jefonyx wrote:
Hi everyone ! Recently been shooting with the Canon 135 f2L so, couldn't post here
But I'm back for one session !
Still Sony A7III with Commlite e1 pro v06 and Godox AD600B. Would be interested in a z7, but no eye AF, plus AF pin point is only contrast focusing...So if anyone can tell me if it works well in high contrast cases like backlit portraits, would be helpul
That Commlite V6 is actually not that bad. I just got it few days ago and it looks like my Sigma 135 1.8 Art in Nikon mount focuses really fast with it on A7R3. I used to have that same Sigma in Canon mount, and I think Nikon version is faster to focus. But I think it has largely to do with the fact Sony updated firmware on A7R3 in the interim making it more acceptable to Sigma MC11 and other adapters.....
The new portrait mode on phones has gotten really good, every time I see someone post a picture on facebook I cringe a little given how good the images look and how little effort was needed to get them. I can still tell, it's not there yet, but man it's getting close. Then I drag out my gear for even the briefest of photos and I remember why it's all worth it. D850+105f1.4e is just straight magic.
On of my son yesterday as we went to take some batting practice.
D850, 105 f1.4e @ f1.4, 1/500s, iso64
I know this is the "image" thread, but I'm trying to justify getting this lens. For those of you who own it, how many of you actually prefer the 105 over your 85's? Do you find that since getting the 105 that your 85 just sits in your bag the majority of the time? I am not a studio shooter so would not be confined to typical working distance constraints within a studio and am wondering if the 105 could/would replace my 85 for much of my portrait work.
wjmeyer wrote:
I know this is the "image" thread, but I'm trying to justify getting this lens. For those of you who own it, how many of you actually prefer the 105 over your 85's? Do you find that since getting the 105 that your 85 just sits in your bag the majority of the time? I am not a studio shooter so would not be confined to typical working distance constraints within a studio and am wondering if the 105 could/would replace my 85 for much of my portrait work.
I have the 105E, 85/1.4G, 85/1.8G and 70-200/2.8E and all of these lenses are superb. The 105E for portraits is in a league of its own but you must try for yourself to be sure. The 105 FL is great for portraits as it affords just enough compression to differentiate from the 85's. The 85/1.4G is no slouch and it is one for small/lightest 85/1.4 out there now and there are reviews that compare the 85/1.4G to the GM 85/1.4 at about the same level. If I do err to the 85 I tend to now use the 85/1.8G as this a great small, light to go lens.
wjmeyer wrote:
I know this is the "image" thread, but I'm trying to justify getting this lens. For those of you who own it, how many of you actually prefer the 105 over your 85's? Do you find that since getting the 105 that your 85 just sits in your bag the majority of the time? I am not a studio shooter so would not be confined to typical working distance constraints within a studio and am wondering if the 105 could/would replace my 85 for much of my portrait work.
It's not just the lens, which I think is better than the 85, I found I preferred the working distance over the 85mm as well. I sold my 85 1.8g after a few months of it remaining untouched, don't miss it. I still have a samyang 85 1.4 that I kept just because used values are so low but I never use it. Everyone is different, I had the samyang 135f2 too and found that working distance was too long and sold it.
Thank you Charles and Vcook, I appreciate your response's. I had a feeling that the 105 might replace the 85 for many shooters. I agree, Charles, the best way is to try it out and see if I like it and that is the direction I am leaning.
The 85/1.4G is a fantastic lens but the 105 is even better.
The working distance and the compression are also better for me, but for headshots the depth of field is very very thin so I tend to step back and crop or to close the lens down. Maybe a 70-200 could be a solution, for me...
Elijah wrote:
Definitely told myself I'm done with this "switching brands" game.
Never say never !
Hope to see more of your stunning work with Nikkors soon.
Not that I don't like Canon, but you were on a roll sharing the Nikon shots.
neoofmatrix wrote:
Never say never !
Hope to see more of your stunning work with Nikkors soon.
Not that I don't like Canon, but you were on a roll sharing the Nikon shots.
Thanks dude!
If anything, I should switch now since I have no shoots lined up for at least several months 😬
Elijah wrote:
Thanks dude!
If anything, I should switch now since I have no shoots lined up for at least several months 😬
But not sure I see a point in switching again
I switched from Canon to Nikon back in 2008 when Nikon introduced the D700, I had been waiting for years for Canon to introduce the digital equivalent of the EOS 3 and got fed up that the only FF option with good AF was the 1Ds Mark III at the time for $7000. I was able to buy two D700's with a lens for the price of the 1Ds Mark III and fell in love with Nikon shortly after (shot with both Canon and Nikon for a year before ditching the rest of my Canon gear). That being said, switching was hard and took a massive hit to the pocket book. It seems like every few years the Big Two (Canon and Nikon) frog jump each other with certain features, if you like what you have today with Canon or Nikon but are frustrated that the "other" mfr just came out with something cool, well just be patient and wait a couple years, your pocket book and wife/husband will thank you in the long run as well
wjmeyer wrote:
I switched from Canon to Nikon back in 2008 when Nikon introduced the D700, I had been waiting for years for Canon to introduce the digital equivalent of the EOS 3 and got fed up that the only FF option with good AF was the 1Ds Mark III at the time for $7000. I was able to buy two D700's with a lens for the price of the 1Ds Mark III and fell in love with Nikon shortly after (shot with both Canon and Nikon for a year before ditching the rest of my Canon gear). That being said, switching was hard and took a massive hit to the pocket book. It seems like every few years the Big Two (Canon and Nikon) frog jump each other with certain features, if you like what you have today with Canon or Nikon but are frustrated that the "other" mfr just came out with something cool, well just be patient and wait a couple years, your pocket book and wife/husband will thank you in the long run as well ...Show more →
Well, my wedding clients kind of paid for my loss I shot weddings on the side...
---------------------------------------------
Bohemien wrote:
C'mon, there's that 58G... and the 105E... 28E... 35G... soon 50 f/1.2S...
wjmeyer wrote:
I switched from Canon to Nikon back in 2008 when Nikon introduced the D700, I had been waiting for years for Canon to introduce the digital equivalent of the EOS 3 and got fed up that the only FF option with good AF was the 1Ds Mark III at the time for $7000. I was able to buy two D700's with a lens for the price of the 1Ds Mark III and fell in love with Nikon shortly after (shot with both Canon and Nikon for a year before ditching the rest of my Canon gear). That being said, switching was hard and took a massive hit to the pocket book. It seems like every few years the Big Two (Canon and Nikon) frog jump each other with certain features, if you like what you have today with Canon or Nikon but are frustrated that the "other" mfr just came out with something cool, well just be patient and wait a couple years, your pocket book and wife/husband will thank you in the long run as well ...Show more →
Pretty much the same story with me. Except I disagree, Canon hasn't "leapfrogged" Nikon in over a decade running now ... they've been behind, ever since the D700 and D810.
I waited for a 7D upgrade, and when the 7D II came out I 'tried' to like it, but just did not. Sold my Canon gear for the Nikon D810. Been in love with Nikon ever since, especially since they came out with the D500 and D850, to which I upgraded, and with which I have been 100% satisfied ever since.
So I sympathize with anyone who moves from Canon to Nikon, or even Canon to Sony, since they get to keep their glass (although they take a hit in ergonomics + a hit in full comparability with adapters). In all cases, at all camera levels, Nikon and Sony offer better sensors and image quality.
I don't really understand switching from Nikon to Sony, unless you operate within a 24-105 "walkaround" kit. If I were a portrait shooter, kids and whatnot, I could understand the appeal of eye AF Sony offers, but that's pretty much it. Since I shoot either landscape, macro, or telephoto (almost no portrait), Sony has absolutely zero appeal for me. Less rugged bodies, less lens options, poor ergonomics, zero advantage in image quality.
What I can't get at all is why someone would go from Nikon back to Canon
The regret expressed in less than a year says all that needs to be said. It's been 3 years since I switched from Canon to Nikon, and the only thing I regret is waiting so long to do so.
Long time I posted some images from my 105mm. I am so happy with it. My 85mm is eating dust.
And much lighter and special then the 70-200E. Even my 200mm f2.0 is very lonely :-)
