look and I like it.
Hope you do as well.
Very nice! I guess I'm just the opposite... I only have sigma lenses now in my bag. My latest is the Sigma 135mm f/1.8.
I used to own the Zeiss Apo 135mm f/2 and was afraid that the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 wouldn't match up to the Zeiss. My tests revealed that the Sigma 135mm was just as well corrected as the Zeiss.
I took the Sigma out for a star test (AstroTrac guided) and shot a star field that contained bright and dim stars, much to my delight, there wasn't any CA at all. Usually I see blue halos around the stars when used wide open. Saw this with Nikon and other brands. But not Zeiss! Nor the new Sigma. The Sigma is just as sharp as the Zeiss apo if not sharper (DXO mark will reveal soon).
Congrats on your new Nikon 105mm f/1.4E! I have that one also, great lens. I took this image with my 105E wide open from the dark skies of Paloduro canyon. It performed very well for Astrophotography. Looking forward to your 105mm samples
Desertcruiser wrote:
In the course of restructuring i sold all my zooms.
Sold my 35 1.4G as well as the 135DC.
Keeping the PC-E 19E, 24 1.4G, the 58 1.4G, the 105 1.4E (bought yesterday ) and the 200 f2G
Made with my Zeiss APO Sonnar 135 f2 ZF2. Maybe i'll keep this too.
Happy i don't need some Sigma anymore because sharpnes isn't all i need.
I notice that the captures with the 105 "appear" (to my eye) to be sharper with the 750 than with the 810. Any thoughts especially from those who have both bodies?
ariel777 wrote:
I notice that the captures with the 105 "appear" (to my eye) to be sharper with the 750 than with the 810. Any thoughts especially from those who have both bodies?
Well the last two pictures posted are front focused quiet a bit so that's why her face isn't sharp at all. I haven't shot it with both cameras but my guess it's nailing focus vs not.
Desertcruiser, no I wasn't referring specifically to you or anyone else in particular. It was my sense in reviewing the captures on this thread from day 1, that there were some differences across the board from inception. I have the lens, and both bodies but have yet to actually test for any differences.
Desertcruiser: that's some arsenal and pretty much my wish list. Only difference being I'd prefer a 28 f1.4 over a 24.
ariel777: Also be aware of sharpening algorithm and the hosting sites. At reduced web jpegs, presentations vary greatly. Just wondering if the sharper results you're seeing are consistently from the same users. If so, it may be those users have better web publishing workflow??
Not entirely sure why but the same images look better on my smugmug page compared to posted on the boards here.
Desertcruiser wrote:
Absolutely not @ T_Gordon. Focus hits the mark.
To evaluate this you should see the *.NEF
If you meant her shoulder on the first shot and the jacket button hole plane on the second then yes, you hit the mark exactly where you wanted. Her face is in the very beginning of the bokeh transition area and you don't need to see a raw file to notice this.
I've shot near identical scenes and know what the lens will do when focused properly. I posted a sample back in September (page 56) sort of similar to this. I'll look around at my files for closer samples.
, and it is, in fact, an example showing how almost all Nikon glasses in this focal length have always been great...
) and the 200 f2G
