Do want!!! New 105mm f1.4

rocketman122

Senior Member
looks yummy. 105 is hard to use at weddings for me. thats the reason I sold my 105vr. too tight. 85 is great for candids and just right for portraits and even full body family picks.
 

Whiskeyman

Senior Member
Because the f/2.8's wide open DOF wasn't shallow enough for macro work to begin with!!!?? ;)

Yes, those were my first thoughts when I saw this in my inbox this morning. But i know someone is going to need/want it and buy it!

WM
 

Elliot87

Senior Member
Because the f/2.8's wide open DOF wasn't shallow enough for macro work to begin with!!!?? ;)

Yes, those were my first thoughts when I saw this in my inbox this morning. But i know someone is going to need/want it and buy it!

WM

I didn't think this one was going to be a macro though? I haven't researched it though at all so could be wrong.

Matt Granger also made the point that to get the same portrait composition with a 105 vs 85 you need to be further away. In such a case 85mm @1.8 would give a more blown at background that 105mm @ 1.4 shot from further back. I haven't tried either so I don't know how true that is.

 

Whiskeyman

Senior Member
I didn't think this one was going to be a macro though? I haven't researched it though at all so could be wrong.

Matt Granger also made the point that to get the same portrait composition with a 105 vs 85 you need to be further away. In such a case 85mm @1.8 would give a more blown at background that 105mm @ 1.4 shot from further back. I haven't tried either so I don't know how true that is.


You're right, it's not a macro lens. I got an e-mail this AM that mentioned it being a macro and then read macro into everything I looked at about this lens. I guess I need to spend less time on the computer and more time asleep! :p

WM
 
Top