Another test against the 200mm
This is the type of shots I normally do, against dense shrub as our environment here is mostly like that. The 200 would obliterate it, The 105 is doing a very good job as well/
bbourizk wrote:
Another test against the 200mm
This is the type of shots I normally do, against dense shrub as our environment here is mostly like that. The 200 would obliterate it, Together they will be a good match.
Different strategies of background obliteration: the 200 turns it into one lovely mush of colors, the 105 into a swirling bokeh vortex.
Besides the swirl, images from the 105 look very 3-dimensional to me when used at a distance, like in Joe's beach candid or Todd's turkeys or the b/w shot of the boys above. I really like what I see on this thread.
bbourizk wrote:
Another test against the 200mm
This is the type of shots I normally do, against dense shrub as our environment here is mostly like that. The 200 would obliterate it, The 105 is doing a very good job as well/
had my son over this weekend and he was thrilled to get in front of the lens but he said only if we took one together so tossing in selfie of us with the 20-35 2.8 at the end since its related
Nikon seems to be making their bokeh stand apart from everyone else with the swirl of the 58 and now the 105. They have a very "alternative lens" feeling.
Indeed. This being said, the 105mm is also totally outstanding from a technical standpoint with tack sharp corners at f1.4.
It is really very close to my Otus 85mm f1.4 to the extend that I might sell the Otus.
nextelbuddy wrote:
had my son over this weekend and he was thrilled to get in front of the lens but he said only if we took one together so tossing in selfie of us with the 20-35 2.8 at the end since its related
