Angry Photographer proves the 105/1.4E isn't "flat"

Started Oct 4, 2016 | Discussions thread
VadymA Senior Member • Posts: 1,487
Re: I am tired of this

L Copps wrote:

I still don't see any 3D pop with this picture. The subject could be a print and would look exactly the same. One thing I do notice, as the picture is flattened so we can have corner to corner sharpness perfection, all features like the nose collapse and look smaller. Not a good tradeoff in my opinion (others may not notice). Our eyes do not see the world this way: translating a spherically oriented image onto a flat plane

Another example:

To my eyes, your examples show exactly what I stated earlier - close-up shots pop much better than the distant shots. My example is a screenshot, further converted by DPR processing. The original when looking on a good screen pops very well, but maybe the entire pop debate is very subjective. We should not bash the lens just because we all see the world slightly differently. We are not computers assembled on the same line in China. The advantage of 1.4 over 2.0 is great for practical applications beyond any bokeh. There are no other alternatives in 105, so koodos to Nikon for giving this option. If there were sacrifices made to achieve that, that's limitation of technology. If you really want pop and nothing else, just use the older 2.0. 1.4 will do better in many practical applications when 2.0 is not enough.

 VadymA's gear list:VadymA's gear list
Nikon D300 Nikon 1 J5 Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D Tokina AT-X Pro 11-16mm f/2.8 DX Nikon AF-Nikkor 80-200mm f/2.8D ED +7 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow