Dj R wrote:
I have a major confession to make guys.
@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!
Dj R wrote:
I have a major confession to make guys.
@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!
My tamron 70-200 produces swirly cats eye bokeh very very similar to the 58. But it's sharp as heck, has great color, and has 3 axis vibration control. It's always a very pleasant surprise when I use it.
Did a youtube video comparison with the Nikon 105 1.4E, 85 1.4G, and 58 1.4G, not scientific, just used all 3 on a portrait photoshoot, my good buddy Shay helped me out, did compare all 3 for sharpness, bokeh, usability (working distance), and just checking out all 3 pics side by side, for head shots, half body, and full body, hope this video can help someone out there decide if they had to choose just one Below are shots from the lens edited.
Dj R wrote:
I have a major confession to make guys.
@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!
For your job, the 70-200 is a more useful tool. But as a previous owner, I have to say this:
That moment when you're zoomed to 200 and still couldn't cream the BG.....
I borrowed a 200 f/2 and it made my 70-200 render like a kit lens! Ended up buying one and sold the 70-200.
The 105 1.4G is a miniature 200 f/2. After some time with the 70-200, I think you will sorely miss the prime's rendering.
Nice video. How is it working with Greg? I taught photo with him in Maryland. Great guy and very knowledgeable. Hope you guys continue to work together.
agelessphotog wrote:
Great video. Is it me or does the 58 make her face look larger because of the distortion of the wider angle? if you look at 11:47 in the video.
Good point, I think it was just how I framed Shay in the photo, a bit closer than the 85 1.4, and her head is tilted a bit to the side.
---------------------------------------------
gnjphotography wrote:
Nice video. How is it working with Greg? I taught photo with him in Maryland. Great guy and very knowledgeable. Hope you guys continue to work together.
-Greg
Thank You! Greg is pretty cool! My buddy pointed out he sounds like John Goodman lol, yes will work with him in the future.
3 As I just walked out of the studio camera in hand I turn around and see this...DO I run inside and get a shorter focal length and risk missing it...nah I'll shoot it with the 105. http://studio102.net/uploads/forums/_BUD6425.jpg
Donzo98 wrote:
That dog shot is RIDICULOUS!!! Looks like it's head is coming out of my screen...
A lot of people say this lens produces flat images, but wow, that pic makes it seem so 3D !
jberry wrote:
A lot of people say this lens produces flat images, but wow, that pic makes it seem so 3D !
The only people who say the lens produces flat images are people who haven't actually used the lens.
Funny how the internet works. A certain blowhard declares the lens "flat" before it is even released, and his posse of sycophants are out "spreading the gospel". The rumor then gets repeated by reasonable people who don't realize where it came from.
Below are shots from the lens edited.
