AF-S Nikkor 105/1.4E to be announced

[Akira]

Back to 105/1.4, it is so big that it makes D5 look like D5500...

[Roland Vink]

Nikon lenses with 82mm filter:

- 18cm/2.5 preset for rangefinder
- 35cm/4 preset for for rangefinder
- 3.5-8.5cm prototype zoom
- 85-250/4
- 200-600/9.5
- 500/8 reflex (new)  (the older version is 88mm)
- AF 300/4 (also 39mm rear filter)
- AFS 24-70 VR

So it's not unprecedented especially among older leness, but not exactly common either.

[benveniste]

The USB dock solution is a solution to a problem which shouldn't exist in the first place. The cameras can't recognize the (type of) Sigma lens in their firmware, hence the AF correction values need to be stored in the lens. Instead of agreeing with Nikon on a license agreement, users are asked to invest their time to adjust the AF with multiple correction values (different distances, different focal lengths with zooms).

I'm not sure how eager Nikon would have been to grant a license to Sigma.  There seems to be some long-standing animosity between the two firms.  And unlike Nikon, Sigma does allow you to store multiple correction values for zoom lenses.

[benasaj]

Finally a 105mm and I am pleased to note it is a 1.4 as long as it is not similar to the 58/1.4 with the Sombrero feature.

After reading between the lines in Nikon's announcement, I would guess that this lens will be using the same lens design philosophy as the 58/1.4.  It is aimed at the portrait market. I have not had a problem with real world photos based on this concept with my 58/1.4.  This review, that I saw after I purchased my lens, covers all of the other reviews that I saw before I bought it.
https://photographylife.com/category/lens-reviews/page/3  (top review).  You need to read the whole thing.  I am excited to see how the 105 behaves compared to the 58.  Then I need to find a lot of money 

[elsa hoffmann]

Let's be a bit realistic here.
There is a difference between NEED and WANT.

I am addressing the NEED. 

There is absolutely no reason on this earth why one NEEDS this lens  to make better photos if one has a lens you are already using successfully in studio. (I am referring to photographers like me) This lens wasn't available last year - and I did just fine without it. My studio photos will not be $2000 better with the new lens. My clients will not even notice the difference. Hell, they would be horrified knowing I purchased a lens for this amount as they will feel THEY are paying for it.

Those who WANT it for whatever reason - nice challenge for improving on what you can or want to do artistically - etc - totally different and quite acceptable/justified in my opinion.

[tommiejeep]

Akira, that image of the D5 combo is scary 

Elsa, absolutely right..... darn it  .   I succumbed to the 58 1.4G and have not regretted until a friend bought an 'as new' one last year for 1/2 the price I paid.  In reality, after the honeymoon, I would probably grab my old 85 1.4D just because of the size and weight.
Tom

[Tristin]

The results so far look good, though I would not at all put it in the same league as the 200/2.  I am curious to see how it compares with the Zeiss 100/2 Makro.  They aren't too far off in price and I find myself wishing the 105/1.8 focused closer more often than I find myself wishing for less depth, though that does rarely happen.

Elsa, photographers were making a living the year before every piece of gear you own came out as well.  While we are all fortunate enough to not have to keep pace with every new piece of gear, the march of progress is always a good thing in the end.  I suspect the Zeiss Makro would fit me better than the 105/1.4, but I am also happy the 105/1.4 came along.  It could end up making way for another 105mm in the future that really does it for me.  Hell, I hope someone makes a ~105mm f/1.2 just to push things!  Even though I likely couldn't afford one.

[David H. Hartman]

Back to 105/1.4, it is so big that it makes D5 look like D5500...

Mass equals inertia: hand holding the105/1.4E on the Nikon D5 should be easy!

Dave

[David H. Hartman]

A 105/1.8E with a 77mm filter and similar performance would suite me. If money were no object I'd want both. Neither can have the size and weight advantage of the classic 105/2.5(s).

Dave

Can one truly sell their soul to the devil? If so I wonder how much mine would fetch?

[Roland Vink]

Back to 105/1.4, it is so big that it makes D5 look like D5500...

Another reason to regard it as a "mini super-tele" rather than another lens like the 85/1.4 ...

The results so far look good, though I would not at all put it in the same league as the 200/2.  I am curious to see how it compares with the Zeiss 100/2 Makro.  They aren't too far off in price and I find myself wishing the 105/1.8 focused closer more often than I find myself wishing for less depth, though that does rarely happen.

The new 105/1.4 focuses to 1m, the same as the AIS 105/1.8, and pretty much the same framing at minimum focus too. If you need to focus closer with a fast telephoto, the Zeiss 100/2 or 135/2 are better choices (but no AF ...)

A 105/1.8E with a 77mm filter and similar performance would suite me.

105/1.8 = 58.3mm. The AIS 105/1.8 uses a 62mm filter but that's only barely big enough for the front element.I think an AFS version would be 67mm (same as AFS 85/1.8 ) or 72mm at the most.

Ever since the AF era, there has been a complete lack of compact telephoto primes longer than 85mm - no AF 105/2.5 or 135/2.8. I really wonder why, such lenses would be very useful for those who don't want the bulk/weight/price of fancy lenses like the 105 micro or DC lenses, or slow zooms.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

The jury is still out on the 105/1.4. So far I do not see any creamy bokeh or round circles. What I see is a sharp lens WO which is fine.

I was mainly thinking about the way the eyes are rendered, extremely sharply in a narrow depth of field, similar to that by 200/2 II. Previous "portrait" lenses (fast short to mid tele primes) by Nikon have had relatively low contrast wide open and there is some spherical aberration as well; it seems the 105/1.4 is different in this respect and to my eye looks similar to 200/2 II. However, given a framing for the main subject, background features are smaller and there are more of them in an image by a 105mm lens than 200mm; the narrower angle of view of the longer lens helps simplify backgrounds and make them more abstract. This I regard mostly a feature of the longer focal length.

I was just using the 200/2 II in a church wedding on Saturday and took some close-ups where this was evident, the focused eye really "pops" out of the surround. I needed the fast lens because the church was very dimly lit (with 24-70 in my other camera I was using ISO 9000-12800, with the 200/2 I could stay at ISO 4000 (VR did help here)). I would prefer not to have to go to ISO 12800 too often but that day it was more common than not.  A 105/1.4 would definitely help me stay with lower ISOs (compared to using e.g. 70-200) and I've always been fond of this focal length. It should pair well with the 24-70 and give a reasonable gap from 70mm.

[Akira]

I think the rendition of the new mid-teles like AF-S105/1.4E, Zeiss Otus/Milvis 85/1.4, Fuji 56/1.2 et al. reflect the modern style of portraiture: paper thin DOF and clear contrast between sharp focus and soft bokeh.

Years ago, the portraits, especially those of the females, were shot with soft focus lenses, and some specialized lenses like Leica Thambar 90/2.2 or Rodenstock Imagon even used attachments to enhance the spherical abberation or flare for the soft focus effect.  The older Nikkor mid-teles were designed with that in mind: the spherical aberration increased when focused in the portrait range, which should be the similar concept.

[David H. Hartman]

Ever since the AF era, there has been a complete lack of compact telephoto primes longer than 85mm - no AF 105/2.5 or 135/2.8. I really wonder why, such lenses would be very useful for those who don't want the bulk/weight/price of fancy lenses like the 105 micro or DC lenses, or slow zooms.

Roland,

I don't think there is a chance for an AF-S 105/2.5E ED. The AF-S 105/2.8G ED Micro is about as close as I think we will ever see and it's about the same size as the 180/2.8 AIS. With its hood it's huge. I bought a AF-S 105/2.8G ED Micro recently and I'd read reviews and seen photos but still I was taken back on the bulk of the lens. I like it but it's a storage problem and I hate taking the hood off and reversing it. There is nothing safe to hold once the hood is reversed. I all but never take off the HS-14(s) I use on my 105/2.5 and 135/2.8.

I would love to see a compact professional quality dSLR About the size and weight of an F3 with a set of primes as close in size as possible to the AI/AIS 24/2.8, 28/2.0 35/2.0 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and 105/2.5. The camera would not be a retro but a modern dSLR control layout. It would have to be taller for controls. Not a chance but one can dream...

I'd like a AF-S 105/1.4E ED despite the size and weight as it opens up new possibilities for low light photography.

Best,

Dave

[pluton]

I would love to see a compact professional quality dSLR About the size and weight of an F3 with a set of primes as close in size as possible to the AI/AIS 24/2.8, 28/2.0 35/2.0 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and 105/2.5. The camera would not be a retro but a modern dSLR control layout. It would have to be taller for controls. Not a chance but one can dream...

I'm with you.  It is my assumption that while a camera that small is 'merely' a matter of the electronics being shrunken down in size a bit, lenses that small would need to exclude auto focus, an act which would be seen as asking for death in the marketplace.  But who knows...Maybe they'll be able to shrink AF....

[Jan Anne]

As a big fan of fast lenses I can't wait to try this beast at the Photokina.

And yes "beast" is the appropriate term when comparing it to it's 1.4's siblings, got to love that impressive front lens