jmfoots wrote:
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
EDIT: Also, I am a godawful tester so I would appreciate your input here.
Thank you for samples. I looked at the full resolution 105 at f/1.4 f/2 and f/2.8 - I see that sharpness increases in center when aperture is closed, it increases on the right side (crane) too, but it decreases on the left side. Building on the left side is probably farther, so it may be that there is decreasing/changing field curvature as you stop down, but it may be lens defect too. I looked also at f/5.6 after finding above strange and still the building on the left side is soft compared to right side.
Is it me or does this lens take flat images? It seems to me that this lens is a solution to a non issue.
Nikon is replacing the excellent 105DC made in Japan with ground glass with this overcooked version made in China with plastic body and molded glass. No thank you Nikon. Its all about corporate profit these days.
dimitris77 wrote:
Is it me or does this lens take flat images? It seems to me that this lens is a solution to a non issue.
Nikon is replacing the excellent 105DC made in Japan with ground glass with this overcooked version made in China with plastic body and molded glass. No thank you Nikon. Its all about corporate profit these days.
That is crazy you just asked that. I just pulled up this thread because I wanted to post and say I think i'm passing on this lens because the photo's just don't pop at all to me, they look really flat. I was debating on whether to sell my 200 F2, and get this lens, or keep it and get the lens anyways, but that was holding me back more than anything. And I don't know what it is, I don't think adding contrast in post will fix it. They definitely don't pop like the 200 F2.
I don't know if anyone saw this or not but Tamron has a patent on a 115mm 1.4 that may be released soon, for anyone groaning at the price tag of the Nikon like I am.
badlosedotorg wrote:
I don't know if anyone saw this or not but Tamron has a patent on a 115mm 1.4 that may be released soon, for anyone groaning at the price tag of the Nikon like I am.
agelessphotog wrote:
That is crazy you just asked that. I just pulled up this thread because I wanted to post and say I think i'm passing on this lens because the photo's just don't pop at all to me, they look really flat. I was debating on whether to sell my 200 F2, and get this lens, or keep it and get the lens anyways, but that was holding me back more than anything. And I don't know what it is, I don't think adding contrast in post will fix it. They definitely don't pop like the 200 F2.
Could you post two images side by side, one with "pop" and one without? I genuinely don't what you mean by "pop"
If I was still shooting Nikon I would be buying a 105 DC and forget about this. In fact I might buy one and convert it to my canon since people will be selling theirs used to jump on this. Its all about sharpness and no CA these days. The lens rendition or color saturation doesn't matter anymore.
Do you honestly think this lens is better than the 105DC? The 105DC is simpler and better built, faster focusing (even though its screw focus!), has better color reproduction and nicer rendition.
The Nikon ambassador had to post process the images from the new lens to make them half decent.
This is coming from a canon user so I am not invested in the 105DC either.
dimitris77 wrote:
Do you honestly think this lens is better than the 105DC? The 105DC is simpler and better built, faster focusing (even though its screw focus!), has better color reproduction and nicer rendition.
The Nikon ambassador had to post process the images from the new lens to make them half decent.
This is coming from a canon user so I am not invested in the 105DC either.
You didn't get this drivel from the "angry photographer" on youtube did you?
I quite prefer the flat-looking images although very few have mentioned how much PP has gone into them. I'd like to think that most of the samples we are seeing have least processing. Better that than for someone to buy the lens and discover images can't be made to look like what they've seen on the internet.
This is another tool to a Nikon photographer's toolbox. Some will prefer it, some not. It seems like this is going to be like the 58mm F1.4. Those that know how to maximise its strengths, swear by it and produce wonderful images with it. Those that don't like it, use every opportunity to tell the world why they didn't choose it.
A bit like walking into a bar full of team supporters watching their favourite team play and telling them how rubbish their team is. The internet's a wonderful place.
I have seen some of his videos but no. I am always happy to give credit to wherever credit is due. God knows canon makes some turds as well. Just my honest opinion from the images I am seeing.
dimitris77 wrote:
Is it me or does this lens take flat images?
agelessphotog wrote:
That is crazy you just asked that. I just pulled up this thread because I wanted to post and say I think i'm passing on this lens because the photo's just don't pop at all to me, they look really flat. I was debating on whether to sell my 200 F2, and get this lens, or keep it and get the lens anyways, but that was holding me back more than anything. And I don't know what it is, I don't think adding contrast in post will fix it. They definitely don't pop like the 200 F2.
That's just confirmation bias. You need to look at the images with an open mind, with an understanding that somehow, a new lens like the 105E may come really close. I've owned the 200/2 for almost 5 years and I know its rendering really well. I can tell you that the 105E comes really close. Don't fight the urge, just think and decide if you like this FOV and then buy the lens. The 200/2 is very nice indeed but it's a pain to travel with, especially when carryons are limited to 15lbs.
As for the images being "flat", are you serious? In fact, they are very "3D" to me. Amazing isolation. If you need to clean up some clutter from BG, you can always clone them out. This lens is anything but flat.
dimitris77 wrote:
Nikon is replacing the excellent 105DC made in Japan with ground glass with this overcooked version made in China with plastic body and molded glass. No thank you Nikon. Its all about corporate profit these days.
I thought about the Made in China part, but then I realized that if the 105E (with its intricate design and exotic speed) was to be made in Japan, the lens would easily cost $3,000+ and no one would buy it. By moving production to China, they're able to make it cheaper with very little to no compromise. Thus, the "affordable" $2200 price.
I am always happy to give credit to wherever credit is due. God knows canon makes some turds as well. Just my honest opinion from the images I am seeing. 
