Nikon Introduces 105mm f1.4 E AF-S, $2200

<p>Way back in the AI/AI-S era, Nikon's 105mm/f2.5 portrait lens was legendary, but there has been no true successor to those lenses, except for various 105mm/f2.8 AF macro lenses, which are not necessarily ideal for portrait work. This new 105mm/f1.4 is unprecedented since there has never been a 105mm that is as fast as f1.4 for the 35mm film/FX format. Clearly it is designed to be another great portrait lens with excellent bokeh in mind.</p>

<p>To some degree the 105mm/f1.4 is the bigger brother of the 85mm/f1.4 AF-S, but the new lens is an E with electromagnetic aperture diaphragm. Clearly it is bigger with 82mm filter threads and weights almost 1kg. Just like other Nikon f1.4 AF-S lenses, there is no vibration reduction (VR):</p>

<ul>

<li>minimum aperture f16</li>

<li>nano crystal coating</li>

<li>3 ED elements</li>

<li>fluorine coating</li>

<li>minimum focus 1 meter/3.3 feet</li>

<li>filter size: 82mm</li>

<li>size: 3.7 in/94.5mm diameter, 4.2 in/106mm long</li>

<li>2 lb 2.8 oz, 985 grams</li>

</ul>

<p>Available in late August for US$2199.95</p>

<p>Product images: copyright Nikon USA, Inc.</p><div></div>

<p>Nikon Japan new page: http://www.nikon.com/news/2016/0727_lens_01.htm</p>

<p>Additionally, the production of Nikkor interchangeable lenses has reached the 100 million mark: http://www.nikon.com/news/2016/0727_lens_02.htm</p>

<p>interesting. and didnt see this coming. the price all but precludes use by DX users, which is too bad, because a 157.5/1.4 FLE would be an interesting spec. will have to see some bokeh samples before NAS commences. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Way back in the AI/AI-S era, Nikon's 105mm/f2.5 portrait lens was legendary, but there has been no true successor to those lenses, except for various 105mm/f2.8 AF macro lenses, which are not necessarily ideal for portrait work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, let's not forget the 105/1.8 Ai-S that was introduced in 1984 (together with the 85/1.4 Ai-S).</p>

I didn't see this lens coming either, but Nikon is determined to create a set of f1.4 primes; however, it doesn't end with the

85mm. Personally, I am not big on shooting portraits at f1.4. I wonder whether will be an f1.8 economy version.

 

Dieter, I was referring to the absence of AF 105mm portrait lenses, until now. There are various 85mm AF portrait lenses, from AF to AF-S and f1.4 and 1.8 versions.

<blockquote>

<p>Nikon is determined to create a set of f1.4 primes; however, it doesn't end with the 85mm.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>i mean, it's nice to see an interesting spec in a new nikon lens. but im not sure who this lens is for. like the 58/1.4, this would have made sense for DX shooters -- except for the price. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>there has been no true successor to those lenses, except for various 105mm/f2.8 AF macro lenses, which are not necessarily ideal for portrait work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>ins't the 105/2 DC a portrait lens?</p>

<p>just checked prices on the 105/2 DC. they're going for as low as $800 USD. we'll have to wait for optical tests and reviews of the 105/1.4, but the older lens may be a sleeper for portrait shooters. the newer one with the E designation may be more suitable for video, and i would expect less LoCa, the DC lenses' fatal flaw on digital. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>isn't the 105/2 DC a portrait lens?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, and an excellent one, even without using the DC feature. I guess it will be discontinued now that the new 105mm has arrived.</p>

<p>Hope it's as good as 200/2 wide open. Will see eh ? Although I like the Tammy 90/2.8, I'd prefer great 105 instead. For that amount of peso, hope Nikon didn't cut any corners. Thanks for the news Shun.</p>

<p>Les</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Well, let's not forget the 105/1.8 Ai-S that was introduced in 1984 (together with the 85/1.4 Ai-S).</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em><br /></em>and was much better than the 85/1.4</p>

<p>The 105/2 DC is one of my favorite lenses but its autofocus doesn't work well on all Nikon camera bodies, and I guess it could be said that it doesn't work as well as AF-S lenses on even the best of them. I didn't have this problem with 35mm film cameras nor with the D810 that I use now, but in between there were some bodies which couldn't autofocus this lens in a reliable way. I love the images that it produces though, and I'm glad to see finally a fast AF-S lens at this focal length. I hope the focusing is precise, both manual and automatic.</p>

<p>While f/1.4 might seem to produce too shallow depth of field for head and shoulders images, for full body portraits it can create a beautiful image where the subject is mostly in focus, and the environment is mostly blurry. I can do this with the 85mm f/1.4 but to be honest I would like a 105mm or 135mm, as the longer focal length (narrower angle of view) helps to simplify background features.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>ins't the 105/2 DC a portrait lens?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Now why didn't I think of that one?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>i would expect less LoCa, the DC lenses' fatal flaw on digital</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is it really worse than, for example, on the 85/1.8G or 85/1.4G (or their older D-brethren)? The one thing I really cherish on the Sigma 150/2.8 (both non-OS and OS version) is the near absence of LoCa even when used wide open.</p>

The DC lenses are portrait lenses, but they are DC. Way back in 1978, I bought a 105mm/f2.5 AI and used that a lot

throughout college. Perhaps it was a mistake, as I sold it when I switched to AF in the 1990's. All along I have been

waiting for Nikon to introduce another 105mm/f2.8 or 2.5 AF or AF-S. Finally I settled for the 85mm/f1.4 AF-S.

 

I don't shoot portraits that much any more. The problem with the 105mm/f1.4 is cost and weight. I like the 105mm focal

length, but I would probably stop down to f2.8 or 4 anyway. I would rather see an f2 or 2.8 version. Nikon's 85mm/f1.8 AF-

S is a lot lighter and cheaper than the f1.4. But for those who are demanding on bokeh an are willing to pay for it, this f1.4

maybe a great addition. The 82mm filter size seems to be the new norm now.

<p>Certainly the 105 DC has more LoCA at f/2 than the 85/1.4G. For the 85/1.8G I can't really say since I've only briefly made some test shots with it (which did show some color fringing in tree near the highlights, if I recall correctly). For me this is not so much an issue on these lenses that I have (105 DC and 85/1.4G) but on the 135/2 DC it is worse still, and I rarely use that lens wide open (it has lots of aberrations at f/2). The 105 DC is sharper and has lower aberrations than the 135 but it's not as sharp at f/2 as the 85/1.4G. Note that none of these previous "portrait" focal length Nikkors (85/1.4 D or f/1.8 D, 85mm 1.4G or 1.8G, 85/2.8 PC or PC-E, 105 DC or 135 DC) has any ED elements, but the new 105/1.4E has <em>three</em> ED elements so chromatic aberration is likely to be very well controlled.</p>

<p>Impressive. Looking forward to hearing about optical performance, but I'd be surprised if it isn't very good. Probably looking and the new portrait lens standard-bearer. Time will tell.</p>

<p>"three-dimensional high fidelity", "smooth alteration of bokeh as the distance from the focus position increases", "very little distortion or bleed with the pinpoint light sources in night landscapes"<br /><br>

<br>

This lingo is very familiar from the introduction of the 58mm f/1.4G. Looks like this is meant to be its bigger brother, and possibly the replacement of the 105 DC lens, although I wouldn't mind an f/1.8 version at $1k less and up to 600 grams. I was expecting a 135mm lens more than this, although this seems very interesting too. Unfortunately the price is too high for me, so for the time being I'll stick with the 105 DC.</p>

<p>It seems Nikon has boarded the bandwagon for humongous fast primes. At nearly 4" in diameter, it eclipses the F5 nearly as badly as the Sony 85/1.4 does the A7 at 3".</p>

<p>Jabs aside, I think this is a positive development for Nikon, recognizing the need for high quality portrait and street length lenses. The lack of IS is a major handicap on the street for lenses longer than 35 mm, offset only partially by the relatively low resolution of Nikon's flagship bodies. However this lens is ideal for use in a studio, or at least on a tripod. The shallow DOF and narrow FOV promise striking opportunities for environmental portraits, especially if Nikon lives up to its claim for superior bokeh.</p>

<p>While the 105's reach is a little long for a DX camera, the 58/1.4 (87 equiv) and 85/1.4 (128) bracket the traditional "portrait" lens length nicely for APS-C sensors.</p>

The AF-S 85mm f/1.8's LoCA is bad enough to be mildly

intrusive (the f/1.4's put me off buying it). It's enough

that I'm tempted by the Tamron f/1.8, which seems

much better on LoCA. If the new 105mm is good on that,

I may be saving up (rather than looking at a manual

135/2) - though for me, 105mm is a bit caught between

85 and 135. Likewise I currently use a sigma 150/2.8 (or

200/2) to avoid LoCA, but sometimes there's no

substitute for aperture!

 

Now if the pound would just recover so I could afford it...

<p>I always wondered why Nikon didn't speed up this focal length. Seems like real must have terrific lens. I have always found 105mm to be so useful, the mid between 85mm and 135mm the perfect solution. I'll bet this lens proves to be very successful, but wow! Pricey.</p>

I think it' unlikely that this lens be used in the studio since artificial backgrounds are used, shallow depth of field has

no practical use, and typical apertures are f/8-f11. Studio lights don't typically even go to such low flash energy values so

that f/1.4 could be used without heavy ND filtering or high speed sync.

 

No, this is mainly a portrait lens for location use, events etc., also, if the autofocus is fast and accurate, indoor sports. Since

the subject is a living person, and not a plastic doll or statue, stabilization won't make much of a meaningful difference. I

guess if the subject is sitting, use of stabilization might help as movement is slower than when a person is standing. But I

typically want to use a fast tele prime for people who are standing, performing, walking, running, being emotional, talking etc. Not standing still like

a statue. So I would use 1/500s or faster to avoid subject movement, often 1/800s if the person is approaching. The fast

maximum aperture permits fast shutter speeds in almost all lighting conditions where the subject can be seen by eye, with

modern sensors. I thus don't see VR would bring anything significant to the table, but it would make for a larger and

heavier lens, and possibly introduce optical compromises, point of damage etc. Hand shake is rarely a more important issue than subject movement blur

in my experience, until we get to 200mm or 300mm. Of course there are exceptions but I would rather not find a great emotional moment where the expression on the face is blurred due to subject movement and the power of the image lost.

 

There is no meaningful difference in resolution between cameras of the major manufacturers either in the fast or the slower

but high res categories.

<blockquote>

<p>I would rather see an f2 or 2.8 version.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wouldn't that largely defeat the purpose of designing and introducing this lens? Nikon already has a 105/2.8 with VR, and similar (macro) lenses in the 100-105 FL are made by Sigma and Tokina. It's possible Nikon's lens designers felt 2.8 wouldn't differentiate itself enough from what's already out there, nor justify the premium price they want for it. Same thing goes for f/2. it's fast-er than 2.8, but not fast enough to claim bragging rights as world's fast-est. It's fairly obvious that was important for Nikon, to develop a lens which ha some degree of uniqueness.<br>

<br>

I have the Tokina 100, which is an exceedingly sharp lens. Yet i find i dont use it that much for portraits, preferring my 85/1.4. At around $400 new, however, the Tokina is a relative bargain. I don't find the AF on it to be exceedingly slow, however macro lenses in general are not known for speedy AF. By making the new 105 a regular, non-macro, lens, one would imagine that its AF is reasonably bris -- otherwise, why bother?<br>

<br>

I agree with Ilkka too, that the 1.4 aperture is fairly limited for studio use, and more suitable for field use, available-light, and moving subjects. If you're just going to stop down, 1.4 is useless, and there's no reason not to go with a less expensive alternative. As for the lack of VR, that really only comes into play with lower shutter speeds, as in landscape use. I'm not quite sure how saying "relatively low resolution of Nikon's flagship bodies" <em>isn't</em> a jab, but cheap shots aside, there's not much practical difference between Sony's 42mp and the D8xx's 36mp, since both require care in deployment. In any event, i can't agree that lack of VR represents a "major handicap" for street shooting -- my sense is that AF speed would be a much bigger factor, along with size and weight. There's simply no rule which states that <em>all</em> street photographers <em>must</em> use stabilized lenses and/or bodies. Where VR does make a difference is in handheld video, and if that's really important to you, you might forgo this lens and instead seek out the Tamron 85/1.8 VC or Nikon 105 VR.</p>

<p>Interesting choice. I'd have thought a 1.8 (maybe we'll see that next) rather than this 1.4 beast, which weighs in somewhere between the last two versions of the 24-70. Odd that they've pulled the stops out (as it were) at 105 while the 28/1.8 gets the gold ring treatment, perhaps suggesting the 28/1.4 won't be replaced any time soon. But I suppose this has always been an interesting focal length for Nikon, with the old 2.5 regarded as a classic, some great macros, and the wonderful 105 DC.</p>

 

<p>Incidentally, is this the longest f/1.4 in normal production for FX/35mm, now or ever? There was a Mitakon 135 announced last year, but they were only going to make 100 of them.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the 28/1.8 gets the gold ring treatment, perhaps suggesting the 28/1.4 won't be replaced any time soon</p>

</blockquote>

<p>this lens is a commemoration of 100 million Nikkor production mark, so maybe that's why they went with a "classic" length, instead of something wide and fast. </p>

<p>A shallow DOF is a vital asset for studio portraiture, unless you want seams, creases or even the weave of cloth visible in the background. It's best to keep an artificial background as abstract as possible, which can be difficult with a small format camera. The size, weight, number of elements and price suggest there is more going on with this lens than a fat aperture.</p>