agelessphotog wrote:
Because Elijah knows that their is no comparison, and he doesn't want to regret selling the 200 F2 so bad.
There IS no comparison. But for what I do (weddings) it makes absolutely no sense to shoot with a chubby as a sole telephoto.
You're right, the chubby is a whole different league in terms of compression, AF speed, bokeh size, etc.
But I'd rather have a 105E + 70-200VRII than just one 200/2.
Unfortunately, I don't shoot full time and I don't make a lot from photography, therefore I can't afford all three.
Elijah wrote:
There IS no comparison. But for what I do (weddings) it makes absolutely no sense to shoot with a chubby as a sole telephoto.
You're right, the chubby is a whole different league in terms of compression, AF speed, bokeh size, etc.
But I'd rather have a 105E + 70-200VRII than just one 200/2.
Unfortunately, I don't shoot full time and I don't make a lot from photography, therefore I can't afford all three.
Lol, I hear you man, that makes total sense. With us it's the opposite, we basically just decided we didn't want to do weddings and put all our energy into high school senior sessions.
agelessphotog wrote:
I do like this lens a lot, just to me it seems a little over priced. Hoping the Tamron is a good performer.
What Tamron? It can take forever for a patent registered to become a product. There is no Tamron. Just go shoot that 200F2 and leave this over priced Nikon for those of us that appreciate its attributes.
Todd wrote:
Not bad on the focus, the photo is flat though, it needs a lot more contrast. Yeah I know, they are just snapshots. More contrast will make them pop.
Matter of taste, but I actually like the 'flat' look in these photos and the originals posted of the older gentleman among the official samples. There is a subtlety of rendering (especially in going from light to shadow) apparent in them that I rather like, and appreciate in a lens. While the look is not punchy, it has a type of transparency that I like. I am likely rather poorly describing my observations, but I am hoping that I am understood.
Todd wrote:
Not bad on the focus, the photo is flat though, it needs a lot more contrast. Yeah I know, they are just snapshots. More contrast will make them pop.
have you been on Instagram in the past year or so? that flat, faded look is the current trend everyone is doing.
I am a bit surprised to see so many exchanges about what this lens cannot do (replace a 200mm) instead of focusing on what it can do:
- deliver images that are both very sharp wide open and have a very pleasant out of focus rendering (taking into account the fact that this is a 105mm) - IMHO this lens has one of the best compromises on the market, if not the best short of super tele lenses,
- be focused accurately and consistently at f1.4 on (at least) a D5
- be focused reasonnably quickly on moving subjects (no, it is not a 400mm f2.8 but for a normal prime it is pretty fast on the D5)
- be pretty affordable (compared to what it should be compared to, the Otus 85mm f1.4)
glowhunter wrote:
have you been on Instagram in the past year or so? that flat, faded look is the current trend everyone is doing.
Probably because they don't know how to shoot any other way, flash, unique lighting, etc. I see it all the time. Mostly iPhone photos using unique apps for fading. I don't care for it much. It's how natural light photographers take their photos when they have no other experience. My step sister Jenny Watts is the same way. Nice natural light portraits with a blown out sky. She tells me she doesn't know how to use flash for fill, so she stays in her comfort zone, which is most likely what most natural light photographers do. Photos need to be more balanced than that. Take a look at Joe McNally. Been to his blog lately?
The photo of the dog seems like it was shot through a cage, hence the effect?
Even it seems a bit flat, it is still sharp in the dog's eye and soothing to my eye.
I like this pic. It has a calming effect.
For me, sometime I like punchy colors, sometimes faded instagram looks. I can't choose a side.
Importantly, the contrast for the dog pic can be easily added in, and tuned to your own taste.
I think every final photo was done to the artist's personal preference.
Maybe the photographer can even provide the raw photo for friends here to play around with PP.
Going into day 5 of my use with this lens, the experience has been positive.
Firstly my wife smiled at me when I brought it home. My copy doesn't need focus adjustment, and i think the lens does not lack contrast.
The size is just slightly bigger than my 85f1.4g and shorter (but fatter) than my original 24-70mm.
The other lenses sure still have their place in my dry cabinet.
This lens will only be an addition, it will never replace the 200f2 and my noct 58f1.2.
I hope all bros here can have their 105 delivered by tonight and join in the fun.
For others who can't justify the cost, I hope that Sigma catches up and announces a budget one soon. (no pun intended)
On a side note, 200f2 vr1 has a very cloudy effect if we shoot towards a backlight. (not even a strong backlight)
I am sure other owners will know about this. That is really flat and washed out.
But it doesn't prevent us from loving that lens and hugging it to sleep every night.
).