Curious Joe, you are using the D810A, i know nothing about that camera other than when it came out... many including nikon said it was specialzied for astrophotography and it was not recommended for non astro photography. You seem to be using quite well. are you seeing or feeling any differences in standard shots with the A vs non A?
I'm comfortable using the D810a for all my low light photography. Sometimes requires desaturating reds, but that's about it. Nikon D810a warning about not suitable for general photography is a bit of an exaggeration IMHO. I use the D810 in good light and D810a in poor light. Makes for a nice combo. Your mileage may vary.
I'm really enjoying the rendering, which is my issue with most lenses design/made in the past 6-8 years. I really do love how detailed it is wide open, but without having the background be super creamy (I prefer a more nervous bokeh rendering.)
This week I have been in SF in a family vacation. I took this picture of my daughter today. I rented the lens to test it out and I'm very astonished by the amazing results.
I still think the 200 f2 looks better in every way. How much better though? That's the question. Double the price better? Hmmmm. Handling differences...It's tough. If both lenses were the same price and weight, and you just wanted the best image quality, which would you buy then?
Probably not the right place for this post, so apologies. Nikon has so many good options right now I'm just not sure what to shoot. The four lenses I'm wrestling with are the 85 1.4G (own), forthcoming Sigma Art 85 (pre-ordered), this 105, and the 200f2 (tested for a month.)
But I think any practical person can see the 105 makes the rest of those lenses unnecessary.
I will eventually own the 105 f1.4 but can't imagine ever giving up either of my 200 f2's (vr1 & ai-s). They're both heavy and need space whIle shooting but they deliver like no other.
