JBPhotog wrote:
.........I beg to differ. Your example is very different, and effective, from the previous shots, the eyes are not the intended focal point. If one looks carefully at the previous three where the face is visible, the focal point is not even on the face, which looks like an error and not by design.
5k monitor hughh! Please say Hello to your 5k monitor and give it a good wipe as well as your eyes while you're at it.
I merely use a pauper system running a dual monitors set up.
Where did you say my focus was?
Where did you say the error was?
Where did you say " if one only wants one eyelash in focus then you are golden however, to include eyes, at least one, stopping down is the "right tool for the job".
Do you shoot at all. Show us, All are eager to learn from you.
Show Us
SOOC.......(which means Straight out of the camera. Which also means unsharpened.)
This lens is on ebay, from sellers with excellent reputation, for $1800 shipped and listed as US models. That's almost $400 less than B&H. Anyone go this route?
Elijah wrote:
Awesome shot! I'm still surprised you sold the 200/2 in favor of the 105E.
Do you have any regrets so far?
Thank you! I don't have any regrets at all. For some full body shots I think the background looks better with the extra compression of the 200. But I also think the 200 had too much compression and some girls complained about looking larger than they wanted to. I did comparison shots, I think the 105 makes girls look slightly more flattering. I also like the color and rendering better over all on the 105. No regrets at all. I would love for Nikon to come out with a 135 or 200 that is a lot lighter than the 200 F2. But honestly I could shoot with this lens and never get a 135 or 200 and be very happy. I love this lens.
Hardcore wrote:
Love it! Nice lighting and beautiful smile on your little one! You gotta start posting more photos!
Thanks for the comments. Come April you will see me start to post a lot of photo's. I live in Maryland and that's when our Teen / High School season starts.
agelessphotog wrote:
Thank you! I don't have any regrets at all. For some full body shots I think the background looks better with the extra compression of the 200. But I also think the 200 had too much compression and some girls complained about looking larger than they wanted to. I did comparison shots, I think the 105 makes girls look slightly more flattering. I also like the color and rendering better over all on the 105. No regrets at all. I would love for Nikon to come out with a 135 or 200 that is a lot lighter than the 200 F2. But honestly I could shoot with this lens and never get a 135 or 200 and be very happy. I love this lens. ...Show more →
Sigma 135 1.8?? I bet it will be less than $2.2k
Chris Dees wrote:
Meet Milou, our youngest member of our family, less than 1 day young.
Happy grandfather.
Aside from the comments about using f/5.6, I'd like to say that the rendering of the lens stopped down to such a degree and focused so closely really holds up!
