sxrich

I read and hear so much about lens sharpness. As a photographer, I guess my type of shooting doesn't really necessitate supreme sharpness. I typically have to smooth skin anyway, eliminate blemishes and when necessary, can use lightroom to achieve what I need. However, just my opinion, I think lens sharpness is totally overrated in many cases, even if you are shooting landscapes or sports. I purchased a Tokina 100mm 2.8 lens for a very reasonable price (under $360) when the Nikon 105 2.8 was around $900. The reviews on the Tokina were superb for things like rendition, microcontrast, saturation and that "3d pop" look that I love out of a lens. I had shot with the Nikon 105 2.8 and it was very sharp, great macro lens but some thought it rendered a little flat and didn't saturate as well as some other lenses. But, a very sharp lens. So, could I really tell the difference? I bought the Tokina (it needs a camera focus motor to autofocus) and have been very happy with the results. So, I'm attaching an article on image/lens rendition and a couple of pics I took with the Tokina (d7100 and d750) and the Nikon 105 (d7100). Tell me if you see a difference in image rendition and that 3d pop I mentioned. I am not trying to criticize anyone who has the 105 2.8. However, it's a good reason to consider some of the older lenses out there that are very inexpensive, low element count. It's also why I would love a Nikon 85 1.4 over my 85 1.8 even though my 1.8 is sharper. https://photographylife.com/the-death-of-beautiful-rendition-and-3d-pop-on-modern-lenses

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)


(Download)

KarenKaptures Loc: New Jersey

Love the dog/human pics!

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

I believe most of the hog complaints on their fancy expensive lenses is that they use it in automatic focus and don't understand their cameras capabilities in AF mode and which mode to choose.

cabunit Loc: SE Connecticut

What matters is that you're happy with what you have, have backed it up with your reasoning, and have offered your insights to the rest of us (I'll read the article next). As for comparing photos, it's tough for me to do unless you post the same (or similar) photos with the different setups. I also don't see labels on the ones above to help me know which are which. Thanks!

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

It the 105mm 2.8 is overrated; consider the 105mm 1.4.

sxrich

I hear the 105 f2 dc for 1200 is pretty good. the last two pics I posted were with the Nikon, first 3 with the Tokina. Take a look. I see more of a 3d look and better saturation with the Tokina. And for $359, its a steal.

sxrich

FWIW, here's a macro shot, hand held, with the Tokina. Walked out one morning, kneeled down, took the shot. No tripod, no extra time focusing manually, with higher aperture, etc etc

(Download)

whwiden

I agree that sharpness can be overrated. I think the article linked is a parody in its details. Despite that, I do use the Nikkor 105 f/2.5.

dreamon

I'm so old, I remember when a "good" portrait lens had a softness to it... for example, a 7-inch Wollensak lens (complete with 1930s brass tube) on an Eastman Kodak 11x14 studio view (with 2-1/4 by 3-1/4 back) produced that effect. How can a good portrait lens show every pore on your subject's face?

Just tossing this out there for fun.

sxrich

[quote=dreamon]I'm so old, I remember when a "good" portrait lens had a softness to it...

I'm not that old but interesting story. I agree. here's a pic i took of a new baby with uncle. note the complexion. I decided to leave it there to show contrasting images and for effect. I have yet to ever take a pic and show someone and have them complain about lens sharpness. They do, however, complain if they see too many wrinkles, blemishes etc

(Download)