The NIKON Thread (Talk About Nikon Stuff here)
Jan 17, 2015 at 2:12 PM Post #5,793 of 5,895
  Thanks for the input on hthe 105. I am thinking of getting it even though not sure if I would use it much.

 
I tend to use the 85mm the most when I need a long lens (although 105 is my longest lens for now)
 
This was taken with the old 85mm 1.8 AF (pre-D) lens which I love for it's small size that I sometimes fit in my front pocket when I don't want to bring my bag.  It was then cropped and even full quality is only 744kb......that makes me scared to print it (not that I will), but could this be blown up to 20x30" with no pixelation?
 

 
Jan 18, 2015 at 8:37 AM Post #5,795 of 5,895
How many are using a 105MM macro? I am considering  adding one to my lens collection.


It's a fantastic lens, I used to use mine quite a bit when I shot film.
Since I've switched to digital I've started using a 60 mm macro as I found the 105 mm was too long.....obviously the 60 mm converts to 90 mm.
 
Jan 21, 2015 at 8:18 PM Post #5,797 of 5,895
I ended up getting a Tokina 100MM macro lens which is super sharp for what i will use it for and made well.  Now debating to keep the fuji 56MM 1.2 and 10-24. I think the 56MM is staying for sure. tokina is awesome for little money on the D610,. Decided that the 1`0-24 is not necessary for my Fuji but the 16MM 1.4 coming will better in low light and wait for that release. 56MM  1.2 too good to not keep.
 
Jan 23, 2015 at 6:24 PM Post #5,798 of 5,895
i almost regret selling it now, but on a whim i listed my 105 2.8 macro on amazon and it sold in 2 days.. Got just a little more than I originally paid for it.  
 
I really didn't like using this lens...I got it for macro ring shots and for the longer reach over the 85, but I feel like there has to be a more usable macro lens out there.  It was pretty much impossible to take a handheld shot indoors in a kinda lower light situation without flash even with image stabilization on.  Canon's 60mm macro seems so ideal..  
 
Jan 23, 2015 at 8:49 PM Post #5,799 of 5,895
The Tokina is really a nice lens and not lot of money. It work well and is very sharp. heck for the $379.00 worth having around when you need a macro. I been using my Fuji more so so I am liking the lenses with the XT-1 as well. I also may put my D7100 on Amazon soon.
 
Jan 24, 2015 at 4:56 AM Post #5,800 of 5,895
I think the problem with these long macro lenses is that in order to get a fast enough shutter speed and get the DOF that I need (not razor thin) for wedding ring shots, I need lots of light.  My 35mm 1.4 lens at 2.8 aperture did better for this ring shot than my real 105mm macro lens even with vibration reduction..  I've also found that 105 is just a little too long for most of the shots I need.  I much rather would sacrifice a little compression and use my 85mm lens.  I guess I won't' be missing the 105 and now I feel like my former lust for the Canon 135mm f/2 lens (and some other lenses) is not anywhere close to being enough reason to switching to Canon.  The two shots below are crops of the same shot.  ISO 500, f2.8, 35mm
 

 

 
Jan 29, 2015 at 2:01 AM Post #5,804 of 5,895
which edit do you guys prefer?  I was surprised that most of my friends (not photographers) liked my edit over the vsco filter one...  I did edit the vsco one also (they all require some tweaking), but the bottom edit is my edit with no filters.  

 

 
Jan 29, 2015 at 3:00 AM Post #5,805 of 5,895
  which edit do you guys prefer?  I was surprised that most of my friends (not photographers) liked my edit over the vsco filter one...  I did edit the vsco one also (they all require some tweaking), but the bottom edit is my edit with no filters.  

 


-I much prefer the bottom one; the top one imho has a slightly washed-out look, as if one has tried to recover too much detail from an underexposed shot.
 
The bottom one with the darker hue and more saturated colours (At least it looks like it - my colour vision is impaired big time) packs a lot more punch - to my eyes, anyway.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top