Thank you Michael.. that is so kind of you
But yeah, I'm kinda glad I pre-ordered the "Bokehmon".. just checked BH and Adorama and they're both out of stock now.
Creative Edge wrote:
simple I will send you for free a Nikon 50mm 1.8 to use on the DF, I don't have one
but I will gladly buy it for you...
Bless you Michael...nice of you to help Joseph out like that. He needs to get those crazy D810 thoughts out of his head. I bet you'd even cover the shipping.
Joseph. wrote:
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!
This is crazy... I would never think a 1.4 lens could work with a TC... Images look soft though. I'd never do this TC combo.
I really wanted to see how well this lens functioned in the low light. The 58 always struggles to shoot bands in this environment for me and I end up with a ton of blurry photos. I was amazed that the 105 focused decently quick and fairly accurately in a backlit dark environment. I boosted the exposure here and cropped the shots to be the way I wanted them but I didn't sharpen them. The d810 produces a good bit of grain at this ISO but it's still enough detail to have a usable set of images.
So I have my 105mm and I can see some dust behind the front element. I then look closer with a led light...OMG! Dust covers the entire backside of the front element. And there is quite a bit of it.
Those of you that own one, if you did the same and looked at the front element with a light, is there also dust in your copy?? I realize there is "some" dust in all lenses, but there shouldn't be this much. I'll be looking at getting this one replaced.
I might be committing heresy here, but I’m just not blown away by this 105mm lens in the same way I have been with the 58 1.4G. Mind you, I am impressed with many of the photos here, and it may be a better focal length for what some subjects need. However, just for the pure magic of the shot, where it’s the right lens, the 58 is very special.
Nanolicious wrote:
I might be committing heresy here, but I’m just not blown away by this 105mm lens in the same way I have been with the 58 1.4G. Mind you, I am impressed with many of the photos here, and it may be a better focal length for what some subjects need. However, just for the pure magic of the shot, where it’s the right lens, the 58 is very special.
Well Nikon designed this 105 after the 58mm. It has the same flat sharpness across the focal plane (sharp to the corners) and the only thing that really makes it different is the focal length. The 105 has more compression than the 58. The 105 is a medium telephoto, the 58 is a normal lens, not wide, not a telephoto. The viewing angle is much narrower than the 58, so I think that is why you may not like it as much. It doesn't have that wider feel.
Just curious, since when is 105mm FL considered a medium telephoto FL?
Todd wrote:
Well Nikon designed this 105 after the 58mm. It has the same flat sharpness across the focal plane (sharp to the corners) and the only thing that really makes it different is the focal length. The 105 has more compression than the 58. The 105 is a medium telephoto, the 58 is a normal lens, not wide, not a telephoto. The viewing angle is much narrower than the 58, so I think that is why you may not like it as much. It doesn't have that wider feel.
