agelessphotog wrote:
Must be because you shoot weddings, 99% of the time for my portrait sessions I never need anything wider than 105
It has absolutely nothing to do with weddings
I used to be the same way you are; telephoto lens, fast aperture, always wide open, most compression I could get.
Right now It's not the case... My style kind of changed. I like to get more scene into my image while still shooting wide open.
That's why 35G/58G are my favorite lenses. I love shooting environmental portraits with them. And the 105mm is the longest prime I'll use for portraits.
Elijah wrote:
It has absolutely nothing to do with weddings
I used to be the same way you are; telephoto lens, fast aperture, always wide open, most compression I could get.
Right now It's not the case... My style kind of changed. I like to get more scene into my image while still shooting wide open.
That's why 35G/58G are my favorite lenses. I love shooting environmental portraits with them. And the 105mm is the longest prime I'll use for portraits.
I see. I was just guessing, lol. It sucks right now because we are in Maryland, and this time of year everything is dead. All the trees, leaves, grass, flowers, it just looks ugly outside. The light sucks too around this time of year, it gets dark around 4:30 and usually the light is very harsh until about 4:15, get about 10 minutes to shoot with good light. I can't wait until around march and I can start doing some shoots with this lens. I love the practice shots I took with it. I actually would have preferred a 135 with everything else the same. But having said that, to me this lens produces better images than the Canon 135, which I think is an amazing lens. It's just that good.
Mmntog wrote:
Someone please post some more photos I'm getting withdrawal symptoms lol. I'm almost there with my saving up.. should have the lens in a few months 😁
jtgray wrote:
What's the difference between a bikini and being covered by her arms. Her arms are bigger than most bikinis out here
Well, very true, but even the bikini one would have been considered NSFW (though it depends on where one works )
Very nice shot, regardless...
I have resisted visiting this thread very often as I know it may eventually hurt my pocket. I love our Zeiss 135 f/2 APO as our 200 f/2 companion, but the rendering on this 105 f/1.4 is close (though still not quite there, IMHO), but the AF does certainly tip the balance for those dynamic subjects (kids and such)...
I picked up my 200mm f2 for the first time since I bought the 105 a few days ago. Might sell the 200. They are both great but the 105 is not versatile
cambyses wrote:
Well, very true, but even the bikini one would have been considered NSFW (though it depends on where one works )
Very nice shot, regardless...
I have resisted visiting this thread very often as I know it may eventually hurt my pocket. I love our Zeiss 135 f/2 APO as our 200 f/2 companion, but the rendering on this 105 f/1.4 is close (though still not quite there, IMHO), but the AF does certainly tip the balance for those dynamic subjects (kids and such)...
