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.
popinvasion wrote:
The amount of confirmation bias and consternation and indecisiveness in your posts regarding this lens is impressive!!! Most shots I've seen so far are people testing out a brand new lens. I've yet to see a multitude of shots done in a professional capacity. They will come. I find it hilarious reading posts shitting all over a lens that most have zero experience with. I think you've made the case enough with yourself at this point that you like your 200F2 and don't need to spend anymore $$$. But watching your public wrangling of this decision with yourself has been amusing. Lastly I bet within 6-8 months you'll own this lens-so all of this overwrought handwringing is for naught!...Show more →
I'm just being honest. I was hoping it could fill the void of Nikon not having a newer 135. Maybe you think it's worth $2300, I don't. I think Canon's 135/L F2 produces images just as good. And the Canon 135/L F2 is what, less than half the price? I look at samples and they look great, but not $2300 great. To me it looks like the 85 1.4 but at 105 focal length, which is great, but not worth $2300. Doesn't look as good as the 200 F2 VR, and it gets somewhat close to the price of a used one. It's not that I don't like the lens, I just don't think it's worth $2300. I would pay $1300 for it. After it's been out for a while, and if I can get a good deal on a used one, yeah i'll probably pick it up then.
agelessphotog wrote:
I'm just being honest. I was hoping it could fill the void of Nikon not having a newer 135. Maybe you think it's worth $2300, I don't. I think Canon's 135/L F2 produces images just as good. And the Canon 135/L F2 is what, less than half the price? I look at samples and they look great, but not $2300 great. To me it looks like the 85 1.4 but at 105 focal length, which is great, but not worth $2300. Doesn't look as good as the 200 F2 VR, and it gets somewhat close to the price of a used one. It's not that I don't like the lens, I just don't think it's worth $2300. I would pay $1300 for it. After it's been out for a while, and if I can get a good deal on a used one, yeah i'll probably pick it up then....Show more →
I'm just saying this sounds like the same neurotic kind of discussions you have had regarding the 58mm. The reality is simple: What will work for you or anyone is unknown until you try it-Proclaiming grand decisions publicly based on a handful of test shots posted online is not helpful to anyone-but mostly YOU!
As a longtime Canon shooter I concur. The 135L is a stunner. That's the only lens I miss when I switched to Nikon. I've thought about buying a used 6D and 135L just to have that look but the reality as I see it is simple-The canon files suck. Pushing shadows and highlights on a 6D vs a D750 is a dramatically different experience. Not to mention DR and high ISO-The Nikon is a much better camera. So the 135L would be nice but not the files. The better solution is the 105 1.4. For now. If Nikon comes out with a 135 1.8 then that might be the best option but for now Nikon shooters have 2 lenses the canon folks would love=58mm and 105 1.4. Not to mention better DR, files, etc. Plus others as I absolutely love having a 20 1.8.
Just get out and shoot, borrow, rent, whatever but publicly debating yourself in circles doesn't seem ideal for anyone-especially yourself. Just my op!
popinvasion wrote:
I'm just saying this sounds like the same neurotic kind of discussions you have had regarding the 58mm. The reality is simple: What will work for you or anyone is unknown until you try it-Proclaiming grand decisions publicly based on a handful of test shots posted online is not helpful to anyone-but mostly YOU!
As a longtime Canon shooter I concur. The 135L is a stunner. That's the only lens I miss when I switched to Nikon. I've thought about buying a used 6D and 135L just to have that look but the reality as I see it is simple-The canon files suck. Pushing shadows and highlights on a 6D vs a D750 is a dramatically different experience. Not to mention DR and high ISO-The Nikon is a much better camera. So the 135L would be nice but not the files. The better solution is the 105 1.4. For now. If Nikon comes out with a 135 1.8 then that might be the best option but for now Nikon shooters have 2 lenses the canon folks would love=58mm and 105 1.4. Not to mention better DR, files, etc. Plus others as I absolutely love having a 20 1.8.
Just get out and shoot, borrow, rent, whatever but publicly debating yourself in circles doesn't seem ideal for anyone-especially yourself. Just my op! ...Show more →
Wait, are you saying that you're surprised by seeing confirmation bias in a gear thread? Particularly a thread about a premium lens??
Since I got the Chub just prior to the announcement of the new 105mm, I'll wait until I fully digest and appreciate the wonders/magic of it before seriously considering this lens.
ariel777 wrote:
Since I got the Chub just prior to the announcement of the new 105mm, I'll wait until I fully digest and appreciate the wonders/magic of it before seriously considering this lens.
I had the 105 on preorder when a very nice Chub VR1 came up. Bought the Chub and have somehow just about raked together enough shekels to still have the 105.
Shot lots of 58 at today's wedding and pulled the Chub out for a good few shots too. Had to back up aways for some shots with the Chub, but there really is nothing like it. The 105 I'm hoping will give that Chub look at closer working distances, but you can't beat 200mm compression. My gut feeling is I'll keep all three. 58/105/200 - the new Holy Trinity?
popinvasion wrote:
As a longtime Canon shooter I concur. The 135L is a stunner. That's the only lens I miss when I switched to Nikon. I've thought about buying a used 6D and 135L just to have that look but the reality as I see it is simple-The canon files suck.
As a longtime Canon shooter, I concur too. Can't wait to see whether the 5D4 has finally got a sensor able to compete.
The Canon 135L is a great lens, but the Zeiss 135/2 APO is much much better (AF and price excepted).
From the examples posted online until now, seems to me that this 105/1.4 is something in between the two lenses as far as IQ is concerned (but in all fairness, it is optimized for f/1.4).
The 135L is still the big winner for sports and fast action.
I still can't see why Nikon would cannibalize its very own 85/1.4 with such a similar lens.
gfinlayson wrote:
I had the 105 on preorder when a very nice Chub VR1 came up. Bought the Chub and have somehow just about raked together enough shekels to still have the 105.
Shot lots of 58 at today's wedding and pulled the Chub out for a good few shots too. Had to back up aways for some shots with the Chub, but there really is nothing like it. The 105 I'm hoping will give that Chub look at closer working distances, but you can't beat 200mm compression. My gut feeling is I'll keep all three. 58/105/200 - the new Holy Trinity?
You have way too much dough!
You are correct sir, the 105mm would be that mini chub for weddings.
Since they happen so fast and you have to work so fast, theres almost no time for the chub
I know because I've shot half of dozen of weddings with the chub... What a pain it is to haul it around at weddings...
Yeah....Some more samples from today. I had a dead battery in the Xterra this morning, changing that took up precious time and by the time I got to the park, the sunlight was really harsh and bad. Anyway, here is what I got. The light was bad and it was just too hot for anything else!
Elijah wrote:
You have way too much dough!
You are correct sir, the 105mm would be that mini chub for weddings.
Since they happen so fast and you have to work so fast, theres almost no time for the chub
I know because I've shot half of dozen of weddings with the chub... What a pain it is to haul it around at weddings...
Full-time job, paid gigs on the side and an understanding wife = money to spend on NAS Maybe I've been lucky - the last couple of weddings have been very intimate and relaxed, so besides the formals, there's been huge opportunity for candids. The Chub is not subtle, but with it's working distance, candids are killer. Compared to lugging a 40" octa, 600Ws battery flash, remote head and a Kupo CS-20M C-stand, the Chubmeister is small fry! I'm saving on a gym membership too
Todd wrote:
Yeah....Some more samples from today. I had a dead battery in the Xterra this morning, changing that took up precious time and by the time I got to the park, the sunlight was really harsh and bad. Anyway, here is what I got. The light was bad and it was just too hot for anything else!
Wow! It's no 58 (doesn't have the same character), but what it does have is the sharpness and background destruction to be worthy of the 'mini-Chub' moniker...
gfinlayson wrote:
Wow! It's no 58 (doesn't have the same character), but what it does have is the sharpness and background destruction to be worthy of the 'mini-Chub' moniker...
Well believe it or not, a Nikon rep (Tony) told me today that the 105 was designed to behave like the 58mm. It is based on the 58mm design. This is why the images look similar. Even stars in the night sky are nearly pinpoint at the extreme edges at f/1.4! I'm just thrilled to have a 105 with ED glass!
Todd wrote:
Well believe it or not, a Nikon rep (Tony) told me today that the 105 was designed to behave like the 58mm. It is based on the 58mm design. This is why the images look similar. Even stars in the night sky are nearly pinpoint at the extreme edges at f/1.4! I'm just thrilled to have a 105 with ED glass!
Maybe I need to keep my mouth shut and my mind open.... Once mine arrives, I'll compare it to the 58 and the Chub and post some pics!
Maybe I've been lucky - the last couple of weddings have been very intimate and relaxed, so besides the formals, there's been huge opportunity for candids. The Chub is not subtle, but with it's working distance, candids are killer. Compared to lugging a 40" octa, 600Ws battery flash, remote head and a Kupo CS-20M C-stand, the Chubmeister is small fry! I'm saving on a gym membership too 
Once mine arrives, I'll compare it to the 58 and the Chub and post some pics!