Lance B wrote:
I don't think it needs to be *that* accurate. We are talking DOF here and even wide open at where the distance of the focus box covers the eye and eyelashes would mean that a calculated 1 cm back focusing to cover the eyelash would be more than adequate. Closer to the subject and the focus box will be on the eyeball only and can then focus precisely on the eye not requiring any adjustment.
That all depends on how sharp the lens is. With very sharp lenses, there are very visible differences in sharpness within the conventional depth of field, because you evaluate the sharpness just of the focus plane in direct comparison to the sharpness in the plane of focus. In that case, I often find that the relevant circle of confusion is much smaller that the conventional value.
AcuteShadows wrote:
That all depends on how sharp the lens is. With very sharp lenses, there are very visible differences in sharpness within the conventional depth of field, because you evaluate the sharpness just of the focus plane in direct comparison to the sharpness in the plane of focus. In that case, I often find that the relevant circle of confusion is much smaller that the conventional value.
Agreed. However, at the distance I am talking about for the AF box to cover the eye and eyelashes and even a bit more of the eye surrounds, then DOF is more than adequate even on a very sharp lens like the 105 f1.4. When you are close enough that the FA box covers only the eye then the camera focuses on the eye and all is fine. If you are in between, the there is obviously an algorithm that adjusts the focus to get the eye in focus rather than the eyelash. I am just not seeing issues with eye focus.
This lens has been a bit of a dream of mine since it was announced years ago, and I finally picked one up when I moved into the Z6ii last month. My main gig involves mostly product photography / video, so this little chungus is mostly for projects on the side and my own amusement.
Nothing too serious or involved to share just yet, but I like seeing this thread active so here's a little something from the last few days:
My 105 continues to deliver. My daughter, age 12, annual photo in mom's wedding dress. I also shot this with the 58 1.4 and while I like the focal length I'm just not happy that it's not as sharp as the 105 wide open. Maybe I need to fiddle more with the fine tuning
Elijah wrote:
Ooops, that was a mistake, I can't win this battle no matter how hard I try!
I don't have a TV, there's no way I will win this battle with the herd that does and can't think for themselves anymore.
Back to pictures!
Where was this taken? Looks exactly like a park near me.. lol.
Does anyone pair their 105 mm 1.4 with a 35mm? For myself I feel like only having a 58mm as widest lens would be too limiting, so I am really hoping that the 35mm / 105mm (85mm on roids, I just fear indoors could be trouble. But then again indoors the 35mm would be my main star) combo works well for me. I only like to bring two lenses to a shooting, more is too much headache.
28mm, 58mm and 105mm is an awesome trio. Add 200mm f2 and that's portrait gold. If you want a 2-lens solution for portraits, many consider 35mm and 85mm. I think 35mm and 105mm still works perfectly fine but I prefer 58mm and 105mm. If you don't care that much about 1.2-1.8, it's not unreasonable to work with a 24-70 f2.8 with the 105mm for good flexibility with 2 lenses. All of these lenses are fantastic, but the 58mm is my current favourite that I couldn't live without. The 105mm is right up there of course too.
One last point - 105mm isn't perfect inside due to space, but my best inside portraits are taken with the 105mm. If I had to pick one of 85mm and 105mm, it would be a no-brainer for the 105mm
The 58 is stellar, my goto people lens -- I can't see myself ever selling it. So from there, I personally would goto 28 for wider, and then for me, my 70-200/2.8 for longer. No, it isn't the 105/1.4 or 200/2, but it 'aint too shabby wide open at over 100mm, and is awfully darn flexible!
I never thought I would ditch my 58mm, but got the 105mm for an absolute steal.. used my 85mm more than my 58mm lately and right now I love shooting portraits with the 35mm.
Also don't like the 28mm for people, feels way less flexible than 35mm because of the added distortion.
No, i dont like standart zooms. trash Bokeh
You did wonders with the 58mm and 35mm has significantly less bokeh without creating distortion too. But 35 and 105 is not illogical. Agree, std zoom isn’t great for portraits. I find 28mm more interesting than 35mm but it’s a newer lens for me so perhaps it’s the honeymoon phase!
