Gregg Heckler wrote:
The only thing that's more "nauseating" than watching this video are looking at his tats which lack micro-contrast.
I worked with a guy just like him, a photo repair guy who wasn't a great shooter but knew everything you could know about lenses and cameras of his time.
I'll listen to a great shooter on reviews, but the guy in that video sounds just like that tech from my past -- every time I would sign out a particular lens I liked and he disliked, I had to hear him go on and on and on.
RSHPhotography wrote:
Everytime I hear his annoying voice I want to stab myself with a 70-200 lens hood.
So is he right about the micro contrast, and if so, how much of a difference does it make for portraits? I'm only a few minutes into the review, but so far he's just taking photo's of nature. Which I could care less about. When I seen comparison shots, I thought the 105 1.4E looked better than the 105 F2 DC. So I wonder if he knows what he's talking about... Two of the things he's complaining about, swirly bokeh and cat eye bokeh, aren't a negative for me. Lol, saying they aren't a bad thing, unless you have both together. It almost sounds like he's TRYING to find reasons not to like the lens, for some reason. Maybe to get attention?
The bald guy seems to know what he's talking about as far as specs are concerned. And he has a point about not trying to sell you anything. He hates all my damn lenses (58mm, 200mm, 24mm) but I like em, so who cares.
pieceofdebri wrote:
The bald guy seems to know what he's talking about as far as specs are concerned. And he has a point about not trying to sell you anything. He hates all my damn lenses (58mm, 200mm, 24mm) but I like em, so who cares.
Hehe. It's funny, I'm with you, he hates all the lenses I love.
agelessphotog wrote:
So is he right about the micro contrast, and if so, how much of a difference does it make for portraits? I'm only a few minutes into the review, but so far he's just taking photo's of nature. Which I could care less about. When I seen comparison shots, I thought the 105 1.4E looked better than the 105 F2 DC. So I wonder if he knows what he's talking about... Two of the things he's complaining about, swirly bokeh and cat eye bokeh, aren't a negative for me. Lol, saying they aren't a bad thing, unless you have both together. It almost sounds like he's TRYING to find reasons not to like the lens, for some reason. Maybe to get attention?...Show more →
Firstly, like you, I think the 105 f1.4E I like the look of the 105 f1.4E shots better as well, it has more of a 3D look than the 105 F2 DC. 3D look is something he keeps harping on about with all the other lenses and the new 105 has it in spades. As you also rightly point out, he's taking photos of nature and this is foremost a portrait lens. He's such a douche.
Secondly, in the "swirly" bokeh scenes he very conveniently DOESN'T compare any other lenses with the 105 f1.4 E in those very difficult lighting shots where he picks the new 105 to pieces. In other words, those scenes would be difficult for any lens.
He is in so much love with X-T2 these days, then he is so "angry" about anything else, no room for more love.
When he calms down on X-T2, he may revisit this lens again, he's well known about repeating things over and over.
What I think is funny is he bashed the hell out of the 135 DC, it's a waste money, now all of a sudden he loves the 105 DC, which is the same exact lens just a little shorter on the focal length. I have to call BS on him big time. Nobody shooting portraits cares about comparisons with leafs and stuff.
Wonder if he writes the speeches Trump gives; he took 20 min to say three things. Swirly bokeh, bad micro contrast, cat eye bokeh. He repeated these three things I don't know how many times.
I'm really loving this lens. This was shot with heavy backlight, camera held in one hand while steadying a 43" octa in the other. The shot is also un-cropped, and beautifully sharp at this fairly tight distance.
(the scratches on both lenses of her sunglasses are quite hilarious. I asked her how does she see out of those things )
suhsin wrote:
So is the nature of bokeh the same between this lens and the 58mm G?
These two lenses seemed to have stemmed from the same design philosophy.
By 'nature of bokeh' if you mean a gradual defocus transition, then I believe that character trait has been carried forward to the 105E.
As to foreground/background characteristics, there's an excellent thread on dpreview if you haven't already seen it. https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58248881
See for yourself but the author puts it closest to the 85/1.4G
The 58G bokeh characteristics remain unique and closest mimicked by the DC lenses with the rear DC setting dialled up.
Edit: I hadn't noticed but further down the thread the 105/2.5 lens was added and that appears to have the closest bokeh profile to the 105E.
agelessphotog wrote:
What I think is funny is he bashed the hell out of the 135 DC, it's a waste money, now all of a sudden he loves the 105 DC, which is the same exact lens just a little shorter on the focal length. I have to call BS on him big time. Nobody shooting portraits cares about comparisons with leafs and stuff.
I own the 105mm DC and wanted it for over a decade. I read tons of discussion between the two DC lenses and there is a lot more complaints about the lack of sharpness of the 135mm DC compared to the 105mm DC out there.
If you want the super sharp look the 105 G is for you.
I'm happy with a 105mm DC and 85mm 1.4G combo.
I was going to buy this lens, can't now. The micro contrast is just too low in B&W photo's, as pointed out by Angry Photographer. If I take nature photo's and turn them to B&W, they will be so lacking....
)
