AF-S Nikkor 105/1.4E to be announced

[Almass]

Sombrero feature?
Do you mean distortion?

Field Curvature......in other words focus middle........soft around the middle and somehow focused on the periphery= Sombrero curve

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Had that one as well, a true boat anchor if there ever was one ...

However it was just a manual lens. I was talking about the AFS 200/2.

[Akira]

The AFS 2300/2 shows Nikon engineers can...

What lens is this? It must weigh 50 pounds. 

Nah, even that "tiny" Zeiss 1700/4.0 weighs 564 pounds.

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3865393209/zeiss1700f4

[PedroS]

If I remember well (tried to find the article with no success) this lens has been made for an wildlife arabic photografer.
I also remember in that article seing the lens mounted in the rear of a van...

Didn't bought it because still today there's not a proper backpack capable of holding it... 

[Akira]

If I remember well (tried to find the article with no success) this lens has been made for an wildlife arabic photografer.
I also remember in that article seing the lens mounted in the rear of a van...

Didn't bought it because still today there's not a proper backpack capable of holding it... 

Pedro, you would also need to think about replacing your favorite Cartoni tripod/head. 

Sorry to stray.  Let's go back to the 105/1.4!

[Roland Vink]

Let's see... 105/1.4 = 75mm. If they use the standard 77mm filter size, that is an extremely tight fit - just 1mm margin around the edge for the retaining ring with no allowance for an oversize front element to reduce vignetting. They manage the same with the 300/4 lens which also has 75mm entrance pupil inside a 77mm filter, but that's less of a problem with long focal lengths. A 105mm lens has a wider angle of view so oblique rays are more likely to be cut off by filters causing vignetting. The picture on nikonrumors (assuming it is genuine) shows a retaining ring around the front element that is thicker than 1mm, so they are either cheating on the focal length, max aperture, or the filter size is 82mm like the new 24-70VR. Is 82mm becoming the new pro standard?

There were also rumors of a new AFS 70-200/2.8, might that also grow from the current 77mm to 82mm? With an entrance pupil of 200/2.8 = 71mm, that is also a tight fit inside the 77mm filter, especially since zooms tend to need a larger front element than primes.

Very fast 105mm lenses have always been curiously absent. Various manufacturers have very fast 85/1.4 and 85/1.2 lenses (60 or 71mm entrance pupil), fast 135/2 and even 135/1.4 lenses (68 or 96mm entrance pupil). Yet the fastest 105mm lenses are only 105/2 or the old AIS 105/1.8 (53 or 58mm). So an AFS 105/1.4 would represent a new class of lens. Yet I can't help wondering if an AFS 105/1.8 would be a better lens - smaller, easier to handle and more affordable.

[Akira]

Roland, considering that both AiAF and AF-S 85/1.4 have 77mm filter threads, it would be safe to assume that 105/1.4 would have an 82mm thread.

I remember reading an interview to a Nikon engineer who said that he had thought designing an AF version of 85/1.4 was almost impossible.  I thought he was suggesting the difficulty of keeping the rear element from trimming drastically (like in Canon EF 50/1.0) because of the contact block.  There should be a certain significant technical breakthrough that enables the design of 105/1.4 whose rear element should be huge.  Or the lack of the aperture lever of "E" design may have helped.

[Roland Vink]

The Canon 85/1.2 uses a 77mm filter size. If the new Nikon lens had a 100mm focal length, the entrance pupil would be the same (85/1.2 = 100/1.4 = 71), so 77mm would be possible, especially considering the narrower field of view. But Nikon adopted the 105mm focal length since the mid 1950s for better separation from the 85mm lenses, that will force them to use a larger filter size for the 105/1.4 lens.

The size of the front element depends mainly on the size of the entrance pupil, especially once you get to about 60mm or longer (FX format). However the size of the rear element is roughly dependent on the maximum aperture only, and not affected by the focal length. Nikon already have 24, 35, 50, 58 and 85mm lenses with an f/1.4 aperture - all have similar size rear element - I expect a 105mm would also be the same. Lack of the aperture lever on "E" lenses would give the designer a little more freedom with the size of the rear element.

Akira - what time is it in Tokyo - you must be up very early!

[Frank Fremerey]

So an AFS 105/1.4 would represent a new class of lens. Yet I can't help wondering if an AFS 105/1.8 would be a better lens - smaller, easier to handle and more affordable.

The undisclosed "Roadmap" says to me:

Nikon sells a 2000 Euro 1.4 and 3 years later introduces a 1.8 that is just as good to the people who did not buy the first one.

[Roland Vink]

Just like they did with the 24/1.4

Only with 105mm, first they'll introduce an expensive 105/1.4 first, then an expensive updated 105DC, then an expensive new 105 micro, and finally a (barely) affordable 105/2   

[Frank Fremerey]

Just like they did with the 24/1.4
Only with 105mm, first they'll introduce an expensive 105/1.4 first, then an expensive updated 105DC, then an expensive new 105 micro, and finally a (barely) affordable 105/2   

I think so.

And if we want our favourite brand to survive, the marketing concept is very good.

[Akira]

The Canon 85/1.2 uses a 77mm filter size. If the new Nikon lens had a 100mm focal length, the entrance pupil would be the same (85/1.2 = 100/1.4 = 71), so 77mm would be possible, especially considering the narrower field of view. But Nikon adopted the 105mm focal length since the mid 1950s for better separation from the 85mm lenses, that will force them to use a larger filter size for the 105/1.4 lens.

The size of the front element depends mainly on the size of the entrance pupil, especially once you get to about 60mm or longer (FX format). However the size of the rear element is roughly dependent on the maximum aperture only, and not affected by the focal length. Nikon already have 24, 35, 50, 58 and 85mm lenses with an f/1.4 aperture - all have similar size rear element - I expect a 105mm would also be the same. Lack of the aperture lever on "E" lenses would give the designer a little more freedom with the size of the rear element.

Akira - what time is it in Tokyo - you must be up very early!

Good morning!    My last comment had been posted right before I went to bed.

Anyway, other considerations of the diameter of the front element would be the light fall-off and the shape of the round bokeh.  Even if the theoretical speed of a lens can be realize by the calculation of the entrance pupil, the only necessary diameter would not allow the enough amount of light reaching for the peripheral areas of the image sensor.  In addition, the obvious light fall-off is related to the cat's eye shape of the bokeh in the background.  In order to keep the bokeh as round as possible, the front element should be larger than necessary for the speed.

As for the diameter of the rear element, you may be right.

[elsa hoffmann]

..................Yet I can't help wondering if an AFS 105/1.8 would be a better lens - smaller, easier to handle and more affordable.

Affordable is relative....
It would be a lens I would love as it would fit my studio. But I doubt I will be in that price class.

[Tristin]

Definitely interesting, though out of my league price-wise.  And here I was saying recently that if a new 105mm came out that it would likely be a new DC.  This lens is quite a surprise.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

I have always been partial to the 105 mm focal length, so this lens if of the quality I'd expect is high on my priority list. One simply has to close eyes and not think of the price I'm afraid.