DSLRUsers.com

Those who know me are probably soooo sick of me banging on about this lens - but I gotta say this thing just produces stellar images, if its in focus its nearly always a great shot, the contrast and sharpness are second to none in my bag, the 300 f4 AFS would be a contender...

I would even buy another one of these lens if it came up - if you see one come up buy it or let me know I am also lookign at the f1.8 version, fatter but similiar length, and that is the beauty of the 105mm 2.5 it is so compact, barrel size of a 50 1.8 and less than an inch longer...

oh, and probably the only time I will post baby/toddler images

even though i missed the focus on the eyes (the hand is on the mark) it is still damn sharp

Dude, a baby shot with a manual focus lens? Nice cloudy lighting which goes well.

Do you find that 105 is a little too long for this type of portrait? I find even the 50 is too long especially indoors.

Awww how cute is that

I love taking childrens photos

One minor thing - I kinda wish you hadn't chopped off the top of the finger.

surenj wrote:Do you find that 105 is a little too long for this type of portrait? I find even the 50 is too long especially indoors.

I used my neighbours 105mm macro for quite a bit to take some childrens portraits (and I've used my 90mm macro as well) and yes you do have to be back a fair way to take many of the shots (especially some small group shots where you have to look rediculously far back - for outdoors only I'm afraid ). I do however like the compression you get.

I mainly use my 50/1.4 now for portraits (love that bokeh, shallow DoF and speed) but in looking back through some of my images for those really tight head shots I reckon the compression of a longer lens would have looked better.

surenj wrote:Dude, a baby shot with a manual focus lens?

Suren,

What do you think we did before the advent of AF technology? For those who aren't aware, AF is less than 25 years old.

Remorhaz wrote:

surenj wrote:Do you find that 105 is a little too long for this type of portrait? I find even the 50 is too long especially indoors.

I used my neighbours 105mm macro for quite a bit to take some childrens portraits (and I've used my 90mm macro as well)

Traditionally, within the 35mm fold, the 105mm - 135mm was considered to be the ideal focal length for shooting portraits. With the advent of the APS-C sensored cameras, the focal lengths of 85mm-105mm become applicable for those bodies.

Gerry, the isolation of the subject that you've achieved in the first of these images is great. Well done.

surenj wrote:Dude, a baby shot with a manual focus lens? Nice cloudy lighting which goes well.

Do you find that 105 is a little too long for this type of portrait? I find even the 50 is too long especially indoors.

lol, I actually found on this day I only lost probably 3-5 images to poor focus from about 20-30 images (from memory), pretty good strike rate with chaos running around like that.

I find the 105mm way too long in doors, but outside in the park (in this case) or on teh street it becomes a great length, gives plenty of space and time to work with without having to scramble around every 2nd shot!

Remorhaz wrote:Awww how cute is that

Remorhaz wrote:One minor thing - I kinda wish you hadn't chopped off the top of the finger.

yeah that bugs the crap outta me too! thats one disadvantage of teh prime lens.


whats the saying in film?if there is not not enough impact the shot is not cropped tight enough... for me at the end of the day I really like teh shots that look a step up from the family snapshots, I am happy to miss some of the wider shots to accomplish this. Imo, to get the natural contrast and background you need to choose the glass carefully, I just cannot get this from my other lens in my bag, the 17-55 @ 2.8 @40-55mm does come close and the 300mm f4 is also very very close.

gstark wrote:Gerry, the isolation of the subject that you've achieved in the first of these images is great. Well done.

yeah, thats just thing that makes these shots standout from the soccer mum ones from the P&S

Loving your work mate! I cant add to much more from what everyone else has said....we should swap 135 for 105 and see what the other lens is like...I love my 135

aim54x wrote:Loving your work mate! I cant add to much more from what everyone else has said....we should swap 135 for 105 and see what the other lens is like...I love my 135

thats a great idea, remind me next time!

Nothing to say about the 105mm Gerry. One of the best lenses made.....now 135mm....that's another story. Too short for sports and too long for portraits on a full frame sensor. Yet they were very popular in the 60s and 70s and then started to fall out of favour by the 80s and 90s. Almost every amateur photographer aspired to own one but few professionals had one.
Gary....what's your recollection and thoughts of the old 135mm lenses?

Matt. K wrote:Nothing to say about the 105mm Gerry. One of the best lenses made.....now 135mm....that's another story. Too short for sports and too long for portraits on a full frame sensor. Yet they were very popular in the 60s and 70s and then started to fall out of favour by the 80s and 90s. Almost every amateur photographer aspired to own one but few professionals had one.
Gary....what's your recollection and thoughts of the old 135mm lenses?

OUCH!!! I must be an amateur....I love the reach and compactness (yes even on film) I did wonder why there are so few variants of this lens in the AF era, now I guess I know

Matt. K wrote:Gary....what's your recollection and thoughts of the old 135mm lenses?

I seem to recall having a 135mm, but not a 105.

I thought that the 135 was a good length in the studio, and enjoyed it. It was too long for field and street work though.