105mm dc f2 or 105mm f2.8 micro
- Thread starter mzhaf7
- Start date
What do you intend to use the 105mm for? if you need closeup shots of details then only the 105/2.8 can do it.
Do you have experience of using the DC lens? if only as a portrait lens certainly is a good choice,
but in other areas like focus speed colour and detail is absolutely not as good as micro 105 mm lens,
the magnification is also different.
but in other areas like focus speed colour and detail is absolutely not as good as micro 105 mm lens,
the magnification is also different.
those are very specialised lenses, one is for macro and the other for portraits
there are great at what they were designed to do and not so great as a general purpose lens
there are great at what they were designed to do and not so great as a general purpose lens
Ts can lend me the 105 macro? I can compare for u. But I highly doubt my 105 f/2 dc will focus SLOWER than the 105 f/2.8 macro...
The 2 lens are very specialized in their design. My pov is that you will need one of these for different stages of the wedding, then you may have to swop out. Depends on yr style of shooting - some work with 2 lens 24-70 & 70-200 with a 6T filter, others use 24-70, 85,70-210, 90 or 105 macro, others work 24,35,50, 60 macro , 85 all as fast it gets. Better you tell us what you want the 2nd body to cover. Then there is that sticky one - shooting OMS or double shooter
Yes, 105 DC f2 is AF lens and 105 micro f2.8 is AF-S lens, technology difference of 13 years.
Right.... Have you used both lenses? You better test them in person to find out the actual answer....
not necessarily... the 105 VR is also a macro lens while the 105 DC doesnt have as much range to cover. the 35 f2D has faster af than the 35 1.8G =)
im also considering the 105 DC, but the alternative im comparing to is the 135 DC. im leaning toward the 105 cos of the perspective i ve seen from zeiss 100 f2 shots. i ve been using the 135 f2 AIS, but it seems like an odd focal length to shoot - its really nice when i get it right, but i can't 'see' well using that perspective... any comments?
It really depends bro. If you already have an 85 the 105 will be very close actually. If you don't own an 85mm, the 105 will fit nicely. I have the 105/2.5 and really seldom find myself using it. I would reach for the 85 a lot more.
Last edited:
ah.. that was my concern.. i was thinking of getting the 135 dc, with the intention of getting the 85 1.8G later. but that means i have a hole in the 50-135 now, plus i alrd have the 180 2.8D. thats why was considering 50, 105, 180 for the moment. but regardless of other lenses in the range, any comments on the perspective of a 105mm? i ve only had v limited experience with the FL
Nowadays I have been reaching for my 70-200 more to be honest. When I want that fast tele prime, 85/1.4 is the one I reach for. And from 105 F2.5 to a 70-200/2.8, they are very similar in terms of F stop. but the convenience has got me hooked. Though I have to say the 105 is every bit as sharp. The 105 perspective for me is still something I have not gotten used to very much. Bu then everyone shoots differently bro. So you really have to try it out to know.
actually i wld like to use the 105 on my 2nd body for close ups without having to appear in front of my subjects during weddings.. cos everytime i try to shoot some candids with my 35 or 24-70, my subjects will start to pose -.- kills off the moment instantly.. hence the question regardin the 105..
makes sense.. you need to be aware that the perspective is going to be very very different from a candid taken in the 24-70mm range on FX, and you ll have a more removed feeling which you may or may not like in the end. what you could do is preset everything so the time between taking the camera to your eye and taking the shot is < 2-3 seconds which is about the time it takes for people to respond (for street photography at least)
For that why use a 105? Might as well use a 180/2.8 or 70-200. 105 is not that long, and just a few more steps from 70mm... They will still be able to see you.
ya... and 70mm is around 105mm FOV.. still just a few steps from your 24-70. 180/2.8 is not that expensive btw, especially when compared to a 105DC. and a 80-200 is cheaper than a 105DC.
mm... 80-200 2.8? the 180 2.8 is really fantastic btw, and only about $750 or so... also consider the 85 1.8D on DX ≈ 135mm FX which is pretty sweet.
in anycase, i'd suggest the macro unless you re specifically looking to do intentionally-posed portraiture.
Similar threads
