Any examples of bokeh from the 105 mm 2.8

like a user · Oct 15, 2008

I wouldn t agree the 180 is smaller than the 105, tho the 105 is far from small and Im sure they weigh about the same....... You gain VR tho.
With the 180 you ll have to be a good bit further from your subject.

sting · Oct 15, 2008

christiangrunercom said:
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.

Possibly. I haven't seen any processing algorithms sold to imitate that lens. The DC feature is difficult to use properly given that it is also coupled with a very shallow DOF. There is no way that software processing can imitate DC fully anymore than software can imitate wide aperture effects. From some posts on this forum, a band of red colors is defocused in the DC lenses to minimize skin tone detail. I bet that much of he DC lens quality could be improved as well as imitated in software. If only we knew the specifics of the DC design.

sting · Oct 15, 2008

Vertigon said:
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?

DX iis better than FX for macro until you hit diffraction limits or are looking for the shallowest DOF. You run into the minimum focus distance less often while using DX while not needing a higher shutter speed for handheld than FX. DX offers better effective magnification than FX for the same # of pixels.

harlot · Oct 15, 2008

quarryman · Oct 15, 2008

Here's a few...nothing special but may help you in your choice...

Actually, this one is pretty special...

arra · Oct 15, 2008

It's 105 2.8 VR ofcource

harlot said:
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...

--
http://www.pbase.com/arra

arra · Oct 15, 2008

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?

Thank You. I was about 2m from the bird (this shot is taken through the window glass btw)

You can read values from exif, but here are values:
1. f=3, 1/640, ISO200
2. f=9, 1/200, ISO200
3. f=3, 1/2500, ISO200

Regards

http://www.pbase.com/arra

CMalsingh · Oct 16, 2008

harlot said:
That could be a possibility. But exactly which 180mm 2.8? ED or ED-IF
AF? Wouldn't it make for too dramatic shots?

Hi Daniel, the answer depends on whether you're buying new or second hand. My 180 F2.8 was second hand, probably a good 5 years old. I don't think the different spec 180's are going to have a huge difference on the end result of the pictures you want - more speed of focusing etc.

Would a 180mm be too dramatic? Well it depends what you want. If you're after a lens that helps you isolate your subject from surrounding clutter then it might well achieve that. If you want your images to show your subject within the environment they're in, you may want less telephoto.

The only thing I'd say is that the 180mm is nice and light, so good for carrying around. It won't attract as much attention as the 70-200 f2.8 (yet offers similar magnification and the same fast speed). In some situations it might have too much magnification however.

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

PavelR2 · Oct 16, 2008

I own 105/2.8VR and 85/1.8D and I like pictures produced by 85 much more.
A few of examples:
85 - http://galerie.rezny.net/thumbnails.php?album=101
105 - http://galerie.rezny.net/thumbnails.php?album=107

Pavel

harlot · Oct 16, 2008

Thank you for sharing these pictures, quarryman. They are all nice, but the last one, besides being so nice and special, is even more helpful as I don't have the intention to devote too much time to macro photography.

Daniel

quarryman said:
Here's a few...nothing special but may help you in your choice...

harlot · Oct 16, 2008

Thank you, Arra.

Daniel

arra said:
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?

Click to expand...

Thank You. I was about 2m from the bird (this shot is taken through
the window glass btw)

You can read values from exif, but here are values:
1. f=3, 1/640, ISO200
2. f=9, 1/200, ISO200
3. f=3, 1/2500, ISO200

Regards

http://www.pbase.com/arra

harlot · Oct 16, 2008

Colin,

And what do you think about the 80-400? Do you think the 80-150 range of it would do as a portrait lens? People report a lot of hunting from this lens, but apparently it is a superb lens (sharpness, chromatic qualities, etc.). It is bulky, but not as long as some other lenses.

Daniel

CMalsingh said:
harlot said:

That could be a possibility. But exactly which 180mm 2.8? ED or ED-IF
AF? Wouldn't it make for too dramatic shots?

Click to expand...

Hi Daniel, the answer depends on whether you're buying new or second
hand. My 180 F2.8 was second hand, probably a good 5 years old. I
don't think the different spec 180's are going to have a huge
difference on the end result of the pictures you want - more speed of
focusing etc.

Would a 180mm be too dramatic? Well it depends what you want. If
you're after a lens that helps you isolate your subject from
surrounding clutter then it might well achieve that. If you want your
images to show your subject within the environment they're in, you
may want less telephoto.

The only thing I'd say is that the 180mm is nice and light, so good
for carrying around. It won't attract as much attention as the 70-200
f2.8 (yet offers similar magnification and the same fast speed). In
some situations it might have too much magnification however.

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

harlot · Oct 16, 2008

Thank you Pavel for sharing these pictures. The problem is that pictures from one gallery are not comparable to pics from the other one, except, maybe, for face tonality. In the 105 gallery, there is more room behind the subjects. But anyways, it is hard to judge shallow DOF in both galleries.

Daniel

PavelR2 said:
I own 105/2.8VR and 85/1.8D and I like pictures produced by 85 much
more.
A few of examples:
85 - http://galerie.rezny.net/thumbnails.php?album=101
105 - http://galerie.rezny.net/thumbnails.php?album=107

Pavel

firedog28 · Oct 16, 2008

http://www.pbase.com/firedog/image/100061937

like a user · Oct 16, 2008

Hey we re still talking about the 105 ! I thought it was a real unsung hero when I bought one last week !

Back to your problem , if you are moving away from getting a prime ,the last bit of advice I can help with, is look at the 70-300 VR .

I use it when travelling. Small light and sharp, more discrete than a 70-200 or 80-400 and can "do" portraits.

I was using one in Cambodia earlier in the year and was pleased with the results.

PavelR2 · Oct 16, 2008

You are right, there is no the same picture taken with both lenses, thus I add some comments:

85 is much sharper at 2.8 than 105
105 is compatible with AF-S TCs
105 change max aperture according to focused distance

Some macro pictures:
http://galerie.rezny.net/thumbnails.php?album=22
http://galerie.rezny.net/thumbnails.php?album=18
And there is sometimes awful bokeh... which I did not get with 85.

Pavel

harlot said:
Thank you Pavel for sharing these pictures. The problem is that
pictures from one gallery are not comparable to pics from the other
one, except, maybe, for face tonality. In the 105 gallery, there is
more room behind the subjects. But anyways, it is hard to judge
shallow DOF in both galleries.

Daniel

harlot · Oct 18, 2008

Thanks for pointing this out, Pavel. This summary might be of great help in making future decisions.

Daniel

PavelR2 said:
85 is much sharper at 2.8 than 105

105 is compatible with AF-S TCs

105 change max aperture according to focused distance

Some macro pictures:
http://galerie.rezny.net/thumbnails.php?album=22
http://galerie.rezny.net/thumbnails.php?album=18
And there is sometimes awful bokeh... which I did not get with 85.

Pavel

harlot said:

Thank you Pavel for sharing these pictures. The problem is that
pictures from one gallery are not comparable to pics from the other
one, except, maybe, for face tonality. In the 105 gallery, there is
more room behind the subjects. But anyways, it is hard to judge
shallow DOF in both galleries.

Daniel

Click to expand...

--

Search

Any examples of bokeh from the 105 mm 2.8

harlot

Leading Member

like a user

Senior Member

sting

Senior Member

sting

Senior Member

harlot

Leading Member

quarryman

Leading Member

arra

Senior Member

arra

Senior Member

CMalsingh

Senior Member

PavelR2

Well-known member

harlot

Leading Member

harlot

Leading Member

harlot

Leading Member

harlot

Leading Member

firedog28

Well-known member

like a user

Senior Member

PavelR2

Well-known member

harlot

Leading Member

Keyboard shortcuts