richard_brown1 Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 Hi People, Do you think that Nikon will be introduding a new 105mm/f2 with the AF-S technology any time soon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnabdas Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 Nikon doesn't always do what people think they will do, but if you are talking about The "defocus control" 105/135 portrait lenses, I don't think there will be an AF-S version anytime soon. Buyer segment for those lenses is extremely limited, besides if I did portraits I don't think I'd miss AF-S much (unless doing street candids) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 I doubt it. The AF on this lens works fine. Manual focus is fantastic. And optical performance is the best I've seen in any lens I have had. Unfortunately, the price leaves something to be desired (I got mine mint second hand). If you want an array of AF-S prime lenses shorter than 300 mm, then you need to go Canon. But then you'll miss on the fine performance of this lens ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
todd peach seattle, washi Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 Just an off-the-wall observation: if you think you need the speed of AFS with this lens, you might look at your camera body instead. I use a 135/2.0 AF-DC for sports sometimes. On my F100, it smokes. On a D100 in 'gym lighting' it's damn near useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 I've noticed the same thing ... the F100 and F5 really make the screwdriver lenses fly! The AF is very nice with these bodies (and the D1 series as well) even without AF-S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_brown1 Posted June 28, 2003 Author Share Posted June 28, 2003 Well Guys, the most important aspect of the 105 f2 DC for me would be the optical quality (which I am not familiar with) I have the 105 2.5 which is crystal clear so if it is better than that, I would be really interested. As for the auto focus, it is secondary but, I would hate to buy the lense and have Nikon bring out the 105 with S technology, I would be kind of upset. So, have any of you had experience with a 105 2.5 and the 105 f2 DC? How do they compare? Is it worth the extra money or should I just stick with the lens I have? I have an F3 but in the future I will upgrade to an F100 or F5 or the F6 that we have all been waiting for. Best, RVB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilkka_nissila Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 Since the 105/2.5 (which I don't have but I've seen pictures from it) is known to have excellent quality, it doesn't make financial sense to go for the AF DC unless you plan to use one of its additional features: 1) autofocus, 2) the DC control, or 3) the f/2 aperture. I don't think the optical quality difference is going to be worth the expense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constance_cook Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 On an F100 or F5, I can't imagine why you would want as AFS lens. They are strikingly fast and I really can't think that adding the S=feature would make them any faster. Conni Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry n. Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 Who knows what Nikon has up its sleeve, but if I were a betting man, I'd wager that designing an AF-S version of a portrait lens is not very high on their list of priorities. Don't get me wrong--I believe AF-S is a nice feature to have on any AF lens, and I think Nikon should stop churning out Coolpix models by the truckload and concentrate on updating their AF lenses--but how much would AF-S contribute to making a better picture with this lens? Probably not much. So since the consensus seems to be no AF-S for the 105/2D, maybe Nikon will surprise us all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
constance_cook Posted June 28, 2003 Share Posted June 28, 2003 If you are going to get an F100 or an F5, go for the 105 f2 AF/DC. Conni Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_petrik Posted June 30, 2003 Share Posted June 30, 2003 Richard, >>So, have any of you had experience with a 105 2.5 and the 105 f2 DC? How do they compare?<< For portrait photography what matters to me are sharpness (though not "clinical" sharpness), pleasing bokeh, and smooth, even tonality. As good as the old 105 f/2.5 is in those areas -- it really is a nice lens -- the newer 105 DC beats it at its own game... * The old 105 is a bit soft wide open, while the 105 DC is sharp at f/2 and ridiculously sharp at f/2.8. So, if you want to blur out the background, but keep the subject sharp (well, the very shallow bit that is in focus if you shoot wide open) the 105 DC is the better option. * Although people wax on about the 105 f/2.5's bokeh, it's impressive only compared with other Nikkors, and bokeh really isn't Nikon's strong suit. The 105 DC, on the other hand, has the sort of bokeh you expect from Leica, no doubt attributable, in part, to the DC's rounded nine-bladed iris. Plus, you can fiddle with the bokeh, favouring either the front or rear focus using the DC ring. * I can't say if the 105 f/2.5 has choppy tonality (uneven tonal gradations from the blackest blacks to the whitest whites), but the 105 DC is silky smooth in this respect. I don't have any comparison photos to show you, but I have uploaded a few pix taken with the 105 DC. Unfortunately, my flatbed scanning is a bit uneven (I got better as time went on), so some examples convey the 105 DC's strengths better than others. At the least, these pix will give you an idea what the 105 DC can do. http://www.photo.net/photo/1553102 http://www.photo.net/photo/1558394 http://www.photo.net/photo/376346 (sorry about the crappy scan) http://www.photo.net/photo/1141692 http://www.photo.net/photo/1000742 Hope this is of some help. Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_brown1 Posted June 30, 2003 Author Share Posted June 30, 2003 Thank you Joe for your advice, I really do appreciate that. You can count the eyelashes on Anna's eye lids. Did you shoot those at f2 and minimum focusing distance? I presume so. There are a few examples in a few of my folders of my 105 that you may want to look at, specifically "Ladies in Mourning". Thanks again you make photonet good. If there is anything I can help you with please don't hesitate to ask.Best Regards, Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_petrik Posted July 1, 2003 Share Posted July 1, 2003 Richard, >Thank you Joe for your advice, I really do appreciate that.< You're welcome. >Did you shoot those at f2 and minimum focusing distance?< I can't remember but probably f/4 and ~4 feet. At f/2 the depth of field is so shallow you're forced to decide which eye will be in focus. >If there is anything I can help you with please don't hesitate to ask.< A bit of a long shot but... do you have any experience with Minolta's new 5400-dpi film scanner (http://www.dimage.minolta.com/elite5400/top.html)? I'm tempted to get one but I'm holding off until I see a review. So far I haven't been able to find a thing on the Net, but someone must have bought one by now. Joe P.S. Great shot in your folder -- http://www.photo.net/photo/1444373 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_brown1 Posted July 2, 2003 Author Share Posted July 2, 2003 Joe, No, I don't have any experience with the Minolta 5400 but I can draw some comparrisons with mine which is a Nikon 4000ED. First of all, it looks good - really neat, nice footprint (size). 4.8 dynamic range is excellent. 5400 resolution - excellent. The dynamic range will enable you to get alot of shadow detail. 5400 resolution will give you crisp, sharp images. 16 bit/AD will give you very large files: 130 mb+ which you will have to convert back to 8 bit/AD to be able to work with it in photoshop (curves, brightnes, contrast etc.). Sampling your film with 2,4,8,16 is a very useful feature though using 16 with Tri-X can get a bit harsh with the grain. 100% film coverage - do you get the black borders with that? With my Nikon you do for color chromes and negatives but not black and white. You get the 2 sides but not the top and bottom. But thats an easy fix in photoshop using stroke. I like the focus button on the Minolta, looks good. UBS and firewire - great. The things I'm not sure about with the Minolta is the software, the film holders and the Minolta optics. The Nikon has ED glass which was a big selling point for me. The Nikon has a SA-21 film feeder where you just push the film in, not placing it in a holder and then pushing in. One less step. Software is really important so, if you can, really check into that. Did you know that Nikon reduced their prices plus a rebate for the 4000ED. The Minolta looks great .......... I would wait for some reviews. I haven't read any myself but I'll look out for some. I'm very happy with my Nikon. I get really good results from 4 X 6 to 11 X 14 prints. Keep me in touch about your descision (Minolta) cool. Best R RIchard.............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_brown1 Posted July 2, 2003 Author Share Posted July 2, 2003 P.S. I love that shot too............... Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now