gfinlayson wrote:
Just for giggles, here are a couple of quick and dirty portraits I shot this evening of my very photogenic sister-in-law and her hubby. Sunlight was brutal - tried to tame it a little with some flash. Wide open Chubby and wide open 58. Which is which? (EXIF is stripped to prevent cheating!)
The background on the 58 is a bit of a giveaway - there's that swirly look to it plus there's much more of it from the wider field of view. It'll be interesting to see how the 105 compares to these two when it finally arrives.
Easiest way for me to tell was #1 had more of the BG and FG in the photo. Still pretty close though. But I'm guessing you could get the $450 85 1.8G to look pretty close too.
Mark_L wrote:
I still have no idea how people here seem to think totally different focal lengths are somehow comparable.
Every lens is comparable. They will produce different results and the comparisons are to show what kind of results you might expect with each lens. I compare my portrait lenses all the time so I can better understand when I want to use them and in what conditions they produce the best results. Pretty simple.
I think comparing something like 50mm vs 200mm or 85mm is ridiculous.
Comparing something like 135mm vs 200mm is doable.
But 105 and 200 is questionable... They really are different lenses.
I'm willing to bet the AF speed on the 105 is not even remotely close to the speed of 200 or 70-200VRII.
Likewise with VR, physical size and weight of the lenses, etc.
This is exactly why I still wanted a 70-200VRII that replaced my chubby, yet will still have
a 105mm that will give me a chubby-like results for portraits
Elijah wrote:
I think comparing something like 50mm vs 200mm or 85mm is ridiculous.
Comparing something like 135mm vs 200mm is doable.
But 105 and 200 is questionable... They really are different lenses.
I'm willing to bet the AF speed on the 105 is not even remotely close to the speed of 200 or 70-200VRII.
Likewise with VR, physical size and weight of the lenses, etc.
This is exactly why I still wanted a 70-200VRII that replaced my chubby, yet will still have
a 105mm that will give me a chubby-like results for portraits
TWO more weeks guys, two more weeks!
The 105 will give you closer to 85 results for portraits than chubby like results. 105 to 200 is going to look a lot different for portraits.
Hardcore wrote:
Every lens is comparable. They will produce different results and the comparisons are to show what kind of results you might expect with each lens. I compare my portrait lenses all the time so I can better understand when I want to use them and in what conditions they produce the best results. Pretty simple.
I meant the other definition of the word "of equivalent quality; worthy of comparison". Of course, anything can be compared to anything else for interest.
Mark_L wrote:
I still have no idea how people here seem to think totally different focal lengths are somehow comparable.
For the type of shots here, the 58 and 200 do produce comparable results IMO and to a non-photographer, they're not easy to tell apart. Yes, they're very different lenses, but the images here aren't wildly different in their overall look.
The Chubby photos have more compression, less background and a shallower DoF, but to a non-photographer, they look more or less the same. For this type of shot, you could equally use either (if you can back up ten paces to shoot with the Chubby).
I wholeheartedly agree there are situations where the 200 can do things the 58 can't and vice versa, but for me it was an interesting excercise.
Does anybody have kind of information about the focusing speed of the new lens.
Would be great if it was substancially quicker than either both 50mm lenses or both 85er. I guess it will still not compete with zooms like the 70-200 and actually i start to wonder why this shouldn't be possible to make for a company like nikon.
At least a noticeably quicker autofocus would be very welcome here i guess👍.
nikonos6 wrote:
Does anybody have kind of information about the focusing speed of the new lens.
Would be great if it was substancially quicker than either both 50mm lenses or both 85er. I guess it will still not compete with zooms like the 70-200 and actually i start to wonder why this shouldn't be possible to make for a company like nikon.
At least a noticeably quicker autofocus would be very welcome here i guess👍.
My empirical thinking on the matter is that the f/1.4 lenses have much shallower DoF than the f/2.8 zooms, which means focusing is more critical, so a different (slower) gearing is used in the lens AF which prioritises accuracy over speed.
Any lens engineering experts around who could offer a more scientific explanation?
Bohemien wrote:
NOW we're talking. These samples are fantastic. If you guys come up with similar stuff when you get your copies, I'm sold.
Markus
Similar? Please, I already have a vision of shots I want to take! :P They will be better than some test shots!
Half of Nikon's "test" shots are terrible (referring to street photographers)
1) COMPRESSION PEOPLE!!! It is a thing. 58 is not 85 is not 105 is not 200.
2) This thread title is like clickbait. Let's change it to something more accurate and then start over the image thread when this 105 is actually released. My $0.02
nikonos6 wrote:
Does anybody have kind of information about the focusing speed of the new lens.
Would be great if it was substancially quicker than either both 50mm lenses or both 85er. I guess it will still not compete with zooms like the 70-200 and actually i start to wonder why this shouldn't be possible to make for a company like nikon.
At least a noticeably quicker autofocus would be very welcome here i guess👍.
Focussing speed is more or less the same as the 85/1.4G (I tried the 105/1.4E on a D810).
BSPhotog wrote:
1) COMPRESSION PEOPLE!!! It is a thing. 58 is not 85 is not 105 is not 200.
Compression sets these lenses apart from each other, however the differences aren't always immediately obvious to the non-photographer, i.e. our clients. But I take your point.
2) This thread title is like clickbait. Let's change it to something more accurate and then start over the image thread when this 105 is actually released. My $0.02
Yeah, “the discussion thread about the largely average sample images from the yet non-existent 105 f/1.4E" seems somehow more appropriate.....
