Keiththom wrote:
Thanks. It would be very interesting to see comparable shot of similiar subjects taken with these two great lenses!
I didn't have much time to do these, but I took a few quick photos of my 13 year old daughter in our back yard. I like the compression on the 200 F2 better, but holy cow does the 105 1.4E look almost as good to me. Sigma can keep that 135.... SOOC. Just natural light. First are the 200 F2 shots.
Both are amazing lenses. I think I do prefer the 200 compression just a little more. But I know it's preference. I think I like the color and warmth on the 105 little better, but to me it looks like the 200 DOF is slightly larger, and her feet aren't quite as OOF vs the 105 shot. I think I actually like that a little better.
agelessphotog wrote:
I didn't have much time to do these, but I took a few quick photos of my 13 year old daughter in our back yard. I like the compression on the 200 F2 better, but holy cow does the 105 1.4E look almost as good to me. Sigma can keep that 135.... SOOC. Just natural light. First are the 200 F2 shots.
Thx for posting these, very interesting for someone who's thinking about the 105 and lusting for the 200 ever since
agelessphotog wrote:
. . . I like the compression on the 200 F2 better, but holy cow does the 105 1.4E look almost as good to me. Sigma can keep that 135....
For the benefit of science you should get a Sigma 135 and repeat the test. I am sure your daughter would love to help.
If any of the lenses do not pass muster, I know of someone semi-local who would be happy to ensure that you were no longer troubled by substandard lenses . . .
But seriously - thank you for taking the time to do this test. I found it quite helpful.
Bruce_T wrote:
For the benefit of science you should get a Sigma 135 and repeat the test. I am sure your daughter would love to help.
If any of the lenses do not pass muster, I know of someone semi-local who would be happy to ensure that you were no longer troubled by substandard lenses . . .
But seriously - thank you for taking the time to do this test. I found it quite helpful.
If I had the money I would. Honestly though I can't imagine the Sigma 135 having bokeh as buttery as the 105, or the character of the 105. And with Sigma AF usually not being as accurate I don't have much interest in that lens. Now if Nikon brings out a 135 F2 or F1.4 I will have to check it out.
We needed the 200/F2 for a very small project at work and couldn't justify the cost so we ended up borrowing one and I got to try it out. The 200 excels at a lot of things including focus speed and subject isolation but IMO is not the most flattering focal length for everyone (the compression flattens and widens, especially evident if you look at the neck lines).
I think the 105 sits nicely between the 85/135 (closer to 85) and also creates equally stunning shots as seen in this thread. It also has that extra 3D/Pop at times!
There is no doubt that both the 105 f1.4 and the 200 f2 are excellent lenses in their own right. I feel that my 200f2 vr2 is worth the added expense for the following reasons: insanely fast and accurate autofocus, has vr, can accept TC-20III to give me 400mm of reach while still retaining its incredible sharpness and contrast, I love the fact that images with the 200 really never needs anything more in post processing, and last but certainly not least, the excitement I have each and every time I get to go out and use this lens! Just some random thoughts from an enthusiast
Both lenses are incredible, both have pros and cons. But most importantly, both are capable of rendering beautiful images. So grab one or the other, or both, lol and go find some great light, an interesting subject and create a wonderful composition and have some fun
Best wishes to all,
Don
agelessphotog wrote:
Honestly, the 105 1.4E looks so good in comparison it does have me slightly consider selling the 200 F2..... Am I crazy?
Thank you for the comparison shots.
It depends what is your style, your requirements and probably your bank account status.
I think the combo of the 200G and 105E is close to perfection and I use each for completely different shoots.
The ones which seems left behind are the venerable 135D and both the 85/1.4 and 85/1.8.
I guess the 70-200E is another category winner. I happen to own the f/4 and consider it Nikon's greatest zoom ever. It just happens to be slower and cheaper than other options. As a portrait optic, it has retired all my primes (fast or slow). If you prefer shallow DOF, or command over available darkness, the 100E and 200/2 are untouchable.
agelessphotog wrote:
If I had the money I would. Honestly though I can't imagine the Sigma 135 having bokeh as buttery as the 105, or the character of the 105. And with Sigma AF usually not being as accurate I don't have much interest in that lens. Now if Nikon brings out a 135 F2 or F1.4 I will have to check it out.
Sigma primes are easy to dial in, even without the dock, and Sigma has stated that this is their best Art series lens yet, whatever that means. If I were in the market for a lens like this, I would wait until I some real world Sigma images before buying anything.
