Hey Z, I was in a photo shoot yesterday and I took the 105 with me. I was looking for a bit more light, but as you rightly said, the moment I started getting closer the aperture started closing down on me, so I found myself switching back to the 85 1.8. The thing is, I was surprised by at what distance the aperture started getting darker.
Yea man. It can be a pain in the ass because 105 is such a good focal length, I’m sure in time we will see a replacement for the f mount 105 1.4, which I’d wonder if it would be a 1.2. Either way, I bet it will be super expensive lol
I own both of these lenses also and have used them both for portraits. It amazes me how good the 70-200 is for a zoom. It doesn't give anything up to the 105 prime. The 105 is my go to macro lens and the 70-200 is my walking around lens. It is so versatile. I think the only lens I like better for portraits is the 85 1.2. It just seems to be in a league of it's own. Good video! Cheers
Interesting test , I always wanted a 105 but I recently got the z 70-200 2.8 with my Z 8 . Before that I only was doing portraits with the z 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 both are great but having that extra reach in that 100-200 zone will make me very happy haha . Maybe one day they will make a Z version 105 1.4 , that might make me have a look !
@@ZWadePhoto yeah I’m in Canada and the 85 1.2 is just too much with taxes for me to justify that . I went for the 70-200 2.8 so for street ,lifestyle or fashion style photography it will be a solid performer . And the 85 1.8 prime is no slouch nor is the 50 1.8 so I’m covered on the higher end . Next might be a wider zoom like the f 4 version not sure yet . Would love to have a wide angle prime for night scapes ). Cheers 🍻
Hi Z - Interesting video. Lately you have been putting out a lot of nice content - keep it up. These are two lenses that I have, so it is interesting to see others use them. Personally when I shoot 105mm, I still tend to go to the f mount 105 1.4 E lens adapted as it shoots like a native lens and is really my 'baby' 200mm f/2 lens (closest in character to that lens when I don't want to drag that sucker out). I have used and compared the 105 2.8 MC S line lens to the older 105 and other lenses in a recent video I did as well, and I find that it is exceptional, but like all macro lenses it is 'uber' sharp - to the point of some surreal stuff - where subjects do get a unique '3D' effect in spite of its slower 2.8 aperture. Sometimes I like this, and others I think it is a little too 'clinical' for my tastes when it comes to portraiture. Still, objectively speaking, it is a phenomenal lens, and if you are into macro it is world class. The 70-200 2.8 S lens is a beast and one of the best 70-200's out there (same can be said for the 24-70 2.8 S), - their versaltility mixed with their almost 'prime like' IQ makes them hard to beat and very compelling for any photographer. Even though I still prefer primes, every time I shoot with either of these two lenses and then go back later and look at the files, I am always amazed and say to myself "oh damn - that was the 24-70 (or 70-200) when I thought it was a prime - so things are getting really close these days. For events, the big difference for me is that I consider f/2 to be the slowest aperture that is 'fast enough' for how I like to shoot - this is a subjective opinion for sure, and for others f/2.8 is plenty fast. In fact, there is an interesting video put out today on @Matt Irwin Photography that highlights an Australian concert photographer that actually uses f/4 zooms the 24-70 f/4 S and the 14-30 f/4 S and she captures amazing stuff - so my opinion about f/2 being a minimum requirement is clearly only my opinion lol. The video is worth checking out for anyone that has not seen it: ruclips.net/video/i9pQwLE0o88/видео.html Anyway, I'll be interested to see your upcoming conclusions on these lenses and others. -PD
Well done, And pretty easy with Nikon glass and a model like Claire! In this case, can you get the job done with the 70-200 and not take the 105, I would say yes. Now try a close up macro comparison? Ha !
Having Clair on the team is a Godsend. She just does her thing and I only have to micro adjust for face lighting. Haha. Make RUclips content creation super smooth and fast. Thanks for watching.
hi, congratulations on the video. Please, if you can, you could tell me what it is called or the link to buy the leather shoulder strap for double camera you used in your video. Thank you in advance🤝
Hey Z, I was in a photo shoot yesterday and I took the 105 with me. I was looking for a bit more light, but as you rightly said, the moment I started getting closer the aperture started closing down on me, so I found myself switching back to the 85 1.8. The thing is, I was surprised by at what distance the aperture started getting darker.
Yea man. It can be a pain in the ass because 105 is such a good focal length, I’m sure in time we will see a replacement for the f mount 105 1.4, which I’d wonder if it would be a 1.2. Either way, I bet it will be super expensive lol
I own both of these lenses also and have used them both for portraits. It amazes me how good the 70-200 is for a zoom. It doesn't give anything up to the 105 prime. The 105 is my go to macro lens and the 70-200 is my walking around lens. It is so versatile. I think the only lens I like better for portraits is the 85 1.2. It just seems to be in a league of it's own. Good video! Cheers
Thanks DA and thanks for watching
She kind of reminds me of I Dream of Jeannie from my younger days. :-) Great video as always brother!
Thanks my dude! I'm happy to have Claire on the team. Just wait until the video launches on the full shoot. Some SICK edits coming.
Interesting test , I always wanted a 105 but I recently got the z 70-200 2.8 with my Z 8 . Before that I only was doing portraits with the z 50 1.8 and 85 1.8 both are great but having that extra reach in that 100-200 zone will make me very happy haha . Maybe one day they will make a Z version 105 1.4 , that might make me have a look !
I bet it’s gonna be real darn expensive lol might be a 1.2. Although, I think I’d prefer a 1.4 price haha
@@ZWadePhoto yeah I’m in Canada and the 85 1.2 is just too much with taxes for me to justify that . I went for the 70-200 2.8 so for street ,lifestyle or fashion style photography it will be a solid performer . And the 85 1.8 prime is no slouch nor is the 50 1.8 so I’m covered on the higher end . Next might be a wider zoom like the f 4 version not sure yet . Would love to have a wide angle prime for night scapes ). Cheers 🍻
Hi Z - Interesting video. Lately you have been putting out a lot of nice content - keep it up.
These are two lenses that I have, so it is interesting to see others use them. Personally when I shoot 105mm, I still tend to go to the f mount 105 1.4 E lens adapted as it shoots like a native lens and is really my 'baby' 200mm f/2 lens (closest in character to that lens when I don't want to drag that sucker out).
I have used and compared the 105 2.8 MC S line lens to the older 105 and other lenses in a recent video I did as well, and I find that it is exceptional, but like all macro lenses it is 'uber' sharp - to the point of some surreal stuff - where subjects do get a unique '3D' effect in spite of its slower 2.8 aperture. Sometimes I like this, and others I think it is a little too 'clinical' for my tastes when it comes to portraiture. Still, objectively speaking, it is a phenomenal lens, and if you are into macro it is world class.
The 70-200 2.8 S lens is a beast and one of the best 70-200's out there (same can be said for the 24-70 2.8 S), - their versaltility mixed with their almost 'prime like' IQ makes them hard to beat and very compelling for any photographer. Even though I still prefer primes, every time I shoot with either of these two lenses and then go back later and look at the files, I am always amazed and say to myself "oh damn - that was the 24-70 (or 70-200) when I thought it was a prime - so things are getting really close these days.
For events, the big difference for me is that I consider f/2 to be the slowest aperture that is 'fast enough' for how I like to shoot - this is a subjective opinion for sure, and for others f/2.8 is plenty fast. In fact, there is an interesting video put out today on @Matt Irwin Photography that highlights an Australian concert photographer that actually uses f/4 zooms the 24-70 f/4 S and the 14-30 f/4 S and she captures amazing stuff - so my opinion about f/2 being a minimum requirement is clearly only my opinion lol. The video is worth checking out for anyone that has not seen it: ruclips.net/video/i9pQwLE0o88/видео.html
Anyway, I'll be interested to see your upcoming conclusions on these lenses and others.
-PD
Thanks for watching PD
Excellent points raised
thanks for watching NikCan!
Well done, And pretty easy with Nikon glass and a model like Claire! In this case, can you get the job done with the 70-200 and not take the 105, I would say yes. Now try a close up macro comparison? Ha !
Having Clair on the team is a Godsend. She just does her thing and I only have to micro adjust for face lighting. Haha. Make RUclips content creation super smooth and fast. Thanks for watching.
hi,
congratulations on the video. Please, if you can, you could tell me what it is called or the link to buy the leather shoulder strap for double camera you used in your video. Thank you in advance🤝
It can be found everywhere that sells camera gear. Brand is Coiro
@@ZWadePhoto thank you so much 🤝
Wow Zwade , what are the chances of this happening. I BOUGHT a 105 2.8 S mc today!!!
You’ll love it John!
I'm greedy - I want a Macro Zoom ... 🦘
Sigma made on at one point. It was one of my first lenses
U don't even need to think about it just go for it tbh it's one of my fav lenses