agelessphotog wrote:
I would love to see some comparison shots, I have not seen any sample shots that show more B/G blur though so far, I mean not any noticeable. Nothing I have seen looks as good as shots taken with the 200 F2 IMO. Even close up.
It\'s not the distance you are from the subject, it\'s the distance the background is from the subject. And the quality of the lens doesn\'t matter, it\'s just the physics of it all. Longer lenses are able to blur distant backgrounds more than shorter lenses, but faster lenses can blur nearby backgrounds more. A 200mm f1.4 would blur the background more than the 105 at any subject to background distance, since it\'s equally fast but longer. However, since the 200mm lens is f2, it\'s slower than the 105 and hence can\'t blur nearby backgrounds as much - but being a longer lens it can blur the backdrop better when the background\'s farther away from the subject.
The 200mm f2 is an amazing lens. Faster to focus than any lens except perhaps the 24-70 VR, sharper than almost any other lens, and able to produce beautiful bokeh. If I had the choice between it and the 105 I\'d pick the 200, it\'s a better lens for sports, wildlife, and open field portraiture. But if the subject is less than 15 meters from the background, as with indoors shots or portraits in front of trees or whatever, the 105mm f1.4 will, without a doubt, blur the background more. Unless Nikon lied and it\'s not really an f1.4 lens.
Aug 13, 2016 at 10:40 AM
Previous versions of Lauchlan Toal's message #13679124 « Nikon 105mm f/1.4E ED Image Thread »
