RexGig0
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
Regarding the Plena, I recall seeing a recent you-tuber commenting on its Minimum Focusing Distance being a problem, in some circumstances. He did love its bokeh. If I recall correctly, needing to repair his home required him to sell his Plena. He did not sell it because of its long MFD spec.
When I was contemplating buying either the Nikkor 105/1.4E or the Sigma 105/1.4, I remember the Nikkor’s sedate AF speed being a factor. The Sigma seemed better for action shooting. I did test-shoot with the Nikkor, briefly, inside a camera store, probably on a D5. I never had a chance to compare it and the Sigma 105/1.4 at the same time and place, and am not completely sure whether I tested a Sigma on Nikon or Canon, at the same store.
Having the Nikkor 70-200G VR, and later the the 70-200/2.8G VR II, plus, having the Canon 135L, and my true-workhorse 100mm Macro L, from the red team’s side, I never actually committed the funds to either Nikkor 105.
Edited to add: Why two DSLR systems? Well, to make a long story short, I had an opportunity to start DSLR-ing with some Canon equipment already on-hand, that she had tried, briefly, before committing to Nikon. Then, when I needed world-class macro equipment, preferably weather-sealed, for forensic/evidentiary/crime scene photography, the Canon 100mm Macro L was, at the time, the best. So, I built upon that, and Canon remains my primary macro system. My wife remains a Nikon gal, and so it makes sense for much of our gear, especially the pro zooms and other seriously expensive lenses, to be Nikon. We each have our own camera bodies, but share lenses, Speedlights, and such.
Edited, again, to add: Yes, I finally added Z cameras, one DX and one FX, so, the Plena has my attention, but, nothing is yet decided.
|
If I had been in need of a 135mm prime that'd probably be it.