Diallo_Jamal wrote:
Please never talk about about how awesome this combo is.
I am really trying to avoid having 28 1.8G (own), 58 1.4G (resisting temptation), 105 1.4G (giving in to temptation), 200 2 (own)...
agelessphotog wrote:
If you have the money I would go for the 200 F2 in a second, while the 105 looks amazing, it doesn't compare to the 200 F2. As long as you are okay with the added weight.
agelessphotog wrote:
If you have the money I would go for the 200 F2 in a second, while the 105 looks amazing, it doesn't compare to the 200 F2. As long as you are okay with the added weight.
Coming from a former chubmeister owner I'll tell you this: the weight and size alone of the 200 became a huge problem for me.
While the 105E is only at 2.17 lb, the chub weighs a whooping 6.46 lb and is twice as long in length as the 105E.
Basically, you're paying more for a faster AF and more compressed background.
Notice I didn't mention VR? Because VR I is completely useless; I had trouble getting sharp shots at 1/80/sec.
Sharpness should also be indistinguishable for a normal 97% crowd (that 3% are photographers)
I will say this again, I'd rather own a 70-200VRII and 105E for the price of the chub.
I've been experimenting with mine - about 1/125 is my lower limit for hand-holding. With a trenchmonkey style minimalist BushHawk attached, 1/60 gives me 1 sharp shot out of a 3 shot burst.
Elijah wrote:
Coming from a former chubmeister owner I'll tell you this: the weight and size alone of the 200 became a huge problem for me.
While the 105E is only at 2.17 lb, the chub weighs a whooping 6.46 lb and is twice as long in length as the 105E.
Basically, you're paying more for a faster AF and more compressed background.
Notice I didn't mention VR? Because VR I is completely useless; I had trouble getting sharp shots at 1/80/sec.
Sharpness should also be indistinguishable for a normal 97% crowd (that 3% are photographers)
I will say this again, I'd rather own a 70-200VRII and 105E for the price of the chub.
Coming from a former chubmeister owner I'll tell you this: the weight and size alone of the 200 became a huge problem for me.
While the 105E is only at 2.17 lb, the chub weighs a whooping 6.46 lb and is twice as long in length as the 105E.
Basically, you're paying more for a faster AF and more compressed background.
Notice I didn't mention VR? Because VR I is completely useless; I had trouble getting sharp shots at 1/80/sec.
Sharpness should also be indistinguishable for a normal 97% crowd (that 3% are photographers)
I will say this again, I'd rather own a 70-200VRII and 105E for the price of the chub.
For all day wedding shoots I would never use the chub, but I really don't shoot weddings anymore, and for portraits the compressed backgrounds with a 200 F2 are much more dreamy and create more isolation that look a lot better to me than what I would get with a 105. No comparison. For a portrait photographer, there is no comparison, it's a totally different look. And I shot with the 70-200VRII, I wasn't impressed. I thought the 200 F2 looked much better. Sharpness and Bokeh.
The 200mm F2 is good but the 105mm F1.4 will be gooder That is my official review taking into account bokeh quality, weight, sharpness and general gooderness of the lens.
Hardcore wrote:
The 200mm F2 is good but the 105mm F1.4 will be gooder That is my official review taking into account bokeh quality, weight, sharpness and general gooderness of the lens.
Ya, the 200mm F2 doesn't hold a chance, you're right. Sell that lens before it depreciates to nothing I'm willing to bet the 105mm price will sky rocket after release due to massive demand.
Hardcore wrote:
Ya, the 200mm F2 doesn't hold a chance, you're right. Sell that lens before it depreciates to nothing I'm willing to bet the 105mm price will sky rocket after release due to massive demand.
Lots of chubmeisters will be up for sale and definitely a load of used 85mm f/1.4's under a grand will be up for sale too, I can already foresee that!
Hardcore wrote:
The 200mm F2 is good but the 105mm F1.4 will be gooder That is my official review taking into account bokeh quality, weight, sharpness and general gooderness of the lens.
RSHPhotography wrote:
No way a 100mm touches the compression of a 200.
It won't, but it will offer more background blur if the background is within 5 meters of the subject. For portrait and wedding photographers this is a very common scenario, so the 105 may actually be more useful to them in the field. But if you're literally in a field, the 200 would be better.
Hardcore wrote:
Ya, the 200mm F2 doesn't hold a chance, you're right. Sell that lens before it depreciates to nothing I'm willing to bet the 105mm price will sky rocket after release due to massive demand.
Sounds like someone can't afford a 200 F2, lol. Sour grapes. I think someone else in here regrets selling theirs also....
Lauchlan Toal wrote:
It won't, but it will offer more background blur if the background is within 15 meters of the subject. For portrait and wedding photographers this is a very common scenario, so the 105 may actually be more useful to them in the field. But if you're literally in a field, the 200 would be better.
I would love to see some comparison shots, I have not seen any sample shots that show more B/G blur though so far, I mean not any noticeable. Nothing I have seen looks as good as shots taken with the 200 F2 IMO. Even close up.
agelessphotog wrote:
I would love to see some comparison shots, I have not seen any sample shots that show more B/G blur though so far, I mean not any noticeable. Nothing I have seen looks as good as shots taken with the 200 F2 IMO. Even close up.
It's not the distance you are from the subject, it's the distance the background is from the subject. And the quality of the lens doesn't matter, it's just the physics of it all. Longer lenses are able to blur distant backgrounds more than shorter lenses, but faster lenses can blur nearby backgrounds more. A 200mm f1.4 would blur the background more than the 105 at any subject to background distance, since it's equally fast but longer. However, since the 200mm lens is f2, it's slower than the 105 and hence can't blur nearby backgrounds as much - but being a longer lens it can blur the backdrop better when the background's farther away from the subject.
The 200mm f2 is an amazing lens. Faster to focus than any lens except perhaps the 24-70 VR, sharper than almost any other lens, and able to produce beautiful bokeh. If I had the choice between it and the 105 I'd pick the 200, it's a better lens for sports, wildlife, and open field portraiture. But if the subject is less than 5 meters from the background, as with indoors shots or portraits in front of trees or whatever, the 105mm f1.4 will, without a doubt, blur the background more. Unless Nikon lied and it's not really an f1.4 lens.
Lauchlan Toal wrote:
It's not the distance you are from the subject, it's the distance the background is from the subject. And the quality of the lens doesn't matter, it's just the physics of it all. Longer lenses are able to blur distant backgrounds more than shorter lenses, but faster lenses can blur nearby backgrounds more. A 200mm f1.4 would blur the background more than the 105 at any subject to background distance, since it's equally fast but longer. However, since the 200mm lens is f2, it's slower than the 105 and hence can't blur nearby backgrounds as much - but being a longer lens it can blur the backdrop better when the background's farther away from the subject.
The 200mm f2 is an amazing lens. Faster to focus than any lens except perhaps the 24-70 VR, sharper than almost any other lens, and able to produce beautiful bokeh. If I had the choice between it and the 105 I'd pick the 200, it's a better lens for sports, wildlife, and open field portraiture. But if the subject is less than 15 meters from the background, as with indoors shots or portraits in front of trees or whatever, the 105mm f1.4 will, without a doubt, blur the background more. Unless Nikon lied and it's not really an f1.4 lens....Show more →
I gotcha. Going from the samples I have seen, it looks almost just like my 85 though, and my 200 is a world of difference. If I didn't already have a nice 85 and 200 I would be ordering it. I still may, but I want to see some professional reviews and comparison shots. I have no doubt if I was doing a shoot in town, it would be the best Nikon lens to use, but 90% of my shots are out in the country and the 200 dominates the 105 on most of those locations. I don't stick people beside trees, other than putting them next to a brick or stone wall I can't see the 105 looking better. 90% of my high school senior shoots they almost always say "I want water, and fields"
I guess another thing to think about is where do I really want more bokeh? And where I want it the most would be fields and water. Shots like this have more than enough bokeh with my 200 F2. If there was less bokeh though in the field and water shots that would be worse.
That is my official review taking into account bokeh quality, weight, sharpness and general gooderness of the lens.
