Elijah wrote:
I don't have any filters on any of my lenses. I hate filters...
(don't ever buy my lenses, folks)
I used to always wrap my noodle
but lately I've been going freebird, like you.
however I do, for some reason, always "have to have" a wrap for each noodle that I own.
so I have an 82 CPL on the way.
I guess if you're shooting in harsh sun, it pays to have one.
I don't have any filters on any of my lenses. I hate filters...
(don't ever buy my lenses, folks)
I understand, to each their own. But I'll need one when I'm out shooting the night sky. Sometimes dew will form on the front of the lens. Then dust will mix with dew and if I'm not careful, I'll scratch the glass. It's just piece of mind for me. After I have this one, I'll only have three. Not buying any others. I just feel the need to protect my most expensive lenses. The Zeiss has such excellent coatings, it won't interfere with the 105 optical performance. If it does, I'll return it.
The cheap ones will cause ghosting as reflections form between the front element and filter.
popinvasion wrote:
The B+W UV filters work great and are like $50
I've heard of them. Haven't ever owned one, but I'm more of a Zeiss guy. I might as well have the best one. I'd like to see how the B+W compare to Zeiss.
Todd wrote:
I've heard of them. Haven't ever owned one, but I'm more of a Zeiss guy. I might as well have the best one. I'd like to see how the B+W compare to Zeiss.
Todd wrote:
I've heard of them. Haven't ever owned one, but I'm more of a Zeiss guy. I might as well have the best one. I'd like to see how the B+W compare to Zeiss.
gfinlayson wrote:
It also has the bokeh character of the 58... Best of both worlds?
Yeah! Tony Krup (Nikon rep) told me that the 105 was designed just like the 58. The edge to edge sharpness is the same on the 105 as it is on the 58. You can go back to several pages and see if the star test that I did with the stars in the extreme corner in the center and there's very little distortion compared to other lenses in its class. Here is a image of the extreme upper left-hand corner with the 105 and the second photo is the lower right-hand corner.
These tests were specifically for me to see how the stars will look if I shoot wide-open versus stop down to fix coma issues. As you can see it's pretty flat all the way across
Nathan Padgett wrote:
It's for sure got some swirly bokeh in some shots. Here is one that isn't an interesting shot except for the bokeh.....And a good one to make up for it.
Looking at my shots again today, the first dog shot reminds of the 58 with the swirly bokeh. But the second one, reminds me of the 200. Nice and sharp and it really is a background destroyer. See that chainlink fence behind the dog................yeah, me either. But I promise it was there, about 15 feet away.
Nathan Padgett wrote:
Looking at my shots again today, the first dog shot reminds of the 58 with the swirly bokeh. But the second one, reminds me of the 200. Nice and sharp and it really is a background destroyer. See that chainlink fence behind the dog................yeah, me either. But I promise it was there, about 15 feet away.
Yeah... that second shot is winner...
I see how tough it's going to be to get the "right stuff" in focus though.
Crazy shallow DOF..
That's one thing I really like about the 58.. don't need tons of working distance.
Nathan Padgett wrote:
It's for sure got some swirly bokeh in some shots. Here is one that isn't an interesting shot except for the bokeh.....And a good one to make up for it.
Dj R wrote:
Welp, first shoot with this beast
I got many more keepers with this, than I expected.
Sold. That bokeh swirl is awesome. Great shots, guys!
---------------------------------------------
Joseph. wrote:
here you go..
Now that's some serious Nikon porn!
---------------------------------------------
Todd wrote:
Just a couple of head shots from the camera store today. Artificial lights. Window light for the fill. I don't have kids, so this is what I got at the store as I was waiting for the traffic to ease. Not as cool as Dj R, but ......
You're kidding - with the b/w processing you could sell these. Great work!
Nathan Padgett wrote:
. . . See that chainlink fence behind the dog................yeah, me either. But I promise it was there, about 15 feet away.
I want at least one lens that can do that - make a chain link fence or other visual distraction disappear into glorious blur.
For me, sadly, 105/1.4E is not in the cards for now. Instead I will follow this thread closely and enjoy seeing all of you put this beauty through its paces.
