a couple of recent portraits

[DanOstergren]

I haven't shot with the 105mm, so I can't truly make a real comparison, but judging by the images I've seen thus far, I do think the 135mm f/2L is comparable in terms of how it renders what's in focus and what's not in focus, perhaps with even smoother out of focus transitions. It's also much less expensive than the 105mm lens, although I'm referring to the Canon 135mmL, so not exactly an option for Nikon shooters.

Chuasam, what aperture were you shooting at for these photos? I feel like more should be in focus, especially on the shot that shows more of the girl's outfit. The lighting is beautiful and the editing and colors are wonderful, but I feel that the lack of focus particularly in that shot takes away some of the impact of the image. For clarification I don't think it's unsuccessful because of the lack of focus because I still like the photo, I just think that with such a long focal length you could still achieve a dreamy out of focus effect while still getting more of the details in focus that help formulate a story for the viewer.

 

[DanOstergren]

One other thing that caught my eye (I hope I don't apear like I am nitpicking, I love your work honestly) are the saturation levels in the ears and on the inner lip of the model in the 4th photo. On my own photos I use a hue/saturation adjustment layer with a mask in order to selectively reduce the saturation of the reds in certains spots of the lips, ears, and sometimes the bridge of the nose and the eye lids when I end up having those neon toned reds on the skin.

 

[Derrel]

I hear that the new sigma art 85 is very good too

I looked at some photos from the new Sigma 85 ART lens...bokeh looks a bit harsher than I would like, but the resolving power of the lens is high.

Speaking of bokeh and 105mm lenses...this one is interesting, and right around $700.

Laowa 105mm f/2 STF Review

 

[chuasam]

One other thing that caught my eye (I hope I don't apear like I am nitpicking, I love your work honestly) are the saturation levels in the ears and on the inner lip of the model in the 4th photo. On my own photos I use a hue/saturation adjustment layer with a mask in order to selectively reduce the saturation of the reds in certains spots of the lips, ears, and sometimes the bridge of the nose and the eye lids when I end up having those neon toned reds on the skin.

drat! you caught me....Yes I had reduced the saturation on his face but forgot to notice the ears...who notices ears? Thanks I should go fix that.
much thanks Dan.

 

[chuasam]

I haven't shot with the 105mm, so I can't truly make a real comparison, but judging by the images I've seen thus far, I do think the 135mm f/2L is comparable in terms of how it renders what's in focus and what's not in focus, perhaps with even smoother out of focus transitions. It's also much less expensive than the 105mm lens, although I'm referring to the Canon 135mmL, so not exactly an option for Nikon shooters.

Chuasam, what aperture were you shooting at for these photos? I feel like more should be in focus, especially on the shot that shows more of the girl's outfit. The lighting is beautiful and the editing and colors are wonderful, but I feel that the lack of focus particularly in that shot takes away some of the impact of the image. For clarification I don't think it's unsuccessful because of the lack of focus because I still like the photo, I just think that with such a long focal length you could still achieve a dreamy out of focus effect while still getting more of the details in focus that help formulate a story for the viewer.

I shot at f/1.4 and you're right. Got a f/1.4...shooting at f/1.4
(new lens syndrome) You know how it is? Paid for a 1.4, damn straight I'm gonna use the f/1.4 *LOL*

Background story on the image: She's an actress wanting to get more action roles so this was one of her headshots. The background was just a birch tree in the middle of the condo courtyard.
Appreciate the feedback, will try stopping down a little next time.

 

[DanOstergren]

One other thing that caught my eye (I hope I don't apear like I am nitpicking, I love your work honestly) are the saturation levels in the ears and on the inner lip of the model in the 4th photo. On my own photos I use a hue/saturation adjustment layer with a mask in order to selectively reduce the saturation of the reds in certains spots of the lips, ears, and sometimes the bridge of the nose and the eye lids when I end up having those neon toned reds on the skin.

drat! you caught me....Yes I had reduced the saturation on his face but forgot to notice the ears...who notices ears? Thanks I should go fix that.
much thanks Dan.

I used to not pay attention to the neon colored areas like that until a retoucher who had been mentoring me pointed it out to me. It's a small change, but it makes a big difference!

 

[DanOstergren]

I haven't shot with the 105mm, so I can't truly make a real comparison, but judging by the images I've seen thus far, I do think the 135mm f/2L is comparable in terms of how it renders what's in focus and what's not in focus, perhaps with even smoother out of focus transitions. It's also much less expensive than the 105mm lens, although I'm referring to the Canon 135mmL, so not exactly an option for Nikon shooters.

Chuasam, what aperture were you shooting at for these photos? I feel like more should be in focus, especially on the shot that shows more of the girl's outfit. The lighting is beautiful and the editing and colors are wonderful, but I feel that the lack of focus particularly in that shot takes away some of the impact of the image. For clarification I don't think it's unsuccessful because of the lack of focus because I still like the photo, I just think that with such a long focal length you could still achieve a dreamy out of focus effect while still getting more of the details in focus that help formulate a story for the viewer.

I shot at f/1.4 and you're right. Got a f/1.4...shooting at f/1.4
(new lens syndrome) You know how it is? Paid for a 1.4, damn straight I'm gonna use the f/1.4 *LOL*

Background story on the image: She's an actress wanting to get more action roles so this was one of her headshots. The background was just a birch tree in the middle of the condo courtyard.
Appreciate the feedback, will try stopping down a little next time.

Haha, I know how that goes. It took a couple of years to stop shooting wide open, but sometimes I manage to still find excuses. If I can manage to get the focus right I still like shooting wide open for full body shots.

 

[chuasam]

Haha, I know how that goes. It took a couple of years to stop shooting wide open, but sometimes I manage to still find excuses. If I can manage to get the focus right I still like shooting wide open for full body shots.

With lesser lenses, I tend to stop down. Ok this isn't a lens review but that 105mm f/1.4 is crackingly sharp even at f/1.4; it's a sick addiction.
The DOF is so narrow that it can even be thrown off by the subject breathing.

 

[Derrel]

I found on the 200/2 that wide open the image quality was good, but that closing down slightly, like 2/3 of a stop to f/2.5 was good, and that f/3.2 and f/3.5 gave a nice depth of field rendering on a headshot, but ALSO had just enough DOF to keep the body in acceptable focus.

After a while, uber-shallow DOF starts to reveal itself for the gimmick/infatuation that it is. The superb background rendering the 105/1.4 offers is payoff enough for most portrait or lifestyle type shots. For example, on the mdoel, her fur adornment on her dress probably would have looked better, and less jarring, at f/2.8 than at f/1.4, and at that close of a distance, that little extra bit of DOF would have shown her dress's unique styling cues a little bit more flatteringly.

 

[DanOstergren]

Haha, I know how that goes. It took a couple of years to stop shooting wide open, but sometimes I manage to still find excuses. If I can manage to get the focus right I still like shooting wide open for full body shots.

With lesser lenses, I tend to stop down. Ok this isn't a lens review but that 105mm f/1.4 is crackingly sharp even at f/1.4; it's a sick addiction.
The DOF is so narrow that it can even be thrown off by the subject breathing.

I had similar experiences shooting wide open with the Canon 135mm. When you get the focus right, the focus was razor sharp even wide open with an equally razor thin depth of field. It was impressive, but I found that the lens really started to shine when set to apertures of f/3.5- f/5.6. Then again, the majority of what I do is headshots. I opted for an 85mm f/1.8 instead though because it did the same thing for a lot less money, and the trade off in IQ is insubstantial when using good technique.

 

[chuasam]

Haha, I know how that goes. It took a couple of years to stop shooting wide open, but sometimes I manage to still find excuses. If I can manage to get the focus right I still like shooting wide open for full body shots.

With lesser lenses, I tend to stop down. Ok this isn't a lens review but that 105mm f/1.4 is crackingly sharp even at f/1.4; it's a sick addiction.
The DOF is so narrow that it can even be thrown off by the subject breathing.

I had similar experiences shooting wide open with the Canon 135mm. When you get the focus right, the focus was razor sharp even wide open with an equally razor thin depth of field. It was impressive, but I found that the lens really started to shine when set to apertures of f/3.5- f/5.6. Then again, the majority of what I do is headshots. I opted for an 85mm f/1.8 instead though because it did the same thing for a lot less money, and the trade off in IQ is insubstantial when using good technique.

Dude! It's "official"
Sigma is releasing a 135mm f/1.8 ART
O M G!!!!!!

 

[birdbonkers84]

Love No.2 she has gorgeous eyes!

 

[chuasam]

Experimenting with less conventional lighting and colour grading

 

[Krell0]

Drooling over this lens still

Sent from my SM-G925P using Tapatalk

 

[chuasam]

The lens is worth every penny.