tkbslc

Lives in United States Salt Lake City, UT, United States
Joined on May 30, 2008

Comments

Total: 3774, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

I thought the selfie stick already solved this one

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2016 at 15:56 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: Any folks here remember the time when FAST glass was for capturing moments in really LOW light and not be obsessed with OOF Bokeh?

What? Don't tell me they're all retired! Noooo!

.

Not a tired argument if you shoot a lot of different things. An f4 lens can't shoot f1.4, but the reverse is true. Options are nice.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 07:50 UTC
In reply to:

villagranvicent: This obsession to shoot people at f0.00001to isolate them from the back is so 90's.

Yeah, but a $200 prime will give you differentiation from a smartphone.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 03:59 UTC
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: Any folks here remember the time when FAST glass was for capturing moments in really LOW light and not be obsessed with OOF Bokeh?

What? Don't tell me they're all retired! Noooo!

.

You may not be aware of this, but fast lenses can shoot slow apertures too!

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 03:58 UTC
In reply to:

Lars V: Allison: Curious - if f/1.4 makes it the fastest AF telephoto prime on the market, is Canon's 85/1.2 then not a telephoto?

........If only it was the 86L.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 03:56 UTC
In reply to:

AngularJS: Superb lens! Those 105 mm head shots now make much more sense compared to the distorted ones from the 50mm Zony 50 f/1.4.

But they would look better at f5.6, I think.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 03:54 UTC

Four out of five of these shots would be better if you'd stopped down 1-2 stops.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 03:53 UTC as 14th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

noisephotographer: Dxomark is not reliable when it comes to smartphones. One should not pay attention to them. I wonder why dpreview mentions this as dxomark's reputation is very bad when it comes to smartphones. Sony's smartphones clearly have mediocre cameras as well as Motorola's devices.
It is likely that they get paid by Sony. Dpreview should not support this kind of advertising!

They show sample photos and data. If you have any counter evidence, feel free to share it. Otherwise you are just a man in a tin foil hat.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 22:10 UTC
In reply to:

ceremus: Good lord. That'll have a shallower DoF than the Canonball 85 1.2

500m f4 beats 200mm f2.

Wait, what are we doing now?

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 19:18 UTC
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: 105mm and ... f/1.4? What a waste of glass.
Why not f/2 and make it more bijou and optically superior for digital?
But modern faux-Avedons and pretentious videographers wouldn't know what it means, so give them the f/1.4 because that is all they know.

Meyer Optik makes awesome Bijou lenses with slow apertures. And they even have a Triplet of elements! Wow, must be made Just for you!

http://www.meyer-optik-goerlitz.com/kickstarter_trioplan/

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 05:12 UTC
In reply to:

Johann3s: This is a great lens, I always like it when manufacturers come with new innovative lens designs. Keep it up!

http://asklens.com/2016/07/nikon-105mm-f1-4-nikons-new-king-bokeh/

At this link you can actually see some numbers where the bokeh/blur abilities of this lens are compared with some other Nikon primes. I think these results show very well what a nice achievement this lens is.

I think it is funny to put bar graphs on there like "your photos will be 1.35x better with this lens!".

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 05:08 UTC
In reply to:

cntlaw: The 100 dollar 105mm f2.5 AI had been the most popular l portrait lens in the 70s. The new lens surely means something to celebrate Nikon 100 million lenses milestone !

According to this old price list: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/RF-Nikkor/RF-Accessories/Instructions/images/nFprlst1960.JPG

The original 105mm f2.5 cost $195 in 1962. That's about $1550 converted to today's money using the CPI inflation calculator.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 05:04 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: 136mm f1.8 equivalent on the Hasselblad X1D. Yawn.

So it's for talentless hobos?

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 04:55 UTC
On article 2016 Roundup: Compact Enthusiast Zoom Cameras (286 comments in total)
In reply to:

Timmbits: I guess this comparison would be pointless, if you had included the new Nikon models in the evals.

I don't know about that, but how would they review a camera that can't be shipped to them ?

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 04:32 UTC

136mm f1.8 equivalent on the Hasselblad X1D. Yawn.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 03:58 UTC as 12th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

mario loconte: I do not understand whether I am poor or this lens is too expensive. 😁

If you are on this site, it means you have a computer, internet access, free time, and are more concerned with silly gadgets then where your next meal will come from. Trust me, you are NOT poor.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 03:56 UTC
In reply to:

Kabalyero: This just gave me a hard-on...and I'm a Canon guy...

I'm sure it measures a full 105mm.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 03:52 UTC
In reply to:

Ran Plett: I can barely nail focus at f2. That being said, I really want to see some good samples from this beast. I wonder if this is Nikon's answer to Canon's 85L. Should render similar results wide open.

Only from the same shooting distance, which would mean tighter framing. That's not a typical comparison.

With the same framing, the 85L has narrower DOF, but the 105mm f1.4 has about 6% larger blur circles. Will you be able to tell? I really doubt it.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 03:50 UTC
In reply to:

maxnimo: If you actually shoot this lens at F1.4 your background will be all out of focus ... and so will your subject's collar, shoulders, nose, ears, left eye, mouth and 97% of their hair. Don't say I didn't warn you.

It's about perfect for a full body portrait from a distance. From 20 feet away, you'll be able to fit a standing person and you will have about 1 foot of DOF.

You shouldn't be shooting headshots at f1.4 with any lens.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 15:34 UTC
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: Wake me up when some company delivers a set of lenses all at f/4: 24/4, 35/4, 50/4, 75/4, 105/4, all bijou and petite, optically brilliant, distortion free, excellent 3D rendering, and razor sharp. That will be the day when digital photography may celebrate real accomplishment and we clap that someone started using brains and delivered fully on digital promise.

Uhh, Triplet? Pretty creepy man.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 07:43 UTC
Total: 3774, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »