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

<p>For some situations, manual override is handy. E.g. when photographing people who wear eyeglasses, it can be hard to get the AF to focus on the eye behind the eyeglasses and being able to correct this easily by overriding with manual focus is an advantage of many AF-S lenses. High end primes tend to have more precise manual focusing as well, though not all of them.</p>

Stephen: I think we're allowed to offer an opinion of how

and whether a lens of this specification is of interest to

us; that's interesting information to me, at least. We

should be able to comment on what Nikon do, not just

how they do it! And I'm not aware that we've been

dismissive - the 105mm DC, like the 135, needed an

update.

 

As for Nikon abandoning the 135mm f/2, that's still one

of Canon's most popular lenses, and Zeiss and Samyang

both make good ones. If Nikon don't make an update at

some point (maybe, as Shun says, not f/1.4!) I'm sure

Sigma will.

 

The weight doesn't bother me too much, fwiw.

<blockquote>

<p>all the experts who have not touched or shot with it yet are full of opinions</p>

</blockquote>

<p>in case you didn't notice, this is an Internet forum. Every comment posted represents an opinion, even yours. you may ignore, consider carefully, or reply to these opinions. but to take umbrage at the fact that opinions are being proffered, and then proffering your own opinion, seems curious, to say the least.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> serious professional photographers who shoot portraits would most likely be on FX anyway. I also would say this. Shooting artistic or important portraits for which this lens is designed, in my circle, everyone uses manual focus override.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>not necessarily. while the 105/1.4 is ostensibly a portrait lens, on DX it becomes an ultrafast mid-telephoto lens, which opens up many possibilities other than portraits. For professional music photographers who shoot with the D500, it theoretically could be preferable to the 70-200, 135, and 180 for available-light shooting, mitigating the ISO limitations of DX bodies by offering 2 full stops of aperture over a 70-200, as well as state-of-the-art autofocus capabilities. in practical terms, this means shooting at ISO 3200 rather than upwards of 6400, while taking advantage of the D500's advanced AF and metering -- and saving weight/bulk over a 70-200. Of course, that's just a theoretical opinion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>if you already have an 85/1.4, though, does this new lens still have appeal?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Can't really imagine it, but some people are completists. I think one might well swap an 85/1.4 for this lens though. But then if they have the resources and storage space, I'm sure there'll be a few who will have both.</p>

<p>I'm not sure I am in the market for it since it is an "E" lens ( can't shoot film with it ) but I think it is great Nikon is still pushing out great gear like this. I love my 105mm 2.5 AIS, it's a super combo of compact and super sharp with just the right reach and darn near Leica-like rendering. <br>

I bet a 105/1.4 would be fantastic in many situations with a very unique look.</p>

<p>You can certainly use Nikon E lenses with Nikon film SLRs. The primary limitation is that the lens will remain wide open. In this case you are stuck with f1.4. While that is not ideal, if you are stuck at one particular aperture, it might as well be the widest one.</p>

<P>

If you mount a G lens onto a manual-focus film SLR, the aperture would be stuck at the minimum. In that case the lens isn't going to be very useful in that set up.

</P>

I think there is enough difference between 85mm and 105mm that some people will have both. I have both the 85/1.8G

and the 105/2 DC. And the 135/2 DC. I use the 85mm focal length for landscapes and cityscapes too very frequently,

while the 105 and 135 are more dedicated portrait lenses, as far as I am concerned. Of course it all depends on how far

from your subject you are, but I also find the 85 good for taking pictures of small groups of 2-3 people, while I don't do that

with the 105. Also, in the studio, being one or two steps closer or farther from your subject actually matters.

 

I thought I was going to take either the 85 and 135 with me, or the 105 alone. It turns out that most of the times I have the

85 with me, and I pair it with either the 105 or the 135.

<p>Oliver I add a 35 2.0 to the 85 1.4 and 135 dc plus flash for bearable kit to carry for longer periods. My favorite lens is the 135 and since I am usually 2.8 or higher to get enough dof for both eyes or 2 subjects, the LoCa is controllable or gone. But in FL with all the liquid sunshine, a sealed lens would be nice insurance. And if you are listening, Nikon, VR. </p>

<p>About a week before Nikon officially announced the 85mm/f1.4 AF-S on 19 August 2010 (http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00X6PA), there was a thread about the possibility of such a lens: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00X3Xi</p>

<p>On that 12 August 2010 thread, <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=587835">Joseph Wisniewski</a> explained why VR is practically impossible for any 85mm/f1.4 lens: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00X3Xi</p>

<p>Essentially the rear elements required for f1.4 leaves no room for VR. The fastest Nikon lens with VR is the 200mm/f2 AF-S VR, which also benefits from being 200mm such that is more room on the rear end of the lens. Other than that, all VR lenses are f2.8 or slower.</p>

<p>Shun, does that rule out a 135 2.0 with vr? </p>

<blockquote>

<p>all VR lenses are f2.8 or slower.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>doesnt Tamron make an 85/1.8 with VC? why, <a href="http://www.tamron-usa.com/F016special/index.html">yes, they do</a>.</p>

Eric, I was talking about Nikon lenses, not Tamron, and why a 85mm/f1.4 with VR is difficult to make, more so for a

105mm f1.4 with VR. A 85mm f1.8 is considerably smaller than the 1.4 (I have both 85mm AF-S Nikkor) and obviously

Tamron manages to squeeze VR in.

 

Of course, difficult doesn't mean impossible, but so far neither Canon nor Nikon has put VR in their f1.4 or 1.8 primes.

Nikon puts VR into the 24-70mm/f2.8 and makes a big lens even bigger while Canon still hasn't done so. Clearly Nikon

favors different design compromises than the third-party lens manufacturers.

 

I don't know whether Nikon will produce a 135mm AF-S portrait lens, but if they do, I would imagine they would favor a faster lens

e.g. 135mm f1.8 to get the best bokah over VR. When you shoot portraits, a little subject motion is always a concern, and

frequently the photographer has full control of the (artificial) lighting so that it is unnecessary to use those slow shutter

speeds that can benefit from VR. (When the lighting is flash, the short duration of the flash will freeze the subject.)

<blockquote>

<p>You can certainly use Nikon E lenses with Nikon film SLRs. The primary limitation is that the lens will remain wide open. In this case you are stuck with f1.4. While that is not ideal, if you are stuck at one particular aperture, it might as well be the widest one.<br>

If you mount a G lens onto a manual-focus film SLR, the aperture would be stuck at the minimum. In that case the lens isn't going to be very useful in that set up.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely, my 200-500 VR works fine wide open with my F100, FM3A, etc. It's just not a practical scenario for me to amass too many E type lenses when I can deploy the use of other fantastic lenses that do not have this limitation. </p>

 

<p>Canon uses a linear shifting mechanism for IS, whereas Nikon uses a tilting prism. There are practical limits on the effective aperture of either system, combined with the motion sensors and actuating systems.</p>

<p>Third-party manufacturers often look for a slight advantage in specifications, and will push for a few millimeters in focal length or half an f/stop compared to the big boys. It is reminiscent of the f/stop wars in the late 50's, early 60's between Nikon, Canon and Zeiss - quality be damned.</p>

<p>I wouldn't mind a cheaper 1.8 or f2 version in the future.<br>

I have been considering the 105 f2 dc or 136 DC for use on my Sony A7. On the Sony with the EVF it's possible to get really accurate manual focus and as both have an aperture ring they would be pretty good for that body. I'm still on the fence though as I tend to grab my 80-200 f2.8 for portraits over any of my other lenses. It's pretty great on the sony A7 and very sharp too when it is focused correctly.</p>

<p>Be careful about adapting a Nikon E lens onto non-Nikon bodies. You need to make sure that the adapter can control the aperture (or always use the lens wide open).</p>

<p>Lens is over the top. A lens for the filthy rich or an untreated Nikon gear acquisition addiction. <br>

I'm fine with my Nikon 85 1.8 G at 1/5 the cost.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A lens for the filthy rich or an untreated Nikon gear acquisition addiction.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I disagree. Even though I will not be able to afford it, or make sacrifice elsewhere, I believe this lens caters for a specific need for Pro's. The people that will use this, will probably see this as an investment, not a toy.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Lens is over the top. A lens for the filthy rich or an untreated Nikon gear acquisition addiction. <br />I'm fine with my Nikon 85 1.8 G at 1/5 the cost.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I am reminded of a quote from a user on a different forum: "And when you cannot reach for the fruit at the top of the tree, you can always claim it is bitter."</p>