Is the Nikon 105mm D F2 DC a desirable lens?

Ershar11 said:

Many people didn't like it because they didn't understand how to use it.

Click to expand...

Plus 1.

Digressing lenses like the Plena combined if wanted with image "softening" in front, behind, around or of the subject in post are much, much more flexible with higher image resolution and better starting point bokeh than when the 105 D was introduced a long time ago.

It does not AF on ML bodies.

Overall as a former owner my view is it is best consigned to history unless budget and lower second hand prices are the major issue.

Like many older lenses it can produce image quality that was good toward the end on last century though no longer IMO a front runner.

Own it myself and love the unique qualities that you describe on my Df Mike. But I also accept the limitations that you mention in this very balanced review. Excellent comments!

Leonard Shepherd said:

Overall as a former owner my view is it is best consigned to history unless budget and lower second hand prices are the major issue.

Like many older lenses it can produce image quality that was good toward the end on last century though no longer IMO a front runner.

Click to expand...

Leonard, I often agree with you, but this time, I might not ;-) . You may be assuming that we're only using the most modern (Z) cameras -- if that's the car, I agree.

However, on DSLRs the 105DC can still hold its own. It's no longer the lens I choose to use as my main portrait lens with my Z7ii, but I just can't justify paying so much for the 105 f1.4 or Z Plena. In that respect, it's a budget lens, but it's still excellent -- in most ways, it's still a top-tier lens.

For portraiture, you don't always NEED super-sharp images that have perfectly round out-of-focus areas. All you need is a good subject, lighting and the other qualities this lens delivers. In other words, it's still capable of doing the job well. That's why it's still desirable today (seven years after this thread was started).

Parry Johnson said:

Leonard Shepherd said:

Like many older lenses it can produce image quality that was good toward the end on last century though no longer IMO a front runner.

Click to expand...

(snipped)

Click to expand...

Parry Johnson said:

For portraiture, you don't always NEED super-sharp images that have perfectly round out-of-focus areas. All you need is a good subject, lighting and the other qualities this lens delivers. In other words, it's still capable of doing the job well. That's why it's still desirable today (seven years after this thread was started).

Click to expand...

In this detail, we actually agree.

I take the perhaps controversial view that for most portraits there should not be any brighter surrounding the subject out of focus highlight areas to worry about - as these bright light areas compete with the subject.

Put another way for me portraiture involves choosing a suitable background and lighting as well as communicating with the sitter.

Leonard Shepherd said:

Parry Johnson said:

Leonard Shepherd said:

Like many older lenses it can produce image quality that was good toward the end on last century though no longer IMO a front runner.

Click to expand...

(snipped)

For portraiture, you don't always NEED super-sharp images that have perfectly round out-of-focus areas. All you need is a good subject, lighting and the other qualities this lens delivers. In other words, it's still capable of doing the job well. That's why it's still desirable today (seven years after this thread was started).

Click to expand...

In this detail, we actually agree.

I take the perhaps controversial view that for most portraits there should not be any brighter surrounding the subject out of focus highlight areas to worry about - as these bright light areas compete with the subject.

Put another way for me portraiture involves choosing a suitable background and lighting as well as communicating with the sitter.

Click to expand...

That last comment is important, especially if you're working with timid or inexperienced subjects.

I use a 70-200 often for portraits, but the 105DC is much less intimidating, as it's an 85mm or my Tamron 90 macro. In some ways, the 1m minimum working distance of the 105DC or 85f1.8D is a good thing -- it keeps you intimate yet beyond the "bubble" for most people. I hate shouting at times with a 135mm or longer.

The 104 f1.4 is probably just over the "unintimidating" limit -- however, I admit I've never used one. In hand, and at a "safer" distance, it would be all-round better (especially, of course, with Z bodies).

Funny story to provide a counterpoint.

Years ago, back when I had the huge 200/2G, I saw some nice outdoor light and cool background that would blur nicely, and shot a portrait of a friend wide open. When I brought the camera and that huge lens up, he was "holy cow, I don't need to see the molecules of my nose" and I explained it was just a very fast lens, meaning let in a lot of light, and didn't really magnify as much as he thought. Anyway, that one, quick portrait was *his favorite portrait* that was *ever* taken of him.

Now think why: A focal length that is unusual - most would reach for an 85 or 105, and excellent blur quality that also made the image *different* than the cell phone snap, or the 85 portraits he'd had.

Point being, I tend to avoid "rules" about focal lengths and people - sometimes a wide shot with a 35 somewhat close just works-for-the-scenario, sometimes an 85 does, sometimes a 105 does, sometimes a 135, sometimes a 200. A few decades ago, the 300/4.5 AIS Nikkor worked best.

I think people who try to follow the rule book too much miss out on some interesting photographs. Rules are there, and are certainly valuable, as general guidelines, but they can, and perhaps should occasionally, be at least tested/challenged/broken.