I'm sorry to be the one to tell you this but you need to own both if you are into macro. They serve two different purposes. I guess you can replace the Z with the F mount one only if you've been using it as a portrait lens because there's no 105 1.4s for the Z system.
kaila21 wrote:
Wow, the images from this lens are amazing! I’m over here going back & forth on whether I should get this lens or hang on to the Z 105mm f/2.8. Hmmm…
I've never had the pleasure of owning the 200 f2, but the 105mm clicks in my head. I've had difficulty with 85mm and 135mm, but the 105 is capable of delivering the image I want. It has learning curve.
The third image is just weeds that I decided to let grow in a small section of the backyard to see how it would turn out in a picture.
saaketham wrote:
Anyone who has used both 200 f/2 and 105 f/1.4?
Is the 105 really similar (in image quality and subject isolation) to the 200?
Ludvig83 wrote:
I've never had the pleasure of owning the 200 f2, but the 105mm clicks in my head. I've had difficulty with 85mm and 135mm, but the 105 is capable of delivering the image I want. It has learning curve.
The third image is just weeds that I decided to let grow in a small section of the backyard to see how it would turn out in a picture.
Well done, the little one's smile puts a smile on my face. Also just digging the Oshkosh Bgosh for the memories. Near indestructible kit that managed to survive all my kids' childhood.
Beautiful images. Like you, I just can't deal with 135.
I love 100 and 200mm focal lengths, but the 200 is such a beast to haul around, so I was wondering if the 105 f/1.4 is close to or maybe even better.
Ludvig83 wrote:
I've never had the pleasure of owning the 200 f2, but the 105mm clicks in my head. I've had difficulty with 85mm and 135mm, but the 105 is capable of delivering the image I want. It has learning curve.
The third image is just weeds that I decided to let grow in a small section of the backyard to see how it would turn out in a picture.
saaketham wrote:
Anyone who has used both 200 f/2 and 105 f/1.4?
Is the 105 really similar (in image quality and subject isolation) to the 200?
This probably will be another unpopular opinion as many of mine are, but here goes... Firstly, I have not used the 200/2 for some time so take this FWIW. At the time I did, I compared it to my 70-200/2.8 at 200/2.8 for my main intended use of increased distance portraiture on active children, I did not see enough gain to the 200/2 to justify the cost, size and weight. Moreover, the flexibility of being able to zoom in the 150 to 200 range seemed a bigger benefit than the shallower DoF. Keep in mind, sensors were smaller back then, so pixel-peeping was not on the level it is today. But again for me, this has been the reality I stick with. Finally, I found the 300/2.8 I already owned to deliver an equally unique isolation -- but this is me and YMMV...
The 105 is simply a dream lens and in *my* portrait sweet spot for sure. Improved AF with mirrorless for it and the 58/1.4 plus the way they render, have moved me off the 85 focals completely -- the 58/105 duo is incredibly flexible and both give really pleasing, unique looks.
saaketham wrote:
Beautiful images. Like you, I just can't deal with 135.
I love 100 and 200mm focal lengths, but the 200 is such a beast to haul around, so I was wondering if the 105 f/1.4 is close to or maybe even better.
@saaketham, I have heard of the 105mm f/1.4 being referred to as 'baby chub' I have both and I agree. 105 is more practical and 200 f2 is just gorgeous. It will be a difficult situation for me to choose between the two but if I really had to, I would choose 105 (only because of the more use one would get as it is more practical for day-to-day life than the Chubby)
PS: Sorry, I would never call 105 shot as 'better' maybe because I am so biased towards the 200 f2
saaketham wrote:
Anyone who has used both 200 f/2 and 105 f/1.4?
Is the 105 really similar (in image quality and subject isolation) to the 200?
I have both and now realize I haven't actually tried comparing the two of them with similar subject to frame ratios in different environments yet. Will try to do soon (today is not looking too nice out there though). I can say that to my eye, the differences are:
1. The compression and and angle of view obviously
2. The 200mm f2 is more "airy" or hazy whereas the 105mm 1.4 is more creamy
Like the 58mm f1.4, the 200mm f2 has that "je ne sais pas" special look (so does the 105 really, but just different). As others will have pointed out, it's big and heavy. I love it but I bought it used at a good price. Couldn't justify it otherwise. Buying the 105mm f1.4 makes way more sense for most and the images can be comparable in many scenes. I haven't used the 200 f2 for indoor sports yet but looking forward to putting it on my D500 for a trial. I bought it for portraits though.
i have both. Actually 4. The Nikon and Sigma 105. The Canon and Nikon 200/2.
As much as I love the 105/1.4 (especially the Nikon version), the 200/2 is in a league of its own. Yes its a beast and a takes a lot of effort/planning carrying it around but the images it produces are truly magical and makes it totally worth it for me. Its peerless. The next best thing is the 105/1.4. Its an engineering marvel. Given the size, weight and the rendering it is my choice when situations dont allow me to use the 200/2. I never liked the 135 focal length that much.
Thank you. That is along the lines of what I was thinking, seeing samples.
I had the 200 f/2 for a few years and loved the images, but not the process of hauling it around.
Was wondering if the 105 f/1.4 was close enough as a very very good compromise.
I have the Sigma 135mm f1.8 as well in case this was on the cards for some. I should probably sell it because it doesn't get much use vs the 105 1.4, but like other lens groups, there's always a reason for not wanting to sell a lens
It's probably the sharpest lens I own in an f-mount. Although I haven't tested it properly, I would say it's as sharp as the Z-mount primes. It's incredibly sharp. 135mm is a really nice amount of compression for city portraits when I don't want the depth of a street. But the 2 downsides are that it's almost too sharp for portraits and the bokeh is a bit less pleasing than the Nikon 105 1.4.
I hate calling the 105 a compromise :-) Its a stunning lens and I think you'll be very pleased with it. The Nikon 105 and 58 are enough reasons to shoot Nikon if you're a people photographer.
saaketham wrote:
Thank you. That is along the lines of what I was thinking, seeing samples.
I had the 200 f/2 for a few years and loved the images, but not the process of hauling it around.
Was wondering if the 105 f/1.4 was close enough as a very very good compromise.
I have both and I agree. 105 is more practical and 200 f2 is just gorgeous. It will be a difficult situation for me to choose between the two but if I really had to, I would choose 105 (only because of the more use one would get as it is more practical for day-to-day life than the Chubby)
