I sold my 200 F2 for this lens, because of the weight of the 200 F2. I sometimes debated whether that was a mistake. Then the Sigma 135 came out, almost sold it to get that. After shooting with it for a while now though, i'm so impressed with this lens I don't think there is any need to add the 135 or 200 now. I'm amazed by the images it produces.
I've never understood this logic. The 200mm 2.0 and 105mm 1.4 give me entirely different fov and compression. I own both and would part with neither of them. [to me] it's like saying you are selling your 50mm lens because your 28mm is so sharp. Different tools.
agelessphotog wrote:
I sold my 200 F2 for this lens, because of the weight of the 200 F2. I sometimes debated whether that was a mistake. Then the Sigma 135 came out, almost sold it to get that. After shooting with it for a while now though, i'm so impressed with this lens I don't think there is any need to add the 135 or 200 now. I'm amazed by the images it produces.
One thing that has impressed me with this lens is the sharpness and contrast SOOC. When I look at most of my RAW files, they need very little PP which can make life much easier. This was apparent this weekend when shooting a corporate holiday party. The room had some beautiful windows which I was able to use to my advantage, but the simple portraits are remarkable SOOC like this one with no PP.
Elijah wrote:
The only time this lens gets a lot of love when it comes to weddings: ceremonies...
But it sure absolutely melts and destroys the background!
It's an awesome lens but I think I'll be selling it and getting the 70-200E...
Both are amazing- the 105 is very painterly but good grief the 70-200 E is jarring by how technically perfect it is. If someone made me choose I'd probably keep the 70-200 as I already have a 200mm 2.0 for those painterly shots.
Zerga wrote:
It's an awesome lens but I think I'll be selling it and getting the 70-200E...
Elijah wrote:
The only time this lens gets a lot of love when it comes to weddings: ceremonies...
But it sure absolutely melts and destroys the background!
my friend,
why don't you use it for portrait time?
---------------------------------------------
Zerga wrote:
It's an awesome lens but I think I'll be selling it and getting the 70-200E...
they are the two best lenses on the planet IMO
I think, if you normally shoot in decent to good light, you'll be ok with the zoom over the prime. especially with a d750 or d850 body.
the zoom is far more versatile, obviously.
it's excellent in every single way - really special.
somehow, it feels lighter than the 105, which is funny, I know.
they really hit a home run with each lens.
the zoom is probably my favorite lens ever used.
while the 105 is my favorite prime.
---------------------------------------------
Blakehfreeman wrote:
Both are amazing- the 105 is very painterly but good grief the 70-200 E is jarring by how technically perfect it is. If someone made me choose I'd probably keep the 70-200 as I already have a 200mm 2.0 for those painterly shots.
