p.1 #1 · What would get more use? What's a more versatile choice>?
Hi guys, I plan on buying the 24-70 AF-S at the end of january, but would also like to pick up either the 105DC or the 105VR Micro. Two totally different beasts in their capabilities, but I was wondering what you think I'd get more use out of? (see my www to see the sort of stuff I like to shoot) I would most likely be using the 105DC almost entirely for portrait use, a little street photography etc. I don't shoot bugs or flowers as such but I like the idea of being able to get 1:1 magnification if I needed it, plus the 105VR could also be used for portraits. My budget will likely be 1600 pounds or so (will buy from the UK), and 1000 of that will go towards the 24-70.I have a choice of going for the 24-70 and 105DC or I could buy the 24-70 with the 105 Micro and 50 1.4D. Any thoughts??
I have the D80 at the moment and while I would like to buy the D700, I think I'd be best off with the glass I've mentioned and buying the D700 or it's successor later down the line when it will have probably dropped further in price. I currently have the 35mm F2D, 18-70DX and 70-300VR.
p.1 #3 · What would get more use? What's a more versatile choice>?
Based on the kind of photographic subjects you shoot I would say that what you have at present is more than enough.
We all know how great the 24-70 is in a FX body but 24mm is not wide enough for DX and in that respect, your 18-70 does better. The 105 lens will be very useful to you if you enjoy portrait photography although I would prefer the 85mm f1.4. I agree with k7xd that extension tubes are a good way to fulfill your macro assignments.
Just my opinion.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
p.1 #4 · What would get more use? What's a more versatile choice>?
Just thought I'd mention that the 105 F2 is 100 pound cheaper than the 85 1.4 in the UK. Would you say the 85 1.4 is that much better? The reason I'm drawn to the 105 F2 is that on APSC it's also a nice focal length for some candid street photography, as well as being a good portrait lens on FF.
p.1 #5 · What would get more use? What's a more versatile choice>?
Extremely thin DOF is not so great. At close shooting distances you'll usually need to stop down a bit. There have been several threads on the Canon forum showing off the 85 f/1.2 L (I or II) but few if any of the good shots could not have been done at f/1.8 or smaller. Some at f/1.2 are just dreadful. Minimal DOF can make a human face look very odd.
With that in mind you might consider how much you really need f/1.4. I'm not saying it is always bad or useless but it has its downsides and one of them is cost.
p.1 #6 · What would get more use? What's a more versatile choice>?
Hmm it's looking more like the 105 F2 is a better choice. One thing I was interested to know, obviously the macro is a lot sharper, but for portrait use, at the distances I'd be using it most often (street candid/candid portrait use), would I see any real difference? As I say I don't really do much macro, but the reason I have mentioned it as a possibility is the benefit of that added sharpness for head shots.
Any other thoughts vs the macro + 50 1.4D vs the 105 F2 with regard to what you'd go for if you didn't have to chose between getting the two lenses or the one?
p.1 #9 · What would get more use? What's a more versatile choice>?
I cant speak for the 105VR but in my very limited use of the 105 f/2 I can say it is a stellar portrait lens. A little tricky DOF when your shooting within a couple of feet of your subject @ f/2. I have heard that DOF is equal to the 85 f/1.4 but I cant say for sure because I have not used the 85mm. IMO, your 35mm will go well with a 85mm and a 50mm goes well with the 105.
But my initial feeling is its going to be a great portrait lens when you have a little distance between you and the subject.
p.1 #10 · What would get more use? What's a more versatile choice>?
If versatile is the key, I'd suggest the Micro /w VR
I've take a look at your web album, seems to me that you like to take grab shots in daily life... a macro lens that can focus from infinity to 1:1 is way more convinent than a potrait lens, which might requires frequent mount/remove ext tube if you occationally take close subjects (esp if the subject is in between the min focusing distance of the lens and max focusing distance with the tube).... I would lose the mood if i need to do a lot before taking a grab shot.
a macro lens can take decent portrait photos, IMO, they just not as good as a portrait lens when direct compare to the same picture taken by a "portrait lens"
p.1 #11 · What would get more use? What's a more versatile choice>?
I think in the end I'll go for the 105 F2. I rarely shoot macro, and when I do my 35mm F2D gets a lot of use. I also rarely shoot bugs/living things so I could probably invest in the 60mm Micro AF-S at a later date if I got more into it. Thanks to those that shared their thoughts
105 Macro vs 105 DC for potrait/general use