Reading mode: Light Dark

Any examples of bokeh from the 105 mm 2.8

Go to last post
Here's another example. Also taken with the 17-55. 1/125 at f/3.3, ISO 200. I like the rendition of the subjects, but would have liked to isolate them a bit more from the background, which is a bit too distracting for my liking. What lens should I used for this picture: the 85 or the 105?

Probably the 85, right? Maybe the 105 would have given me a sharper subject and a less soft bokeh than the 85. Or not?

Daniel

 
Let me check that. One minute, please.

Thanks,

Daniel

Ok, I checked the preferences at zenfolio, and they are not protected. In fact, I can see them in this thread. Can you see tem now? Otherwise, I don't know how to fix that.

Daniel
Vertigon said:
harlot the pictures don't show on my computer, says they're protected.
--
Click to expand...
 
Let me know if you still cannot see them and I'll post the links to the online gallery.

Daniel
harlot said:
Thanks,

Daniel

Ok, I checked the preferences at zenfolio, and they are not
protected. In fact, I can see them in this thread. Can you see tem
now? Otherwise, I don't know how to fix that.

Daniel
Vertigon said:
harlot the pictures don't show on my computer, says they're protected.
--
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
harlot said:
HenkL said:
as you can see the 105 vr gives contrasty and punchy and overly sharp
images.. not always what one wants with portraits.
Click to expand...
You are completely right. Didn't think of that. :(
harlot said:
But al this can be
toned down in PP... beter then to crank things up is my humble
opinion (the 85 is not that contrasty and the colours are most of the
time "cool")... Two things that the 85mm 1.4 has over the 105 VR:
focusses more correctly (the 105 vr can hunt more) and... CREAMY
bokeh!
Click to expand...
So... talking about toning down (or up) in PP... let's say I get the
105 vr and need to tone down some portraits... what do you suggest as
a general technique (either in NX2 or in PS CS3)? And if I get the 85
and I need to tone up?
Click to expand...
You can adjust sharpness in ACR (I use Lightroom). Also I use less contrast in 105 vr shot portaits along with less clarity (sometimes toned down vibrance). Just experiment what works best.
harlot said:
Lately I have been playing with this kind of exagerated contrasty b&w
portraits:



So let's say I get the 85 lens and I want to tone up the portraits
before doing all my b&w PP show. Will I always have to select the
face and use USM? Won't it look a bit artificial next to the creamy
bokeh? What do you think?
Click to expand...
There is no right answer here.. but usm you don't have to use when the portrait is shot with the 105 vr (maybe to circumvent the unsharpness of the AA filter... but else). Just see what works best.
Your b&w shot is very nice btw!
harlot said:
But please don't think I willl always want very sharp portraits. That
depends on my mood, I guess. And if I was asked to decide between
softer or more punchy portraits based on rational thinking alone (not
on my mood), I would go for the softer ones.
Click to expand...
Exactly...
harlot said:
harlot said:
I own the 105 vr. I find the reach to far used on DX for portraits
most of the time. FX is an whole other story.. much more usable as a
portrait lens.
I used the 85mm 1.4 but was not blown away by the results compared to
my 85 1.8 .. which I use on FX at 2.8 most of the time (only in the
bokeh department..... ok there the 1.4 is king for sure...and one
gains almost a stop when shooting things wide open)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Maybe I was wrong by saying that the 105 vr has to much reach for portraits.. especially for "urban" shots that is..You want some reach outdoors.

You could consider for outdoor shots even the 180mm 2.8 for that extra reach. I find this lens gives pleasing results in terms of sharpness and colours for portraits.
 
Ehm?! How can it be too sharp? You can always blur it, making it softer, but you cannot make it sharper. As for contrast, shoot raw, and you will have much less contrasty image.

I really don't understand all this "105 vr is too sharp"-hype. I always want it to be tack sharp no matter what I do. If it has be printed, it has to be sharp, if it has to be interpolated, it has to be sharp. If has to be less sharp, fine, I'll blur it somehow appropiate. I cannot do this the other way around to the same extent !

Have any of You seen a 105 vr raw and judged from that? Instead of a retouched/edited images (like the one I've posted in another thread)?

As for the 105 DC, it was developed before computer based retouching became really popular, making is easy to soften images on the fly. Time has rendered it obsolete.

--
Christian Grüner
http://christiangruner.com/
 
Wow can t compete with the bokeh from your last two shots! In fact they re so creamy & smooth they just look white.....
Sorry can t see em they re protected.

The only constructive thing I can add is about the 180 it s longer but I used it a lot for portraits and regret letting it go.

Tho my 105 is hopefully filling some of it s roles and adds macro. I couldn t justify keeping 180 when I got 70-200.
 
Even though I don't have the 105 yet (it's on order) I am wondering about the focal length or whatever someone mentioned in another post. It will be mounted on a D90 so how do things change and why do they change? What does this mean for focusing on bugs etc, will I be too far away from them to get a great shot?

Thanks in advance.
 
Sorry for that. There must be some setting in Zenfolio that is causing this. I have just uploaded them to my pbase account.

Ok, so here are three sample pics. All shot with D200 + 17-55 2.8 lens.

First one: 1/125 at f/3.3, ISO 200, 40 mm
Second: 1/60 at f/2.8, ISO 320, 44 mm
Third: 1/125 at f/4, ISO 200, 40 mm

I would appreciate your opinions on which lens (the 85 or the 105) would have rendered a better, softer background on this type of pictures. Or, in other words, will I be able to get from the 105 mm as good overall results (both for the subjects and for a soft and pleasant background) as from the 85 with this type of shots?

Thanks,

Daniel






like a user said:
Wow can t compete with the bokeh from your last two shots! In fact
they re so creamy & smooth they just look white.....
Sorry can t see em they re protected.
The only constructive thing I can add is about the 180 it s longer
but I used it a lot for portraits and regret letting it go.
Tho my 105 is hopefully filling some of it s roles and adds macro. I
couldn t justify keeping 180 when I got 70-200.
Click to expand...
 
I understand your point, Christian. But see... you can blur the subjects and so on. But if the background has not been nicely blured by the lens, that is, if the bokeh is not superb ourt of the camera, then PP will not really fix it. I'm not an expert, but that's how I understand it. As I see it, there are certain chromatic and light-related elements rendered by the lens that can't be translated into exactly what you were expecting or would like to have in PP. You can correct them to a certain extent, but if you do heavy PP on them you will end up ruining the original effect. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Thanks,

Daniel
christiangrunercom said:
Ehm?! How can it be too sharp? You can always blur it, making it
softer, but you cannot make it sharper. As for contrast, shoot raw,
and you will have much less contrasty image.

I really don't understand all this "105 vr is too sharp"-hype. I
always want it to be tack sharp no matter what I do. If it has be
printed, it has to be sharp, if it has to be interpolated, it has to
be sharp. If has to be less sharp, fine, I'll blur it somehow
appropiate. I cannot do this the other way around to the same extent !

Have any of You seen a 105 vr raw and judged from that? Instead of a
retouched/edited images (like the one I've posted in another thread)?

As for the 105 DC, it was developed before computer based retouching
became really popular, making is easy to soften images on the fly.
Time has rendered it obsolete.

--
Christian Grüner
http://christiangruner.com/
Click to expand...
 
harlot said:
For some portraits (pictures of people in the streets) I just want a
soft background that doesn't distract from the subject.
Click to expand...
Mmm, ok, Also saw your comments on my macros (understood).

In which case I'd ask why you've singled out the 105 F2.8? Was it the VR available on the latest version? If you're not interested in macros at all then there are features it has that you'll not only not use, but could get in your way.

It's pretty heavy for the type of walkaround stuff you'd be doing. It also needs to have a wide focus range (down to a few inches). Despite the focus limiter, you're going to find that AF may "hunt" a bit sometimes - not good for quick "grab-type" impromptu portraits.

The 85 1.5 or 1.8 would give you much shallower d.o.f. As another example, the 105 feels about twice as heavy as my 180 f2.8. Whilst that's a longer focal length than you've asked for, it would give you better subject isolation.

Just some thoughts - let us know a bit more about what you're after.

--
Colin Malsingh
-------------------
http://www.pbase.com/cmalsingh
 
Hi Colin,

In fact, I'm not dismissing any lens. As I already explained, all I have right now is the 17-55 2.8, which I like very much, but is not appropriate for certain urban portrait shots.

First I started to consider either the 105 or one of the two 85s. Then I thought I didn't want to get stuck with the focal length limitations of a prime. So I started considering the possibility of getting a decent zoom lens that could let me move between, say, 50 and 85 or beyond. Since I already own the 17-55, I give more importance to the longer settings (from 55 to 85 mm and beyond). If I got more of the wide end or more of the tele end, I didn't care.

I started to research the mid-range zoom lenses, such as the 24-85, and wasn't very happy with the reviews and the few pictures I saw. Then I started considering longer zoom lenses, such as the 70-300 (which, according to some people, has a good qualiity between 70 and 200), and even Sigma's 70-200. For some reason (I'm not sure, maybe the fact that it was poorly rated by Rorslett), I dismissed the first one. The second one is maybe too long for the job.

And then back again to considering either the 105 or the 85.

But of course I'm open to other suggestions. I certainly don't need macro (I don't mind getting macro, which I would use ocasionally, but can live without it).

Again, all I need is a good and fast portrait lens (face+shoulders, and some times more), with good AF, maybe not extremely heavy, and one that will isolate the subjects nicely when I need it to. A zoom lens would be better than a prime, if it still gives me more than decent results. I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of sharpness in order to get the higher focal length flexibility of a zoom. But... if the not so expensive zooms are not good enough, then I would go for a prime.

Price range: US$ 500 to 1,000 at the most.

I know it's a difficult decision. And maybe I'm not considering all available options. So any help will be highly appreciated.

Thanks!

Daniel
CMalsingh said:
harlot said:
For some portraits (pictures of people in the streets) I just want a
soft background that doesn't distract from the subject.
Click to expand...
Mmm, ok, Also saw your comments on my macros (understood).

In which case I'd ask why you've singled out the 105 F2.8? Was it the
VR available on the latest version? If you're not interested in
macros at all then there are features it has that you'll not only not
use, but could get in your way.

It's pretty heavy for the type of walkaround stuff you'd be doing. It
also needs to have a wide focus range (down to a few inches). Despite
the focus limiter, you're going to find that AF may "hunt" a bit
sometimes - not good for quick "grab-type" impromptu portraits.

The 85 1.5 or 1.8 would give you much shallower d.o.f. As another
example, the 105 feels about twice as heavy as my 180 f2.8. Whilst
that's a longer focal length than you've asked for, it would give you
better subject isolation.

Just some thoughts - let us know a bit more about what you're after.

--
Colin Malsingh
-------------------
http://www.pbase.com/cmalsingh
Click to expand...
 
That could be a possibility. But exactly which 180mm 2.8? ED or ED-IF AF? Wouldn't it make for too dramatic shots?

Daniel
HenkL said:
You could consider for outdoor shots even the 180mm 2.8 for that
extra reach. I find this lens gives pleasing results in terms of
sharpness and colours for portraits.
Click to expand...
 
So that's what I meant. If it's overly sharp (ok, 'overly sharp' doesn't mean anything, let's just say 'tack sharp'), then the bokeh will not be as soft and creamy as the one you get from the 85 mm. It will be a bit richer. Is this correct?

Daniel
christiangrunercom said:
You're absolutely right, but my post wasn't on the bokeh issue ;)
More one "this lens is too sharp" issue. ;)
--
Christian Grüner
http://christiangruner.com/
Click to expand...
 
Very very nice ones, arra. I specially like the first one. How far were you (approx.) from the bird?

Could you share the exposure values of the three?

You see? These are the things that confuse me even more. If I only had to judge from these pictures (specially the first one), I would go right away to buy that lens. :)

Daniel
 
By the way, arra... which 105 mm is it?

Daniel
harlot said:
Very very nice ones, arra. I specially like the first one. How far
were you (approx.) from the bird?

Could you share the exposure values of the three?

You see? These are the things that confuse me even more. If I only
had to judge from these pictures (specially the first one), I would
go right away to buy that lens. :)

Daniel
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top