One subtle bit of info here...
Neither of your models seemed to like the 105 :243:
nice work, Sean .....but i can't see getting rid of the 85 1.4 based on this test ..after all, it's 1.4...find yourself shooting in the "dark" you're guna wish u had it ....;-)))
He has a D3. He could shoot in a black hole and still get a proper exposure.
D3 > black hole. :Crunk:
Nice real world examples Sean, thanks a lot for doing this. The 70-200 is a great portrait lens on the D3, just as on the 1.5X sensors, better really as the FL is more in portrait range and DOF is shallower on a full frame sensor (closer to subject). The only problem on the D3 is corner sharpness, not an issue in 99% of portraits. This comparison also shows off the quality of the venerable 105/2 DC, my favorite F-mount portrait lens. It also helps support my decision to keep my 28-70 (have to remove it from FS here). I think it's a little less contrasty and a little warmer than the 24-70, and to my eye, maybe preferable for shooting event portraits which is how I would use either zoom. best....Peter
My wife and I spent quite some time studying the 30% views side by side in NX and both clumped the lenses as follows: the colors of the 70-200 & 24-70 are more 'yellowish / orange' (Jaundice tendency), while the two primes are close to one another and more realistic--with the 105 being picked straight out by both my wife and I in terms of accuracy of color/tones. Overall the sharpness is very close between the 70-200 and 105 DC with the 24-70 being the softest (could VERY WELL be focus tuning issue) and 85 f/1.4 sharpest. Micro-contrast: the 85 f/1.4 is definitely the most harsh of the 4 lenses with the 105 DC seemingly able to 'hide' the very small shadows from the texture on the skin--yet all the while keeping the resolution (it's pretty difficult to try to explain) very high. I think this trait of the 105 DC is what leads me to rank the 70-200 as being slightly sharper than the 105 DC (below)--I think it isn't actually resolution, but micro contrast that makes the 70-200 appear to have a very slight--and I mean VERY slight--edge in 'sharpness'.
Micro-Contrast: tendency to show shadows from very fine skin 'bumps'/texture in the well lit and transitioning into shadow areas
Nicest to the skin
105 f/2 DC (almost looked like some blems were removed from the skin, it was so good!)
My wife and I both picked the 105 f/2 DC as the best 'skintone' lens out of the bunch, but this really shouldn't be a surprise as Nikon designed it as such! I really like having the 105 DC on the body as it's nice and light and gives good reach. Interestingly, I had the most 'resistance to focus' with the 105 DC under darker focusing conditions than I did with the other lenses--not sure what that is all about, but it was annoying at times.
Also, thanks for the discussion.
I picked up the 105/2/DC today for use as a portrait lens with the D3.
I have to say I was getting a bit of buyers remorse after fiddling with the DC, and was considering returning it altogether.
But, after reading this thread (and others) and the stellar reviews on this lens I am thinking I should give it a bit more of a chance.
A great thread.