Today's shopping : 105/1.8 and 50/1.8 AI

[Airy]

Well, yes there is some. But I could still get that kind of shot - distance is more than MFD and sharpness is much better already. Of course the backgrouund blur is proportionate to the aperture....

[Airy]

Now just for fun - loads of flare, but not caused by internal reflections. f/2.8.

[Airy]

Comparison between f/1.8 and f/5.6. Focus was on "Cerises / Tea & Pastry".

[Airy]

And finally (for today), another shot wide open. Focus was on the running lady.

[Airy]

Last correction - the shot above is +/- SOOC, including the bad white balance. Given the overcast weather, I'd expect a higher color temperature than 4463 K !!! so I decided to dial in 5200 K, and here's the result.

[John Geerts]

Congratulations with this fine lens, Airy.  I use the lens a lot in f/2.0.  The image is better than wide open, but still with the wide open-effect.

I find the performance on the Df the best.

[Airy]

Indeed, by f/2 there is already distinctly more contrast and less purple fringing, though not reaching f/2.8 level.

[Akira]

Love the crisp and sharp rendition of the fog!   

Joke aside, the sharp tower and the fine gradation of the fog make a nice contrast.  The complementary color enhances the contrast effectively.

[Tristin]

Low contrast and weird front bokeh are definite issues with the lens I have noticed over time.  The low contrast doesn't bother me, but the foreground bokeh is to be avoided usually.  I tends to have a very un-natural look, as if it were added later.  A shame!

The low contrast and flare resistance when pointing at light sources make it an excellent night lens as my recent Oakland Protest pics show.  Streeghtlights and fires made no negative impacts.

[Airy]

I concur with both of your statements. Night shots are unexpectedly good. With most lenses I'd avoid full aperture, not necessarily with this one. I could not see any outrageous coma either. Will give it another try.

Front bokeh: it's common wisdom to avoid OOF items in front of the subject, so the following may be useless knowledge. The only lens in that FL range with better front bokeh (compared to background bokeh) is the old Tamron 90/2.5 SP macro.

[Airy]

A quick comparison between the two 105 AIS :

- Brickwall shooting, at close range (about 1.5m)

Wide open and at 2.0, the 105/1.8 delivers relatively soft images with somewhat mushy corners.
At 2.8, the center is more or less equivalent, but the 1.8 got a flatter field and much better corners. The 1.8 has slightly warmer colors and slightly higher contrast.
At 4.0 and above, the 1.8 is better (contrast, sharpness).

- 3D subject, 2m distance:

Very similar rendering at same apertures. Slightly less LoCA with the 1.8 lens.

(continued)

[Airy]

As reported earlier, the wide apertures (f/1.8, f/2.0) are not really convincing at a short distance - sharpness suffers, purple fringing and LoCA are apparent. Obviously, the lens has been optimized for long distances (see also the thousand and one nights #59).

This morning, I shot one of my favourite testing targets, the Eiffel tower, focussing on Mr. Fresnel's name, a tribute from a happy 300PF owner.

First series at f/1.8, second at f/5.6 that might well be the optimum. Full shot and 100% crops. The camera was my trusty, and certainly not rusty, Df the blank polished metal is starting to shine).

[Airy]

(now at f/5.6)

[Airy]

Bottom line : f/5.6 offers more contrast and detail, but f/1.8 delivers no mush (also consider that the subject is not flat...). Very impressive.

[Tristin]

Bottom line : f/5.6 offers more contrast and detail, but f/1.8 delivers no mush (also consider that the subject is not flat...). Very impressive.

Yeah, it is an excellent landscape lense.  Especially in high contrast scenarios and at night.  The low field curvature really makes a huge difference, this is where the 2.5 performs poorly.