Do you and some others, desaturate the greens? I feel they should be more vibrant. But then again, photography isn't what it used to be. so many photoshop actions and tones for the natural light photographer. There are so many natural light photographers out there, very few, like myself, use strobes on location. I hope to get more work that way since i'm different and offer unique lighting.
I would but I don't really have any portrait work from the 105 yet. It had a lot of Dust in it and I sent it off to Nikon to get it cleaned and didn't really want to use it until it was clean. I am not complaining about the desaturated greens, it was just a random question. I do have samples from the Sigma 135 F/ 1.8 though. I don't consider myself a good natural light photographer, I can do it, but I prefer strobes. Here are two from the 105, The older woman is my mom.
In my part of the world our landscape isn't a vibrant colour. It's a muted dark green and browns.
Here's an example. Although these are with the 200 f2
In my part of the world our landscape isn't a vibrant colour. It's a muted dark green and browns.
Here's an example. Although these are with the 200 f2
Mine too! Dead grass everywhere... if I want it greener, I have to manipulate it in Lightroom and exposing for the background and filling the rest with flash
Mine too! Dead grass everywhere... if I want it greener, I have to manipulate it in Lightroom and exposing for the background and filling the rest with flash
Nice photos sir!
I used to avoid it and look for more greenery. Now I prefer it as its unique to most parts of Australia.
jtgray wrote:
Not sure if I will miss this men's. Love the compression from the Sigma 135mm
I almost bought the Sigma 135 but every time I look at comparison shots I just think the 105 looks slightly better. I can't put my finger on why. Just the way it renders. I kind of prefer the 135 focal length but over all the Sigma just doesn't look as good to me.
agelessphotog wrote:
I almost bought the Sigma 135 but every time I look at comparison shots I just think the 105 looks slightly better. I can't put my finger on why. Just the way it renders. I kind of prefer the 135 focal length but over all the Sigma just doesn't look as good to me.
It's a focal length difference, that's why you see a difference. If you shoot an image with the 105 and one with the 135 but crop the 105 to match the 135 the background blurr will be the same. The 105 is close to the 85 and you have a wider field of view and that's pretty much why the rendering looks different with less compression.
How many here are using a filter on their 105? By using a filter, I wouldn't be cleaning the lens very often. But I hate the thought of degrading IQ on this great lens.
Keiththom wrote:
How many here are using a filter on their 105? By using a filter, I wouldn't be cleaning the lens very often. But I hate the thought of degrading IQ on this great lens.
If you are familiar with Joe McNally, he doesn't use a filter, he stated it actually takes away from the final image in quality. He mentioned that the file size of each photo with a filter is less than those without. For other info, look here.
