Anyone use the Nikon 105 f/2D?

[Crazydad]

Was pretty much set on the 85 f/1.4 for a portrait lens but then had someone rave to me about the 105 f/2D. I am intrigued with the defocus control, does anyone have any experience with it, possibly some sample pics?

 

[Derrel]

I have a 105 Defocus Control,and have a number of snaps taken with it on my pBase pages. It's a pretty nice lens in terms of overall image quality. It resists flare and ghosting better than the 85/1.4 when shooting right toward the sun-it is in my opinion, one of the absolute best tele lenses when shooting toward bright light sources. It focuses quite well,and has very lovely bokeh. I do not use the defocus control very often. The 105 D.C. lens has a very nice rendering of human skin--it does not have the uber sharpness and super-rich, saturated color rendition of the "new Nikkors" like the 105 VR Micro-Nikkor or the 200 VR--it's a lens that was designed for its pictorial qualities. It's a very fine lens for manual focusing as well as AF use. I think the defocus aspect is overrated; there are two ways to use the DC Control. One way gives a more-OOF backdrop, the other way gives an in-camera soft focus effect similar to a soft focus filter like a Zeiss Softar.

 

[Mike_E]

If you're shooting portraits, see if you can get your hands on an old AI or AI-S 105/2.5. At least to play with, you might want one and they are loads cheaper.

 

[Crazydad]

I have a 105 Defocus Control,and have a number of snaps taken with it on my pBase pages. It's a pretty nice lens in terms of overall image quality. It resists flare and ghosting better than the 85/1.4 when shooting right toward the sun-it is in my opinion, one of the absolute best tele lenses when shooting toward bright light sources. It focuses quite well,and has very lovely bokeh. I do not use the defocus control very often. The 105 D.C. lens has a very nice rendering of human skin--it does not have the uber sharpness and super-rich, saturated color rendition of the "new Nikkors" like the 105 VR Micro-Nikkor or the 200 VR--it's a lens that was designed for its pictorial qualities. It's a very fine lens for manual focusing as well as AF use. I think the defocus aspect is overrated; there are two ways to use the DC Control. One way gives a more-OOF backdrop, the other way gives an in-camera soft focus effect similar to a soft focus filter like a Zeiss Softar.

Thanks for the info Derrel! So, if you had to buy 1, which would you get, the 85 1.4 or 105 2.0?

Anybody else have experience with the 105?

 

[Derrel]

It's a tough decision between the 85/1.4 AFD and the 105 DC...neither is exactly the same thing. I personally prefer the 105 DC, but then I prefer a longer lens than some people do. On a DX Nikon, the 85 offers a wider field of view, making it easier to use indoors or in smaller spaces. If you have access to an FX body, both lenses become much easier to use indoors or in smaller spaces.

The user above suggesting a 105 f/2.5 manual focus has a point: that is a lens I know well and still have. it doesn't have the totally sweet bokeh of the 105 DC, but the f/2.5 Ai or AiS lens is smaller,lighter, and much less costly, and is available in old to very recent production models at a wide range of prices, and the 105/2.5 model *is* a beautiful lens, with excellent image quality.

Both the 85 AFD and 105 DC lenses are among Nikon's best lenses for portraiture. It's really hard to recommend one over the other because both are really nice lenses. I prefer the 105, but the 85 is maybe a better choice for "other" pictorial uses besides people,and on DX the 85 is easier to use under more actual real-world locations. A coin flip might be just as good as listening to some other person's preferences. It's Coke vs Pepsi.

 

[Crazydad]

Thanks Derrel, that is great information and I appreciate you taking the time. Let's me know it will be worth it to rent or borrow each one to see which will work best for me.