Shot with the Nikon d500 instead of the d810.
Here's a cropped 105e image, wide open at iso 500.
This lens is so sharp wide open, it allows for more cropping than usual.
bbourizk wrote:
So got my lens today and did a quick little test with my daughter and before the sun went down.
Tested the 85, 105, Zeiss135 and 200mm all shot wipe open.
Nothing done to these other than bumping exposure on the zeiss and 200 so they match the 1.4's
For a bit of fun, Here's one from a few weeks ago with the Sigma 50-100 shot in crop mode of the d810
same location but a little off center 100mm @f2 http://studio102.net/uploads/lenstest/_BUD3431.jpg
Very nice, very informative shots. Thanks. From what you show there the 200 is peerless.
One thing of interest for me would be to see the same sort of shots, but with each lens at minimum focus. I'm curious about the magnification ratio.
When I sold off a lot of my Nikon stuff I only kept mostly AIS lenses but kept three modern autofocus ones. I kept the 60 and 105 micro just because they had become my favorites, partly because of the close focus flexibility. I now almost never shoot the Nikon but am somewhat interested in a new body and maybe one or two lenses for my wife who still likes the Nikon. She seems to see only in telephoto and both of us like shots, and take a lot of them in the 1/4 or so life size range. The 105 f1.4 is ok optically from what I've seen here, and it would never move me to spend the asking price, except if it were somehow exceptional at it's near focus and offer something visible and significant that the 105 micro doesn't.
Thanks Bruce, pretty good to know ... but still I wonder how it looks, and esp the bokeh at minimum focus. I've never gotten along with the 85 because I often wanted to get closer. I don't remember the 105 and 135 DC, it probably wasn't great, but I never had the feeling. They got me shots as tight as I wanted, short of a macro.
I have to say that the shots really show all those lenses to be pretty dang good, but the 200 is absolutely amazing. I also wonder if the white balance accounts for the sharp shifts in color ... or are the lenses themselves responsible for such a shift?
You'll have to go back in this thread as others have posted pictures at basically MFD, which is something I also asked for and was graciously supplied.
thanks guys, im jealous
im not sure people who bought this will resell so i can get a good used one here (just like my 58).
again, im just hope. the new one is just way too far from my reach.
I tried Chubino with a Kenko 1.4 TC (Pro 300 DGX) and it works! It's now a 150 f/2 portable mini chub. here are some of my observations:
-AF speed seems like it actually went faster with the TC! It doesn't make sense..
-Aperture and focal length are being reported correctly to the camera body (f/2 and 150mm)
-AF accuracy is very jumpy. I'm at AF-C, Focus Lock On = off, release priority.
-Sharpness is acceptable, with some haze around the edges. Image cleans up perfectly at f/2.8
-Image increased while retaining the lens' original MFD. Kinda cool.
-Can't comment about the bokeh as I haven't shot it outside yet, but it has more background "bringup" compared to the naked 105. Background bokeh balls seem much bigger with the TC.
-Cannot AFFT the combo together unlike with Nikon TC's
I thought about Elijah when testing the TC - he'd probably get a kick out of this...tried it with the 58 1.4G and 28 1.8G which effectively turned them to 85 f/2 and 40mm f/2.5 respectively. That is pretty cool that I can have a 58 1.4 and 85 f/2 in one lens!
Some sample pics below. It will never be a 200 f/2, but it's right there
These are not exactly at MFD for each lens but they are pretty close. Tried to get the framing as close to exact as possible which is hard with 2 different focal lengths.
Of course, being a huge LOTRs fan I used Gollum as my test subject
Minor correcting of white balance, shadow, highlight and exposures to match. Sharpening left at default for lightroom.
(edit) Don't read too much into the sharpness of the image. The 200mm is slightly sharper than the 105mm and this example doesn't really show that. Either way, they are both very sharp lenses.
There are subtle differences other than the focal length but those differences also change depending on...
1. Subject distances to Camera
2. Subject distances to background
The 200mm F2 compresses the scene much more and gives the feeling of shallower depth of field. The 105mm does have slightly better bokeh. In the end both are very capable of amazing results and limited only by ones abilities.
Hardcore wrote:
There are subtle differences other than the focal length but those differences also change depending on...
1. Subject distances to Camera
2. Subject distances to background
The 200mm F2 compresses the scene much more and gives the feeling of shallower depth of field. The 105mm does have better bokeh. In the end both are very capable of amazing results and limited only by ones abilities.
For the same framing, the 105 actually would have very slightly shallower depth of field but it would be very little difference close in.
Some from today. Palo Duro Canyon state park. Some wide open, some not. Either way, it's a fantastic lens. Processed these on my iPhone using Snapseed because I don't have a computer with me so, I don't know how good they are going to look on a big screen
Hardcore wrote:
These are not exactly at MFD for each lens but they are pretty close. Tried to get the framing as close to exact as possible which is hard with 2 different focal lengths.
Of course, being a huge LOTRs fan I used Gollum as my test subject
Minor correcting of white balance, shadow, highlight and exposures to match. Sharpening left at default for lightroom.
(edit) Don't read too much into the sharpness of the image. The 200mm is slightly sharper than the 105mm and this example doesn't really show that. Either way, they are both very sharp lenses.
To compare the bokeh and DOF of 105 1.4E against 200 f2, it does require shooting subject 140 + cm height....
golfinz wrote:
This lens has so much character! Would getting rid of the 70-200 2.8 v2 be missed if one was to get this??
I'd never get rid of the 70-200mm
If I ever loose all my gear and had to start again, the 70-200mm is the first one I would buy. For me It's such a versatile lens for all sorts of shooting.
