Elijah wrote: agelessphotog wrote: gfinlayson wrote:
Damn, I\'ve got a pre-order in for the 105 1.4 and one of my local stores has just put up a used 200 f/2 VR with 12 months warranty for not a lot more than the 105......
If you have the money I would go for the 200 F2 in a second, while the 105 looks amazing, it doesn\'t compare to the 200 F2. As long as you are okay with the added weight.
Coming from a former chubmeister owner I\'ll tell you this: the weight and size alone of the 200 became a huge problem for me.
While the 105E is only at 2.17 lb, the chub weighs a whooping 6.46 lb and is twice as long in length as the 105E.
Basically, you\'re paying more for a faster AF and more compressed background.
Notice I didn\'t mention VR? Because VR I is completely useless; I had trouble getting sharp shots at 1/80/sec.
Sharpness should also be indistinguishable for a normal 97% crowd (that 3% are photographers)
I will say this again, I\'d rather own a 70-200VRII and 105E for the price of the chub.
For all day wedding shoots I would never use the chub, but I really don\'t shoot weddings anymore, and for portraits the compressed backgrounds with a 200 F2 are much more dreamy and create more isolation that look a lot better to me than I would get with a 105. No comparison. For a portrait photographer, there is no comparison, it\'s a totally different look. And I shot with the 70-200VRII, I wasn\'t impressed. I thought the 200 F2 looked much better. Sharpness and Bokeh.
Aug 13, 2016 at 07:32 AM
Previous versions of agelessphotog's message #13678952 « Nikon 105mm f/1.4E ED Image Thread »
