BSPhotog wrote: popinvasion wrote: agelessphotog wrote: popinvasion wrote: agelessphotog wrote: traylorc wrote:
After looking at some of the initial shots...I like how this lens renders...but I don\'t love it.
Something is just missing...
I said this and got bashed. I think the lens looks great, but for the price tag on it, it doesn\'t wow me enough. There is something special about the 58, and the 200 F2, I don\'t quite see that with the samples from this lens.
The amount of confirmation bias and consternation and indecisiveness in your posts regarding this lens is impressive!!! Most shots I\'ve seen so far are people testing out a brand new lens. I\'ve yet to see a multitude of shots done in a professional capacity. They will come. I find it hilarious reading posts shitting all over a lens that most have zero experience with. I think you\'ve made the case enough with yourself at this point that you like your 200F2 and don\'t need to spend anymore $$$. But watching your public wrangling of this decision with yourself has been amusing. Lastly I bet within 6-8 months you\'ll own this lens-so all of this overwrought handwringing is for naught!
I\'m just being honest. I was hoping it could fill the void of Nikon not having a newer 135. Maybe you think it\'s worth $2300, I don\'t. I think Canon\'s 135/L F2 produces images just as good. And the Canon 135/L F2 is what, less than half the price? I look at samples and they look great, but not $2300 great. To me it looks like the 85 1.4 but at 105 focal length, which is great, but not worth $2300. Doesn\'t look as good as the 200 F2 VR, and it gets somewhat close to the price of a used one. It\'s not that I don\'t like the lens, I just don\'t think it\'s worth $2300. I would pay $1300 for it. After it\'s been out for a while, and if I can get a good deal on a used one, yeah i\'ll probably pick it up then.
I\'m just saying this sounds like the same neurotic kind of discussions you have had regarding the 58mm. The reality is simple: What will work for you or anyone is unknown until you try it-Proclaiming grand decisions publicly based on a handful of test shots posted online is not helpful to anyone-but mostly YOU!
As a longtime Canon shooter I concur. The 135L is a stunner. That\'s the only lens I miss when I switched to Nikon. I\'ve thought about buying a used 6D and 135L just to have that look but the reality as I see it is simple-The canon files suck. Pushing shadows and highlights on a 6D vs a D750 is a dramatically different experience. Not to mention DR and high ISO-The Nikon is a much better camera. So the 135L would be nice but not the files. The better solution is the 105 1.4. For now. If Nikon comes out with a 135 1.8 then that might be the best option but for now Nikon shooters have 2 lenses the canon folks would love=58mm and 105 1.4. Not to mention better DR, files, etc. Plus others as I absolutely love having a 20 1.8.
Just get out and shoot, borrow, rent, whatever but publicly debating yourself in circles doesn\'t seem ideal for anyone-especially yourself. Just my op!
Wait, are you saying that you\'re surprised by seeing confirmation bias in a gear thread? Particularly a thread about a premium lens??
Only surprised by the repetition of it.
Aug 27, 2016 at 04:15 PM
Previous versions of popinvasion's message #13697609 « Nikon 105mm f/1.4E ED Image Thread »
