nextelbuddy wrote:
Been photographing cars more recently.
all of these were at 1.4 with the 105
i still cant believe how much i want to use this lens. if i need to go wide i force myself to get back somewhere rather then just switching to a 35 or 50mm. I do miss the wider distortion from the wider lens though....
BSPhotog wrote:
What's this pentagonal flare in number 5? Is that added in post or was there something in front of the lens?
That's definitely added in post for a few reasons:
1) This lens does not have five blades, it has nine blades.
2) Background blur is too good to be true closed down (wide open shots never show straight lines in flare)
3) I know how fake flare looks like (sorry Shawn)
BSPhotog wrote:
What's this pentagonal flare in number 5? Is that added in post or was there something in front of the lens?
Elijah wrote:
That's definitely added in post for a few reasons:
1) This lens does not have five blades, it has nine blades.
2) Background blur is too good to be true closed down (wide open shots never show straight lines in flare)
3) I know how fake blur looks like (sorry Shawn)
all images were shot @ 1.4 no fake blur was added.
in the last shot I added a sun flare with Knoll Light factory Photoshop plugin. I know its not 9 bladed, they dont have a 9 bladed flare option but i liked the look, it gave it a cinematic feel that I liked.
i dont like it anymore thanks guys..
changed it with an older flare that liked too but i stopped using it because it was overused but its more subtle now.
its just what I like. i dont always shoot the same, i shoot for myself and do what I like.
Elijah wrote:
That's definitely added in post for a few reasons:
1) This lens does not have five blades, it has nine blades.
2) Background blur is too good to be true closed down (wide open shots never show straight lines in flare)
3) I know how fake flare looks like (sorry Shawn)
1) I know.
2) I know.
3) Me too.
My only thought was that maybe was shooting through some kind of pentagon stencil or other weird shit. .
After loooong consideration I finally pulled the trigger, sold my trusty 85mm 1.4G and hit the 'Purchase' button on the 105 😀
I think I'm all set now..20 28 58 105 180
I personally enjoy the 105 quite a bit more than the 85 and even my 200 f2. im sure you will enjoy yours as much as everyone else on here. good luck with it
Elijah wrote:
Now that you have your 105E, what are your thoughts on it in regards to the 200/2 comparison?
Urban photo shoots I like the 105E better, there is too much compression for a lot of urban shots for me. Everything else I like the 200 F2 a little better, not a lot. But i'll still use the 105 sometimes even when it's not urban just to give me arms a break. I mean other than the compression I think they are about equal.
Almass wrote:
I am on bad terms with 35mm. Never liked it...
Same here. 24 as well - the perspective IS different from 28 and not cinematic at all. Size / weight/ price ($360 for LNIB copy) -wise the 28 is perfect.
Get this. Best $5.50 you'll ever spend. The best chart to calibrate your AF.
The beauty of this chart/card is the fact that no matter which lens you're using, you WILL see the purple and green fringe.
In between the fringes, the black square would be a perfect focus. Or I should say in between the black squares.
(sorry Shawn)
. 
