NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Frode on December 04, 2016, 17:31:00
-
Some of you might find this interesting 🙂.
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/12/taking-apart-the-new-nikon-105mm-f1-4e-ed-af-s/
-
yes,, quite interesting thx!
-
Great read. Thank you for the link!!!
-
We just have to put the 105 to some real field use and learn its longevity in practice.
Maybe, maybe not, this lens will turn out to be indispensable and thus securing an additional spare sample is a prudent move. At the present point in time, I don't know what the verdict will be.
-
It is a shame to see Nikon's marketing giving themseves a black eye but you would have to be a competitor's fanboy, envious and in denial or plain naive to not know this lens is stunning. Hopefully Nikon pays more attention to these marketing/construction details that are quickly becoming a competitive area for camera enthusiasts.
-
The people writing advertising blurbs haven't usually the slightest clue what the products are, their reason to exist, or their areas of application. Thus the recent press releases from Nikon, as well as from other big names, tend to be vexing or strange, depending on how you search for information between the lines.
The internet syndrome of distributing "facts" without primary first-hand knowledge exacerbates the mess further. Latest seen in the hype around the new 70-200 FL E.
The undeniable fact is that the 105/1.4 E is a stellar performer in optical terms. Whether it is built to last remains to be seen.
-
There is another way to look at this; if the electronics fail on one of the boards the repair cost is likely lower. Having said that, with the heft of glass needing to be moved the first fail I can foresee is the motor. Luckily, motor replacement ought to be straight forward. The most important thing is that the optics are housed well: metal core with flexible, impact bouncing outer shell.
-
The days when a camera or lens purchase is a lifetime investment are lone gone. That era was closing even when I first entered serious photography in 1970. Hopefully the AF-S 105/1.4E will be repairable at an acceptable cost for as long as the typical owner wants to continue using the lens. Something new will surely come to draw attention a way.
Photographic equipment is an expense and has been for some time. Like a car or a truck it's going to ware out. We repair them or replace them but eventually almost all of them are junked. Of all the millions Model-T(s) and VW Beatles how many are still on the road?
Dave Hartman who would like to lease an AF-S 105/1.4E with option to buy.
-
To remove some internal dust :o because customers might complain :o
-
To remove some internal dust :o because customers might complain :o
Yep. Now that many people have pretty powerful LED flashlights, they use them to shine into their optical gear and then complain even about tiny specks of dust. I heard from people in the optical industry that that's become a real problem as people send in their gear to have that dust removed ... :-)
Hermann
-
a piece of fibre or visible dust in unforgivable in a new lens.
the tiny bits of dusts you see when you shine a light into the lens is fine :o :o :o
-
Dave Hartman who would like to lease an AF-S 105/1.4E with option to buy.
If manufacturers started offering leasing, my finances would be in trouble! 😂
-
There is another way to look at this; if the electronics fail on one of the boards the repair cost is likely lower. Having said that, with the heft of glass needing to be moved the first fail I can foresee is the motor. Luckily, motor replacement ought to be straight forward. The most important thing is that the optics are housed well: metal core with flexible, impact bouncing outer shell.
Luckily, the 105/1.4E owners still have eyes, brains, and fingers to focus with. Unless of course the electric focus mech being dead wipes out manual focusing. Which *I've heard* can happen with some Nikon AF lenses.
-
Yep. Now that many people have pretty powerful LED flashlights, they use them to shine into their optical gear and then complain even about tiny specks of dust. I heard from people in the optical industry that that's become a real problem as people send in their gear to have that dust removed ... :-)
Hermann
In the 1970's/1980's, I held a variety of 35mm camera lenses up to a 300W slide projector to see everything that was inside. It wasn't pretty(dust, fingerprints, finger grease smears, milky areas), but the lenses still functioned the same as they did before I held them up to the 300W lamp.
The LED flashlight must be number one on the lens marketer's hate list.
-
a piece of fibre or visible dust in unforgivable in a new lens.
....
Why? Is it because the lens is more heavy than specified in the specifications,,,
-
No wonder why these new lenses are so expensive... :)
So delicate, so fragile !
Planned obsolescence has now reached photographic gear.
What next ? Probably optical plastic instead glass. Or magnetic field, already used in microscopy.
I love my AI/AIS lenses even more... 8)
-
What is fragile about these lenses? I don't see it.
Plastic gears are better than metal gears in at least one respect: metal gears make a louder sound when operating. A shared motor across lenses instead of a ring SWM which (as far as I know) is unique to each lens type makes some sense in lenses which are made in small numbers (such as most f/1.4 primes) to avoid the problem of parts running out. I have understood that the ring type SWM motors can stop functioning and not only is the motor expensive, it may be that there are no replacement motors left for some lens types. Many machine shops can make replacement gears from plastic (or metal). A ring type SWM is something that I doubt that many technicians could make without help from the original manufacturer. If Nikon is smart, they use the same motor in most of these non-ring-SWM lenses so that a large parts supply can be manufactured for the lens pool.
Personally I'm happy with the 105/1.4's optics, its handling, and focusing. If anything it is a little on the too sharp side for my taste, and I kind of miss the look of the 85/1.4D AF but I don't miss the less precise and more noisy AF of that lens (it was good as body driven AF lenses go, but not as good as AF-S lenses in precision). I felt that stopping down to f/1.8 was mandatory to have a reasonable chance of a high percentage of images in focus with the 85/1.4D. AF-S has improved my chances of getting correct focus wide open greatly (especially when making head shots of subjects who wear eyeglasses), although with some cameras (my old D800) there were issues such as distance dependent focus error (affecting lenses independently of drive solution). Those problems are now in the past and I'm pleased with the way Nikon autofocus has been improved in the last few years. Fine tuning is still needed in many cases but at least I can live with one fine tuning setting for the whole life of the lens and camera combination, which is not something I could say when using the D800.
I suspect the f/1.4 AF-S nano coated gold ring lenses probably are more durable than some of the f/2.8 zooms which are very complex and fairly easily damaged, at least the 24-70 G was. The E version seems better built but I have not mishandled it (knocking wood) to find out.
-
...
What next ? Probably optical plastic instead glass. ...
Moulded plastic elements have a long history in the making of Nikkors. They were initially used for aspherical elements in the inner parts of the optical assembly, where they would be protected from external damage. For example, the first 28-70/3.5-4.5.
I love my AI/AIS lenses even more... 8)
We can agree on that. The tactile feeling is something on its own.
-
If manufacturers started offering leasing, my finances would be in trouble! 😂
I would certainly have less equipment at any gioven point if it was not my own but a leased & changable. Currently I am to sell of some stuff on ebay, but meh, I am not in the mood for the fuzz, have bigger fish to fry.
-
The undeniable fact is that the 105/1.4 E is a stellar performer in optical terms. Whether it is built to last remains to be seen.
Agreed.
I think the author wrote the article more for self-flagellation ("look at me") purposes than to say anything truly useful.
If he were a true expert in lens craftsmanship, he'd be making the best lenses in the world ... not unscrewing them, confirming that it's basically a well-made, solid lens ... but writing a semi-speculative "opinion" about it ... for no other purpose that to stir the pot and get hits on his page.
-
I think the author wrote the article more for self-flagellation ("look at me") purposes than to say anything truly useful.
what???... i found it quite interesting and educational.. i am glad he posted the link.
-
Some who have this lens may well be happy with it at this time. However, that is not the issue.
Mongo is glad the article was written. It is informative in that it tells us things we might otherwise never have imagined to be the case with a product at this touted level. If nothing else, it got Nikon to correct some of its inaccurate marketing/publicity about the lens.
Mongo cannot entirely agree with Bjorn’s comment that marketers don’t have a clue about what they are marketing. Yes, they may have no clue but it should be their business to get enough of a clue to meaningfully and accurately write about the product they are promoting. In any event, even if they do not, there is no question in Mongo’s mind that it is the supreme obligation of Nikon to carefully vet and approve all written promotions about their products BEFORE they are published. Not to do so could be seen as incompetent or worse; as having reckless disregard for whether or not representations about its products are accurate and truthful.
One cannot help but gain the impression that Nikon keeps shooting itself in the foot and that it has long ago run out of feet.
After the numerous disappointments in new Nikon gear, Mongo will now not buy any in future until they are no longer considered “new” products and have been very tried and tested in the field by others over a lengthy period.
Recently had to have parts replaced on now 12 month old 200-500mm (will post separately). Sometimes even 12 months is not enough to test a product for weaknesses.
-
Agreed.
I think the author wrote the article more for self-flagellation ("look at me") purposes than to say anything truly useful.
If he were a true expert in lens craftsmanship, he'd be making the best lenses in the world ... not unscrewing them, confirming that it's basically a well-made, solid lens ... but writing a semi-speculative "opinion" about it ... for no other purpose that to stir the pot and get hits on his page.
I don't see Roger to be the "look at me" type. He certainly knows the ins and outs of lenses (due to his Lens Rentals business) and he has the advantage to have access to both many brands and samples of each lens. He shares his findings and they are IMO very educational.
-
Agreed.
I think the author wrote the article more for self-flagellation ("look at me") purposes than to say anything truly useful.
If he were a true expert in lens craftsmanship, he'd be making the best lenses in the world ... not unscrewing them, confirming that it's basically a well-made, solid lens ... but writing a semi-speculative "opinion" about it ... for no other purpose that to stir the pot and get hits on his page.
Everybody that read the blog is aware that Roger is promoting his business. He is about the only reviewer/tester that takes the items apart and he does that because it's his business to do so.
He uncovers a lot of things by doing so and shares it for free.
I find his efforts highly valuable for the community and on a extremely high technical and thorough level.
Moderator comment: As a moderator I feel inclined to move your post out of this thread to our Back Storage but I will leave it here for all to see - Your negative outbursts against, in this case Roger, is out of conformity with our site guidelines.
Private comment: I would be embarrassed if we allow posts like this on our site
-
Roger's testing is interesting especially because he often shows sample variability in the measured MTF.
I can also see the motivation for the take-apart pieces. He needs to understand the construction of lenses to be able to identify problems in rented gear and how best to rectify them. However, I don't think evaluating the durability of something just by looking at it and taking it apart is going to give the full story; only time can tell which solutions are durable and rugged over long periods of time. Thus I would not read too much into this.
It is embarressing that early information from Nikon suggested a ring SWM however, what matters is if the shots are in focus or not, and in this respect the 105/1.4 excels. Roger notes "The care taken to engineer a smooth, accurate focusing feel is very evident. " " Its focusing system is still excellent and accurate, no matter what kind of motor is driving it. " "Nikon lenses are just as reliable as anyone else’s."
Although it is not an AF speed demon, the in-focus rate with the D5 has been excellent.
If I have any complaint about the lens, it's that I would have preferred a bit more modest f/2 version for compactness and probably the swirly bokeh could have been avoided. However, the consistently high quality of the images makes my complaint not so severe. I do like the lens, although I think it's a bit excessive on the specifications. I do take advantage of the f/1.4 aperture and it lets me often shoot at ISO 2000 to 3200 instead of 4000 to 6400 or worse, in indoor available light (and outdoor night light) situations. Because it's so well corrected, and because of the high accuracy of the autofocus, the images can be cropped and they are still sharp enough so that I don't notice that I have in fact cropped the images, in the final results. Thus I may be able to use the 105/1.4 in place of a 70-200 when the light is so low that this is advantageous. However, for outdoor travel use I think a 105/2 would have been nicer.
When my 24-70/2.8 G (uneven stiffness of the zoom, a mark on front element, due to dropping) and 70-200/4 G (faulty VR system) needed repairs, the solution proposed in both cases was to replace the entire inside lens barrel including optics, focus motor etc. and insert it as one piece into the old lens's outer chassis. This has got to be really expensive for Nikon. I can understand that in a complex zoom lens, this may be the most practical solution, but I would really think they need to think about how to replace individual faulty components on the lens without replacing everything. But they must understand the economics of repair much better than I do.
-
The part with the Ring- Type SWM must have been 'lost in translation' or something like that at Nikon, at least I hope so,,, yes embarrassing indeed.
-
I will probably be considered rightly as an ' ignoramus ' regarding the technical aspects of lens design and interior workings of a lens, I bought my 105 on the basis of focal length and aperture, the results I obtain I consider to be completely satisfactory. If I had read it had a xxx type of af motor as opposed to yyy type or it had x amount of lens elements in y amount of groups it would have had no effect on my purchase intention, I have always tried to put the equipment I am using at the back of my mind and to give my full attention to the subject matter in front of the camera.
-
If I have any complaint about the lens, it's that I would have preferred a bit more modest f/2 version for compactness and probably the swirly bokeh could have been avoided
I read a lot of comments about the swirly bokeh, does it go away if the lens is stopped down to f/1.8 or f/2 ? If so I don't see that as a problem.
Most likely a 105/1.8 would have swirly bokeh also and would need stopping down to f/2.5 to cure the effect...
I agree a more modest aperture would allow the lens to be considerably more compact.
-
Everybody that read the blog is aware that Roger is promoting his business. He is about the only reviewer/tester that takes the items apart and he does that because it's his business to do so.
He is the only one who dismantles the equipment. It was common for the photo magazine testers to dismantle the gear in the days of film cameras and non-electronic lenses, but none of the internet "reviewers" have the skill/knowledge/commitment to do so now.
-
We actually have/are a few guys here that take our new lenses apart to see ans check underneath the skin,,, ;) I remember clearly the discussions when the first AFS 1.4G lenses came out,,,
-
I read a lot of comments about the swirly bokeh, does it go away if the lens is stopped down to f/1.8 or f/2 ? If so I don't see that as a problem.
Stopping down you don't get a circular highlight. I know it is subtle difference but ... I can try to do some tests to see when it becomes imperceptible.
I've used the 105/2 DC for a very long time and never seen anything giving the impression of swirliness in the out of focus areas in images made with that lens.
-
We actually have/are a few guys here that take our new lenses apart to see ans check underneath the skin,,, ;) I remember clearly the discussions when the first AFS 1.4G lenses came out,,,
Yes, Eric, thank you for the correction. I still can visualize the photo that [presumably] you made of the little DC motor that drives the focus mech.
-
The part with the Ring- Type SWM must have been 'lost in translation' or something like that at Nikon, at least I hope so,,, yes embarrassing indeed.
We'll check to see if they quietly remove that statement in later editions of the ads/brochures/promo material..
-
I really wonder if there's any limitations for Nikon to use a Ring-type SWM in their fast prime lenses.
The only f/1.4 lens I can recall that uses a Ring-type SWM is the 50mm f/1.4G. The other extremely expensive f1.4 and most of the economical (but great) f1.8 lenses all use a compact SWM.
Nikon's 200mm f/2 uses a ring SWM, their prime telephoto lenses and zoom telephoto lenses all use this type of motor. Even cheap lenses such as the 70-300mm VR uses a ring SWM.
Ring SWMs are more powerful and they are capable to drive larger elements, however I do think they are also less precise, but of course a lot faster.
Compact SWMs aren't that cheap to make, it's not the "Chinese toy motor" that some cough people likes to claim it is. I think it allows finer adjustments, it is more precise but a lot slower and less powerful.
But here, we have Canon, using ring-type SWMs in some of their newer fast f1.4 prime lenses: https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2015/12/canon-35mm-f1-4-mk-ii-teardown/
All this is really confusing. Nikon did claim on their 105mm/1.4E page that, to paraphrase "the lens uses gearless swm", which obviously isn't true. I knew it after handling the 105mm. It's squeaky and not fast. Not that huge of a problem, but hey, this is bad PR. This combined with the heavily edited sample photos, and one portrait which the photographer failed to nail the focus on the eye.
I'm a big Nikon fanboy actually, but this riddle has been bothering me for some time now. There must be legitimate reasons for Nikon to not use a ring-type SWM in such lenses. The 105mm is expensive, justifiably so. Not a lot is saved by using a compact SWM.
-
We'll check to see if they quietly remove that statement in later editions of the ads/brochures/promo material..
they already removed it from the website...
-
,,,
Ring SWMs are more powerful and they are capable to drive larger elements, however I do think they are also less precise, but of course a lot faster.,,,,,,,
The 1.4 lenses are slow by design to achieve a precise focus, so Nikon states. Similar when you use a TC-E20 on any lens the focus speed goes down a very clear design choise, you can tape over the last pin on the TC and it will focus at full speed, but the camera will often miss the target focus plane and focus right past it (Hunt for focus) very easy to test for yourself :)
Ring motors less precise? I don't know I have never seen any statements from Nikon on this and certainly not in my experience, they are very precise,,,
-
When I had my AF-S 24/1.8G at the Nikon service, they told me that the standard position of the SWM motor will be off over time. When it is off, the focusing element in the lens will fail to stop at the position precisely following the "stop" command transmitted from the camera. That's why the AF-S lenses need periodical calibration.