Andre Y wrote:
Tood, whatever is convenient or easy for you. For my own tests (on an LR rental hopefully coming next week), I'll run an aperture series just to see what the limits of the lens is. Maybe one wide open, and another at f/5.6?
BTW how is the AF speed on AF-C? It looks like you're using a D810?
Yes using an 810... Sure, I'll get you some awesome samples from a state park and maybe downtown Austin.
The focus is slower than other Nikon lenses...It's not snail slow, but I haven't tested it from close to infinity for a speed test. It does well, pretty much like the 85mm f/1.4G. The focus ring is almost too easy to rotate, you could bump it out of focus easily. I have not done any focus tracking with the lens/body combo yet. I came home after I got it and played with it here. You'll be able to track sports with it easily I think. I hope to experiment with it more tomorrow and definitely on Saturday/Sunday.
Todd wrote:
Here is a sharpness test: The ZF2 135mm Zeiss. The Zeiss is sharper wide open. Now I can test the 105mm at F/2 and compare if you want me to.
There is more out of focus blooming on the nikon vs the Zeiss.
[...]
Thanks for the tests, Todd. Keep them coming.
These shots show how amazing the Zeiss is. Longitudinal CA is well corrected on the Nikon, but not as well as on the Zeiss.
Would love to see a comparison at full body portrait distance (same framing).
Todd wrote:
The focus is slower than other Nikon lenses...It's not snail slow, but I haven't tested it from close to infinity for a speed test. It does well, pretty much like the 85mm f/1.4G.
That's got to be disappointing for those that wanted to use this lens for sports, like Canon's 135L is used.
What's Nikon got against fast prime AF on sub-200mm lenses?
johnctharp wrote:
That's got to be disappointing for those that wanted to use this lens for sports, like Canon's 135L is used.
What's Nikon got against fast prime AF on sub-200mm lenses?
Well now I could be wrong.... Like I said , haven't put the lens to the full test test. The 105 doesn't focus as fast as the 300mm PF. The 105 has a longer throw it seems. Anyway, I'll pay more attention to the focus today and report back to you. Nikon did say this lens will be good for sports....
Don't know if this has been posted already, but here's a link to a stream of beautiful bridal portraits with the 105E by Taiwanese photographer Taotzu Chang. Especially the shots with the bokeh highlights on p.2 are breathtaking IMHO.
I think I have to save faster... or sell that kidney after all...
Bohemien wrote:
Don't know if this has been posted already, but here's a link to a stream of beautiful bridal portraits with the 105E by Taiwanese photographer Taotzu Chang. Especially the shots with the bokeh highlights on p.2 are breathtaking IMHO.
I think I have to save faster... or sell that kidney after all...
I've seen those but the thing is, most of these shots are shot at a smaller aperture, I'm assuming 2.0-2.8.
Honestly, they look like 70-200mm shots to me. Why not just use a 70-200VRII for that matter?
When I'll be using my 105mm, I will not be shooting at 2.8 at all unless I absolutely have to.
Same story with my 58G; if I need to stop down, might as well use my 24-70mm.
Good evening from Yokohama, y'all. I'm a pretty happy owner of a 135/2 DC (as much as I miss the 135/2L from my Canon days), and now the 105/1.4E. Somehow, I went into the shop looking for a used Sigma 50/1.4 Art, yet the gentleman at the camera shop near where I live somehow managed to sell this to me effectively $200 below retail.
Honestly, it scares the hell out of me, but I'm hoping I can resell this later if I'm not fully satisfied (or just return it and consider trading my 135/2D out for a 105/2D).
So, here are a few OOC JPGs of the Yokohama skyline, taken with the 135/2D and the 105/1.4E expressly to try and help you/me figure out if this damn thing is worth it.
All shot with a D750, in Live View. Manually focused the 105 at F5.6 and the 135 at F4 (iirc).
High ISO NR / Long exposure NR: OFF.
Picture profile: Standard
Elijah wrote:
I've seen those but the thing is, most of these shots are shot at a smaller aperture, I'm assuming 2.0-2.8.
Honestly, they look like 70-200mm shots to me. Why not just use a 70-200VRII for that matter?
You're right, all the shots on page 2 are at f/2.5 - there's an icon to the bottom right of the pictures that opens a window with the EXIF data. OK, then maybe these shots are more an example of beautiful photography than of the 105E's capabilities.
Bohemien wrote:
You're right, all the shots on page 2 are at f/2.5 - there's an icon to the bottom right of the pictures that opens a window with the EXIF data. OK, then maybe these shots are more an example of beautiful photography than of the 105E's capabilities.
Don't get me wrong, I actually meant to say the photographer is very well talented and skilled.
But those shots could be taken with a 70-200VRII, which I have, which is boring
Elijah wrote:
I've seen those but the thing is, most of these shots are shot at a smaller aperture, I'm assuming 2.0-2.8.
Honestly, they look like 70-200mm shots to me. Why not just use a 70-200VRII for that matter?
When I'll be using my 105mm, I will not be shooting at 2.8 at all unless I absolutely have to.
Same story with my 58G; if I need to stop down, might as well use my 24-70mm.
First 5 or 6 on the first page are all wide open. Perhaps subject distance played a role in the DOF. Then a splattering of F3.5 and about three F10s(bright sunlight) and F6.3. The rest are F2 and under. Second page is all F2.5....and a 70-200mm has great difficulty getting there
SiMuMe wrote:
First 5 or 6 on the first page are all wide open. Perhaps subject distance played a role in the DOF. Then a splattering of F3.5 and about three F10s(bright sunlight) and F6.3. The rest are F2 and under. Second page is all F2.5....and a 70-200mm has great difficulty getting there
2.5 and 2.8 isn't a whole lot of difference. In fact, 2.5 changes everything... Subject isolation, bokeh quality and size changes...
It just wont be the same. I know this because it's the same with my 58G. 1.4 and 2.0 are totally different images!
Elijah, I knew your lenses live their life on the wide-open side so anything remotely closed-aperture is yuck!
My comment wasn't meant to be too serious. The lens is at least twice above my buying limit for this hobby so, any picture from it is interesting(at this stage). Your needs, coupled by the fact that you're anxiously awaiting delivery of yours are in another league though.
