|
AF DC-Nikkor 105mm f/2D
#311770 - 07/22/13 12:14 PM
|
|
|
I swear they could sell this as a lens that will get you laid and it wouldn't even be false advertising.
|
|
|
| jopezu |
|
bread-train
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 5500
|
|
Loc: georgia
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
i was going to get the 135mm version...
[Re: Vas Crabb]
#311776 - 07/22/13 05:52 PM
|
|
|
but i got into birding and just dropped a wad on the 300mm f/4 af-s and the tc-14eii (and a battery grip).
i think my 85mm f/1.8g (hands down best value in the entire current nikkor lineup) would probably best the 105mm dc for portraits though, so, i didn't buy overlap. i still kinda want the 135 though.
with my luck, as soon as i buy it, they'll announce a new 135mm dc f/2 g vriii or something.
|
i learned everything i know from KC
|
|
|
Re: i was going to get the 135mm version...
[Re: jopezu]
#311785 - 07/22/13 11:44 PM
|
|
|
> but i got into birding and just dropped a wad on the 300mm f/4 af-s and the tc-14eii
> (and a battery grip).
>
> i think my 85mm f/1.8g (hands down best value in the entire current nikkor lineup)
> would probably best the 105mm dc for portraits though, so, i didn't buy overlap. i
> still kinda want the 135 though.
>
>
> with my luck, as soon as i buy it, they'll announce a new 135mm dc f/2 g vriii or
> something.
The defocus image control is fucking awesome. You don't know what you're missing until you actually use it. You can't get those melty backgrounds with the subject still in perfect focus any other way. It works really well with a polarising filter for outdoor portraits.
Also, the DC 105mm is sharp as fuck wide open, has almost no falloff in the corners on FX, and has incredibly flat focus across the frame. It's an amazing lens. (I think the DC 135mm has a bit more falloff in the corners, but it still has all the other benefits.)
|
|
|
|
Re: i was going to get the 135mm version...
[Re: jopezu]
#311789 - 07/23/13 01:13 AM
|
|
|
Quote:
but i got into birding and just dropped a wad on the 300mm f/4 af-s and the tc-14eii (and a battery grip).
Yeah, I'm sure you just love watching beautiful "birds", always dying to try out your extra long, fat "lens" on them.
Quote:
i think my 85mm f/1.8g (hands down best value in the entire current nikkor lineup) would probably best the 105mm dc for portraits though, so, i didn't buy overlap. i still kinda want the 135 though.
You misread the memo - you're supposed to buy lots of overlap, but just not carry it at the same time. You pick out one to three non-overlapping lenses that suit the mission to carry with you. Besides, the DC lenses are unique and don't count as overlap with anything else, as you won't get the same effect any other way.
Quote:
with my luck, as soon as i buy it, they'll announce a new 135mm dc f/2 g vriii or something.
And when they do it'll have more distortion, more falloff, cheap plastic construction, and won't work with older manual cameras. Just like the 50mm f/1.8G has more distortion and poorer build than the 50mm f/1.8D, but somehow manages to be heavier and more expensive (yeah, I know you can't autofocus the 50mm f/1.8D with the entry-level DSLRs as they lack a focus motor in the body - it's a scam to force you to pay more for G lenses that actually have poorer optics).
|
|
|
| jopezu |
|
bread-train
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 5500
|
|
Loc: georgia
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
|
>Just like the 50mm f/1.8G has more distortion and poorer build than the 50mm f/1.8D
>it's a scam to force you to pay more for G lenses that actually have poorer optics
shot with the 50mm f/1.8G you just mentioned. it's a fairly cheap, no-frills $200 lens, and i can get wallhangers pretty consistently with it. i'm all for that last round of "cheap" f/1.8G set of refreshes nikon just did.
[ATTACHED IMAGE - CLICK FOR FULL SIZE]
|
i learned everything i know from KC
|
|
| jopezu |
|
bread-train
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 5500
|
|
Loc: georgia
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
|
> The defocus image control is fucking awesome. You don't know what you're missing
> until you actually use it. You can't get those melty backgrounds with the subject
> still in perfect focus any other way. It works really well with a polarising filter
> for outdoor portraits.
i attribute most of that len's ability to melt backgrounds to its longer focal length combined with large apertures. the defocus control (from what i've seen) is a VERY subtle effect added on top of the already impressive bg compressing abilities. if you have examples, i would love to see them.
the 85mm f/1.8g can also easily melt stuff (the background is no more than a couple of feet behind the dog here - view the pic full-size - this lens DESTROYS backgrounds).
[ATTACHED IMAGE - CLICK FOR FULL SIZE]
|
i learned everything i know from KC
|
|
| jopezu |
|
bread-train
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 5500
|
|
Loc: georgia
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
|
>it's a scam to force you to pay more for G lenses that actually have poorer optics
taken with the 35mm f/1.8g dx and my nikon d90 - the absolute cheapest f/1.8g redux out of the whole lineup. don't be too quick to dismiss these guys. they are an absolutely insane value imo.
[ATTACHED IMAGE - CLICK FOR FULL SIZE]
|
i learned everything i know from KC
|
|
| Gor |
|
Giver of truth.
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 1925
|
|
Loc: The basement
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: i was going to get the 135mm version...
[Re: jopezu]
#311858 - 07/23/13 10:51 PM
|
|
|
> > The defocus image control is fucking awesome. You don't know what you're missing
> > until you actually use it. You can't get those melty backgrounds with the subject
> > still in perfect focus any other way. It works really well with a polarising filter
> > for outdoor portraits.
>
> i attribute most of that len's ability to melt backgrounds to its longer focal length
> combined with large apertures. the defocus control (from what i've seen) is a VERY
> subtle effect added on top of the already impressive bg compressing abilities. if you
> have examples, i would love to see them.
>
> the 85mm f/1.8g can also easily melt stuff (the background is no more than a couple
> of feet behind the dog here - view the pic full-size - this lens DESTROYS
> backgrounds).
How come yer naked in Simon's eye?
|
Oh for Pete's sake.
loser.com
|
|
|
|
> i attribute most of that len's ability to melt backgrounds to its longer focal length
> combined with large apertures. the defocus control (from what i've seen) is a VERY
> subtle effect added on top of the already impressive bg compressing abilities. if you
> have examples, i would love to see them.
DC 105mm at f/2.8, defocus control at 2.8R, Hoya HD circular polariser, D90 body in bright sunlight. Suck up that bokeh, baby! The 85mm f/1.8G definitely won't get bokeh like that with its seven-blade aperture diaphragm (down from nine blades on the 85mm f/1.8D), besides not having defocus image control. The DC lens lets you melt the background into beautiful bokeh even when it's stopped down as far as f/8. Sorry, I don't have a convenient example now.
I'm not disputing that you can get great pictures with your lenses - pretty much any modern Nikon or Canon lens capable of great results. I'm just really happy with the effects from the DC, and haven't seen anything else that can achieve quite the same thing. I still maintain that this lens would let you take a beautiful enough picture of a woman that she'd want to have sex with you
[ATTACHED IMAGE - CLICK FOR FULL SIZE]
|
|
|
| jopezu |
|
bread-train
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 5500
|
|
Loc: georgia
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: i was going to get the 135mm version...
[Re: Gor]
#311863 - 07/24/13 12:19 AM
|
|
|
quit trying to change the subject...
|
i learned everything i know from KC
|
|
| jopezu |
|
bread-train
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 5500
|
|
Loc: georgia
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
|
>The 85mm f/1.8G definitely won't get bokeh like that with its seven-blade aperture diaphragm
be careful on those claims...
[ATTACHED IMAGE - CLICK FOR FULL SIZE]
|
i learned everything i know from KC
|
|
| jopezu |
|
bread-train
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 5500
|
|
Loc: georgia
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
|
>The DC lens lets you melt the background into beautiful bokeh even when it's stopped down as far as f/8.
again, i'll posit that the focal length (and distance to bg) has the greater contribution there. here's one at f/6.7. i think the DC has a more subtle effect than people realize when it comes to bokeh - that being said, i still have the 135mm on my bhphoto and amazon wishlists. i would really like to fuck with it for a bit. i'll probably end up renting one for a shoot trade-out.
[ATTACHED IMAGE - CLICK FOR FULL SIZE]
|
i learned everything i know from KC
|
|
|
Re: i was going to get the 135mm version...
[Re: jopezu]
#311872 - 07/24/13 01:50 AM
|
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Just like the 50mm f/1.8G has more distortion and poorer build than the 50mm f/1.8D
it's a scam to force you to pay more for G lenses that actually have poorer optics
shot with the 50mm f/1.8G you just mentioned. it's a fairly cheap, no-frills $200 lens, and i can get wallhangers pretty consistently with it. i'm all for that last round of "cheap" f/1.8G set of refreshes nikon just did.
Yeah, I'm not denying that the f/1.8G is a great lens for $200. It's just that the f/1.8D is an even better lens, and it only costs $100. In practice the distortion on the f/1.8G doesn't actually matter: you'll never notice it on portraits, landscapes or animals. You'll only see it if you're going out of your way to get straight lines near the edges of the frame, and even then it's easy to correct by applying the lens profile. But it still annoys me that it's twice as expensive as the f/1.8D, has more distortion, has a plastic barrel (rather than metal), it's heavier, and you can't use it with manual cameras.
|
|
|
| jopezu |
|
bread-train
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 5500
|
|
Loc: georgia
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: i was going to get the 135mm version...
[Re: Matty_]
#311874 - 07/24/13 03:00 AM
|
|
|
why can't you use it with manual cameras?
|
|
|
| jopezu |
|
bread-train
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 5500
|
|
Loc: georgia
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
|
birds bruh
mufuckin' birds bruh
those birds bruh
dem bird bruh
birds bruh
fucking birds bruh
[ATTACHED IMAGE - CLICK FOR FULL SIZE]
|
|
|
|
Re: i was going to get the 135mm version...
[Re: jopezu]
#311881 - 07/24/13 04:56 AM
|
|
|
Quote:
why can't you use it with manual cameras?
No aperture ring! G lenses require camera body to actuate the diaphragm with a mechanical lever. This was introduced on the F4 body (1988), so G lenses can't be used on older bodies. They also won't work with teleconverters, macro adaptors, mount adaptors and other kit that doesn't pass through or convert aperture control.
|
|
|
| jopezu |
|
bread-train
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 5500
|
|
Loc: georgia
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: i was going to get the 135mm version...
[Re: Matty_]
#311884 - 07/24/13 05:44 AM
|
|
|
oh yeh... i forgot about that
get with the times man...
|
|
|
|
Re: i was going to get the 135mm version...
[Re: Matty_]
#311893 - 07/24/13 12:07 PM
|
|
|
> >why can't you use it with manual cameras?
>
> No aperture ring! G lenses require camera body to actuate the diaphragm with a
> mechanical lever. This was introduced on the F4 body (1988), so G lenses can't be
> used on older bodies. They also won't work with teleconverters, macro adaptors, mount
> adaptors and other kit that doesn't pass through or convert aperture control.
Worse, you can't use aperture priority (A) or full manual (M) mode with G type lenses until the F5 (1998) and F100 (1999). You can only use program auto (P) and shutter priority (S) mode with G type lenses on the F4 and F90 as there's no aperture command dial on the body (only actuates aperture when it's automatic).
|
|
|
|
|
> be careful on those claims...
Heptagons! Quake in fear of the superior roundness from the nine-bladed diaphragm and all-spherical optics! (Yeah, you can definitely see the diaphragm shape on the halo from the discharge lamp in front of the building.)
[ATTACHED IMAGE - CLICK FOR FULL SIZE]
|
|
|
| jopezu |
|
bread-train
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 5500
|
|
Loc: georgia
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: i was going to get the 135mm version...
[Re: Vas Crabb]
#311905 - 07/24/13 04:44 PM
|
|
|
oh, you mean the perfect circles? yeh, some of mine are circular, but most of them are hexy or elliptical.
|
|
|
|
Re: i was going to get the 135mm version...
[Re: jopezu]
#311926 - 07/24/13 11:53 PM
|
|
|
> oh, you mean the perfect circles? yeh, some of mine are circular, but most of them
> are hexy or elliptical.
Yeah, I'm well into dick-waving territory. As long as you have at least seven blades and it's an odd number, it's perfectly good. It's all about the photos you take with it. The DC lens is probably worthwhile for some of the outdoor photos of people I try for, and my wife really likes the results it produces. But it's definitely an expensive and very specialised piece of kit, and not something to carry all the time. I have a tendency to spend far too much - most of the filters I use are more expensive than the 50mm f/1.8D lens.
In the end it's about the pictures you get out of it, anyway. Buying a lens for dick-waving alone rights is pointless. Nikon and Canon lenses are so good now that any argument about them is splitting hairs. You can get great pictures with any Nikon F mount or Canon EF lens from the last twenty years if you take make the effort to learn what it's good at and capitalise.
tl;dr you've got a collection of great lenses, and you're taking great pictures; don't bother with an expensive, specialised DC lens unless you have a very good reason to want the all-spherical optics and defocus control.
|
|
|
| jopezu |
|
bread-train
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 5500
|
|
Loc: georgia
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
|
> Yeah, I'm well into dick-waving territory.
i just joined the dick-waving club today too!
[ATTACHED IMAGE - CLICK FOR FULL SIZE]
|
|
|
|
Re: i was going to get the 135mm version...
[Re: jopezu]
#311953 - 07/25/13 07:03 AM
|
|
|
> > Yeah, I'm well into dick-waving territory.
>
> i just joined the dick-waving club today too!
That "lens" is pretty big - have you ever had a problem with it scaring the "birds" off?
|
|
|
|
Dunno, but
[Re: Matty_]
#311954 - 07/25/13 07:37 AM
|
|
|
he needs to lend that stuff to Andrew pronto to find out  
|
|
|
|
Re: i was going to get the 135mm version...
[Re: jopezu]
#311961 - 07/25/13 12:55 PM
|
|
|
> > Yeah, I'm well into dick-waving territory.
>
>
> i just joined the dick-waving club today too!
Sweet! Let me know how that baby goes. It looks like a pretty sweet lens. The only thing I'd be kinda worried about on it is filter vignetting - a 77mm filter ring is sailing pretty close to the wind when you need 75mm to achieve f/4 at 300mm. Are you going to be shooting on FX, or just DX? Could you shoot a grey card wide open with a couple of filters stacked to see if it gets nasty?
Also, which body is that battery grip for? I've got the Nikon MB-D80 grip for my D90, but the connector on yours looks different, kinda like the one for the D300. Let me know how it goes on a tripod. I've heard mixed reports about the quality of third-party battery grips.
|
|
|
|
|
> he needs to lend that stuff to Andrew pronto to find out
This lens isn't as impractical on a bustling street, but you still be far enough away that they don't pay attention to you, pick someone who's already looking at something in roughly the direction you're facing them from, and snap what's actually a candid picture where they appear to be looking at the camera. You get far more natural looks than you do if you're asking for poses. It also zooms out to make a great medium-wide angle lens. It's the lens you pack when you don't want to think about which lens to pack.
[ATTACHED IMAGE]
|
|
|
|
|
Other end of the zoom range on that lens. You don't even notice the distortion if you don't put straight lines near the edges, and the falloff isn't bad either.
[ATTACHED IMAGE]
|
|
|
| jopezu |
|
bread-train
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 5500
|
|
Loc: georgia
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: i was going to get the 135mm version...
[Re: Vas Crabb]
#311973 - 07/25/13 05:29 PM
|
|
|
will be shooting fx, and without a filter for a while. i have a 67mm hoya hd polariser that i love for my 28mm 1.8g, 85mm 1.8g and the 70-300mm vr. i'm not worried at all about vignetting even when i do start using 77mm filters. the grip is vello's bg-n10 for the d600.
|
|
|
|
Re: i was going to get the 135mm version...
[Re: jopezu]
#311987 - 07/26/13 01:35 AM
|
|
|
Quote:
will be shooting fx, and without a filter for a while.
So you're going to be using that thing completely uncovered? I'm not game enough to do that - I always stick something over the end of it, usually a UV filter or clear lens protector. I think of it as cheap insurance against unforeseen events.
|
|
|
| DMala |
|
Sleep is overrated
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 05/09/05
|
|
Posts: 3989
|
|
Loc: Waltham, MA
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: AF-S DX VR Zoom 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G IF-ED
[Re: Vas Crabb]
#311996 - 07/26/13 05:09 AM
|
|
|
> This lens isn't as impractical on a bustling street, but you still be far enough away
> that they don't pay attention to you, pick someone who's already looking at something
> in roughly the direction you're facing them from, and snap what's actually a candid
> picture where they appear to be looking at the camera. You get far more natural looks
> than you do if you're asking for poses.
You must get someone flipping you the bird from time to time if you do this enough.  
|
|
|
italie |
|
MAME owes italie many thank yous, hah
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/20/03
|
|
Posts: 15246
|
|
Loc: BoomTown
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: i was going to get the 135mm version...
[Re: jopezu]
#311997 - 07/26/13 05:19 AM
|
|
|
> > Yeah, I'm well into dick-waving territory.
>
>
> i just joined the dick-waving club today too!
Your CHAP authentication isn't set.
|
|
|
|
|
> > This lens isn't as impractical on a bustling street, but you still be far enough away
> > that they don't pay attention to you, pick someone who's already looking at something
> > in roughly the direction you're facing them from, and snap what's actually a candid
> > picture where they appear to be looking at the camera. You get far more natural looks
> > than you do if you're asking for poses.
>
> You must get someone flipping you the bird from time to time if you do this enough.
Not if you're doing it properly. If you do it right, the subject doesn't even notice you, and the people who do notice you have no idea what you're actually taking a photo of. You can catch all kinds of interesting moments. For example the girl here is reacting to a joke her boyfriend cracked while they were watching a Michael Jackson-impersonating busker.
[ATTACHED IMAGE]
|
|
|
Index 
Threaded 
AF DC-Nikkor 105mm f/2D
Reply
[Re: 
