Bohemien wrote:
Honestly, in my experience the Siggy 50 (I reckon you're talking about the non-Art) is a one-trick-pony. It's really good for close-up portraits with creamy bokeh (but not swirly ). Over the distance, my copy is pretty bad at anything larger than f/4...
Markus
Hey Markus! I'm actually thinking about the 50 ART, which is crazy sharp.. but that bokeh is just (imo) disgusting.
Josef Isayo wrote:
Any comparisons between the 105 1.4 and 200 2.0? I would love to see compression and depth of field between the two.
This has been covered here several pages back. There's also another comparison at DPR.
I really like the tones
I am struggling lately, trying to get w/b like you have achieved here.
Do you have any info you can share?
or do you just attribute it to d3s!
Dj R wrote:
I really like the tones
I am struggling lately, trying to get w/b like you have achieved here.
Do you have any info you can share?
or do you just attribute it to d3s!
Thanks. That was a quick sample from a session last night. Shot with my D4s. Most of the pp was moving black point, curves, selective hue shifts, and a vignette to balance it out.
Just picked mine up today. Haven't had much of a chance at using it other than a botanical gardens late in the day. I cannot get over how sharp this lens is wide open, it's simply amazing!
Lance B wrote:
Just picked mine up today. Haven't had much of a chance at using it other than a botanical gardens late in the day. I cannot get over how sharp this lens is wide open, it's simply amazing!
Lance B wrote:
Just picked mine up today. Haven't had much of a chance at using it other than a botanical gardens late in the day. I cannot get over how sharp this lens is wide open, it's simply amazing!
Very nice, Lance! This lens and the 24-70 VR complement each other very well. Both have 82mm filters and renders exactly the same deep vivid colours.
Well, if Joseph and Lance both rave about the new 105mm, I'll have to go with it. The captures on this thread certainly demonstrate that this lens is excellent. However, I do wish that it was introduced a month or so earlier, then I would have passed on the new 200/2 that I had just purchased.
Joseph. wrote:
Very nice, Lance! This lens and the 24-70 VR complement each other very well. Both have 82mm filters and renders exactly the same deep vivid colours.
I'm hoping the new 70-200 2.8 matches also! I'm loving the 24-70VR
ariel777 wrote:
Well, if Joseph and Lance both rave about the new 105mm, I'll have to go with it. The captures on this thread certainly demonstrate that this lens is excellent. However, I do wish that it was introduced a month or so earlier, then I would have passed on the new 200/2 that I had just purchased.
Haven't missed my chubby since I sold it for this 105E
This lens looks awesome! I usually use my 70 - 200 for my couples sessions. I wonder if I could say good bye to the 70-200 for this lens? I would miss the compression at 200 but these images are super nice.
@ahaug funny you should ask that question.
I have owned a ton of glass, Canon
24-70f2.8II 50L 85L 135L
and Nikon 58g 85g 105e 70-200f4 20-70f2.8EVR etc...
but never shot with a 70-200 f2.8 ever.
This week I upgraded my 70-200f4 to the 2.8 VRII
I shot with it tonight for the first time, actually with my d500
wow!!!
it's not much heavier than the 105e.
so much more manageable than I thought it would be.
hooked up my shoulder sling strap to the tripod mount, was no big deal walking around for a shoot.
so much more versatile than the 105 obviously, still super sharp, still makes great bokeh.
the zoom range is perfect, so easy to use.
hmmmmmm!
). Over the distance, my copy is pretty bad at anything larger than f/4...
