I didn't get a lot of time to mess with my 105 last night as I had other commitments and some studio work to do, but what little time I did get with it.... Very sharp, excellent flare control when shooting towards the sun, great balance and feel... but very slow AF. Slooooow.
All in all, I'm extremely happy with the results using it it on my D4s, it's like a wide angle Chubby. haha
Hardcore wrote:
A few more from last night's photoshoot.
I seen you posted photo's in the 58 thread of the same photo shoot. To me, the ones taken with the 105 really outshine them. Don't get me wrong, the photos taken with the 58 look GREAT, but the 105 does outperform it by quite a bit, at least from what I'm seeing. Would you agree with that? Just wondering because I am only going to be able to get one of these lenses, looks like the 105 definitely has the edge, the compression and sharpness, bokeh seems close on both.
agelessphotog wrote:
looks like the 105 definitely has the edge, the compression and sharpness, bokeh seems close on both.
pretty much
somehow nikon managed to give us exactly what we wanted with this chubster.
58 bokeh magic, with it's creative swirl
but sharper wide open.
Got mine this evening: no time to shoot anything yet, just mounted on the camera bodies to check size, balance, and focusing speed and accuracy.
Size: It's not nearly as gargantuan as some of the early posts seemed to indicate: it's big, yes, but by memory, it's about the same size and weight as the 85mm 1.2 that I used to shoot back when I shot Canon. And while it is fat, it's not nearly as long as I feared. (For reference, it's at least a full inch shorter than my (original) 24-70 2.8G zoom). In sum, yes, it's a big piece of glass, but not at all unreasonably so and feels eminently handholdable.
Balance: feels fine on my D800, but feels better on my D3x. The difference is that the D3x has a built-in grip whereas I don't have a grip for the D800. Even on the D800, though, I can tell I'll just put more of the weight on my left/lens hand than on the right/body hand and it'll be fine.
AF: speed is basically fine. Neither as fast as it fastest focusing Nikon lenses nor as slow as the slowest. It's slower than my 200 F2 chub for sure, but I don't find it to be as "sloooooooowwwww" as some here have described. But I don't shoot sports and seldom use focus tracking. For portraits, landscapes, and walk around street shooting, AF speed will be more than fine. I think one's perception of AF speed with this lens will very much be determined by what you're expecting: I wasn't expecting blazing fast AF with this lens. No real impressions about AF accuracy yet: seemed to lock on quite well in pointing it at random objects under indoor lighting this evening.
I'll be taking it (and my kids) to an all-day outdoor festival tomorrow, so I'll take the camera with only this lens to put it through its paces in that setting. I'm wondering whether to take it on the D3x or the D800, though... Probably the latter for the additional ISO and dynamic range flexibility in unknown lighting conditions.
williamcarter wrote:
AF: speed is basically fine. Neither as fast as it fastest focusing Nikon lenses nor as slow as the slowest. It's slower than my 200 F2 chub for sure, but I don't find it to be as "sloooooooowwwww" as some here have described. But I don't shoot sports and seldom use focus tracking. For portraits, landscapes, and walk around street shooting, AF speed will be more than fine.
Trying to take pictures of something coming towards/away from you at anything but a slow pace is where the lens simply won't keep up. Left to right and vice versa isn't an issue in regards to speed even as pretty quick speeds. It's definitely not an issue for portraits, landscapes, and nearly every walk around street shooting situation as you mentioned.
