agelessphotog wrote:
Question for anyone who shot with this lens and the 200 F2 VR II. Or VR. What would you say is harder to nail the focus with on someones eyes, the 200 F2 shot at F2, or the 105 1.4E shot at 1.4 I would think the 200 F2 might be harder because it's heavier, but wasn't sure since the 105 is 1.4
Both the 200 and 105 are very, very accurate for me when using the center point. In informal usage I am finding the 105 does a better job of nailing the eyes when the outer focus points are used on a D600 at distance (full body portraits). Up close both are pretty good with the outer points on the eye, but at distance for me on the D600 the 105 pulls slightly ahead. The 105 seems to make small adjustments pretty snappily, but as you would imagine racking from one focus distance extreme to the other the 200 is far far faster. I mention focus speed, because in chasing butterflies and birds I thought focus on the 105 was pretty dang snappy (and it is compared to 85 1.8G), but with big adjustments its relative lack of snap compared to a 70-200 or 200 becomes noticeable. Other than that circumstance I don't really think of the AF speed, which means it doesn't get in my way.
Has anyone bought their lens from kacha shop? It is a lot cheaper than elsewhere. Think it must be grey import but surely must be made in the same factory?
Dj R wrote:
This lens isn't light. no VR, at 105mm, you better have good technique or not drink coffee.
Normally use my D810. I have produced (probably) the best images with this lens (since switching to Nikon 14 months ago).
But I'm finding very good results from the 105e with my D500
I don't know if it's b/c there is possibly less lag with this body?
Improved AF?
No, at 105, VR isn't needed, unless you are taking wedding ceremony shots at 1/80. For normal portrait shots, VR is definitely not needed. I shot with the 135 DC a good bit, and I never thought it needed VR.
agelessphotog wrote:
No, at 105, VR isn't needed, unless you are taking wedding ceremony shots at 1/80. For normal portrait shots, VR is definitely not needed. I shot with the 135 DC a good bit, and I never thought it needed VR.
thanks for your thoughts.
what body are you shooting with?
VR would be nice but it would have added even more cost. And then those that complain about this would complain about the cost It's amazing how many great images have been taken over many years with short (and even long) telephotos without VR.
Gregg Heckler wrote:
VR would be nice but it would have added even more cost. And then those that complain about this would complain about the cost It's amazing how many great images have been taken over many years with short (and even long) telephotos without VR.
I agree completely. I am not asking for VR, I'm just saying it is heavy-ish, and you need to use good technique.
VR is not only needed for tele.
there are lenses such as 35mm prime f2 canon with IS, etc, that have VR or IS.
this lens is heavy enough already, and pricey enough already, as you said.
it's a great lens, I shouldn't have said anything!
