Updated w/ pics. 135mm f/2.0D AF DC

[JohnnyRebel]

this

Yes, I was having some trouble manual focusing with the ol' D40. Had a bit of a snag with ordering a replacement for the D2h I just sold, so had to borrow my son's camera. I was goofing around a bit without doing much setup, just letting my 8 year old play the model. I did use some fill flash on #2. Generally the D40 overexposes, so I had actually turned down the exposure comp. I'm pretty sure I can save it in Lightroom as soon as I have some down time. Mostly I was interested in exploring the bokeh. I took a number of shots, almost all of which were out of focus. I did like the cross in the background of #2, but it's pretty hard to get a moving target in focus on the D40. It just isn't set up for it, I longed for the focus screen from the old AE-1.

JR

 

[finbarqs]

you might wanna stop down a little... f/4 will give you pretty similar results... But then again. Shot 2 may just be camera motion...

can't see exif data, but maybe your shutter is too low? were you shooting < 1/160?

 

[virtuamike]

Digitalrev just recently did a video test of the 105mm f/2 DC, which is very similar to the 135mm.

Their conclusion? "It's a good lens, but don't expect much out of that DC ring"

http://youtu.be/3Lm6ZsPSEXg

I used to shoot with a 105/2 DC. That's an awful review - it's not meant to be a street lens, and you're not going to get a feel for DC by using it as such.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

you might wanna stop down a little... f/4 will give you pretty similar results... But then again. Shot 2 may just be camera motion...

can't see exif data, but maybe your shutter is too low? were you shooting < 1/160?

I qwas playing around in A mode, I'll have to go back and look and see what shutter speed the D40 chose for me. I really think the focus problem was a combo of old eyes, moving target and the D40 manual focus w/o a decent focus screen. I just picked up a D200 for almost nothing and am shooting a bit. Camera shake does get to be an issue at almost 200mm (35mm equivalent) w/o VR and shooting handheld. I think this is just too much of a beast for a crop sensor and no VR. I'm really considering about returning it as my FF purchase is some time away. I'm thinking that the 85mm would be a more usable portrait prime for my intended purpose (child portraiture in natural light). I might need to be considering the magnificant 70-200. I won't be buying until April '12.

JR

 

[Cattykit]

I totally get this. Going from a PaS to an SLR will make anyone take better photos. It's no contest. But to go from a $100 lens to a $1000 lens, you really need to know how to use it. Otherwise, your left with a $1000 lens that does the work of a $100 lens.

Most people can make due with an 18-55mm and 55mm to 250mm lens. I have those and added the 50mm prime. The prime is overkill but it does take better portraits. I jsut have to set aside time to take them some time. Played enough with the prime to know how to be dangerous with it

It's actually the oppostie. A good lens will make you thinks less and offer a good outcome regardless of harsh conditions compared to the cheap ones. With a more expensive lens, you need to worry less about things like sharpness(wide open, corner), flare, CA, distortion...etc.

 

[finbarqs]

I qwas playing around in A mode, I'll have to go back and look and see what shutter speed the D40 chose for me. I really think the focus problem was a combo of old eyes, moving target and the D40 manual focus w/o a decent focus screen. I just picked up a D200 for almost nothing and am shooting a bit. Camera shake does get to be an issue at almost 200mm (35mm equivalent) w/o VR and shooting handheld. I think this is just too much of a beast for a crop sensor and no VR. I'm really considering about returning it as my FF purchase is some time away. I'm thinking that the 85mm would be a more usable portrait prime for my intended purpose (child portraiture in natural light). I might need to be considering the magnificant 70-200. I won't be buying until April '12.

JR

35mm equivalent you mean Field of View? That doesn't become affected. It's still a 135mm Lens, just cropped! Last time when you crop an image that had a field of view of 200mm, it shouldn't have camera shake at all! that rule apples to actual focal length, rather than the field of view. it's like taking a FF camera, and taping electrical tape around the lens to give you "200mm". that's what the crop sensor is doing.

 

[JohnnyRebel]

35mm equivalent you mean Field of View? That doesn't become affected. It's still a 135mm Lens, just cropped! Last time when you crop an image that had a field of view of 200mm, it shouldn't have camera shake at all! that rule apples to actual focal length, rather than the field of view. it's like taking a FF camera, and taping electrical tape around the lens to give you "200mm". that's what the crop sensor is doing.

Makes total sense. However, I remain confused. Concerning camera shake Wikipedia says:

"The extra amount of enlargement required with smaller-format cameras increases the blur due to defocus, and also increases the blur due to camera motion (shake). As a result, the focal length that can be reliably hand-held at a given shutter speed for a sharp image is reduced by the crop factor. The old rule of thumb that shutter speed should be at least equal to focal length for hand-holding will work equivalently if the actual focal length is multiplied by the FLM first before applying the rule."

This matches my personal experience, shooting FF at work and shooting a crop sensor at home. There does seem to be an increase in the way camera shake shows up in the finished product even though the focal length is, as you explained, the same.

JR

 

[finbarqs]

no prob! but with that said, keep your 135 f/2.0... I'm thinking about getting the canon counter part! It should be an amazing lens... (I have the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II -- equivalent to Nikons VR II lens also)