« Patreon (Blog Notes) | Main | Rapacious Getty »

Thursday, 28 July 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I'm telling myself I don't like this focal length much. It might work...

Nikon continues launching bigger, more esoteric and more expensive gear. I'm not sure where that's heading to but it's surely targeted at a niche.

What the mob wants though is smaller and more affordable. "Size and cost are the two biggest design constraints limiting the performance of lenses". Size and cost also dictate comfort and accessibility. At this point, it should be possible to make high quality lenses of discrete size and reasonable price (see Fuji's success).

I'd rather see a more modest f/2 lens that performs perfectly wide open than this behemoth. Not buying this one.

Wow. That's the same weight as the Fuji 50-140mm ƒ/2.8.

Well that gets a solid "wow." I really like primes and Nikon has been great at short teles. I think I may have 4 105's from the 2.5 Sonar-derived classic through an f:1.8 and the recent 105/2 DC (defocus control). Just can't beat 'em with a stick. Problem is, I may have left the purchase price for this one in my other pants - like the ones I was wearing when I was a rich playboy of the western world. Sigh . . . Maybe when I win the lottery I can get an 810 and this 105.

Note that this doesn't have VR. After they added it to the 105mm Micro, and put it in the new 24-70 and 24-120. Somebody is not learning from the experiences of somebody else at Nikon!

This new lens is a lot of glass, a lot of cash, and a lot of weight. No doubt it is a capable image maker but it is not for me.

Through the years I have amassed several generations of the Nikon 105mm lens and the one I reach for is the chrome barrel, non-AI, single coated ƒ/2.5 version. I just like the images it makes. I do have the Ai-S 105mm ƒ/1.8 but use it infrequently since it requires critical focusing when it is wide-open and you are out-of-focus if the subject moves an inch. I have an early AF version too, but it can't decide to focus on the nose, closest eye, or something else, again an exercise in frustration. By the way, that non-AI version cost me $60.

The current powerball jackpot is $478 million...

Won't work on ANY film camera.

Boats don't ROCK, They only roll, pitch, and yaw.
There is no boat movement called rock.

105/1.4 would make a great deal of sense of M4/3 (and you'd probably be able to carry it...); on FF it's a very large lens fitting into a very small niche indeed.

I hope everyone will forgive my ignorance, but is there any other answer to the question "why build this lens" than "because we can"?
I'm struggling to imagine a picture that needs f1.4 at 105mm, and it was already expressed above that an f2 with decent performance wide open would potentially be preferable.

Ridiculous size of camera and lens without aperture settings, Unlike Ansel as a Pro I prefer small and affordable and for me that is an X Pro 2 with the 90 mm. and would guess the fuji would hold it's own for much less bucks.

Speed King? I didn't know you were a Deep Purple fan Mike, though I think that this Nikkor would be just the right lens for portraits on a Black Night... : ]

The 105mm is a nice lens for portraiture. Some would prefer a 85mm, others a 135mm.

The Nikkor 105/2.5 was legendary, and it's fame occurred at a time when I was younger, and less afraid but at that time I lacked the money to acquire one.

Now that I can afford a Nikkor 105mm beast, would I buy it? No, because at some station in life people can move on. I moved on to a Leica M and then to a "do it all" Leica VLux-4. I carry this lightweight Leica all over the world. I use it so much that the front element is scratched. Good! Use it even more.

You may be on the way to linking the largest group of people with the 105/f1.8 in the world... chalk up another one over here!

I have a Canon 135 f/1.8 lens. It's tiny in comparison. It's the EF 85mm f/1.8 on an APS-C Canon body. I don't use it much but I don't mind carrying it around.

I also have a Dodge Ram 3500 pickup truck but it carries me and my stuff around.

Size, Cost and Performance...pick any two.

I have the 105mm f2.5 AIS, f1.8 AIS, and f4 Micro-Nikkor. They have few weaknesses and are very worth keeping. Used to have the f2.5 Ai which I never got along with for some reason, and the 100mm f2.8 Series E which hit well above its price point.

I have the Sigma 85/1.4 with an APC sensor, which achieves similar ends at about 1/3 the price. It's beautiful for head+shoulder shots in the studio... but I've never managed to do anything useful with it at f/1.4. The DoF is just too thin. So pragmatically, I can obtain the same images with a 50-150 or 70-200/2.8.
I rather like looking at it, but if I was forced to pick a lens to get rid of, that would be the one.

Don't rock the boat is a very common expression. Rock is a general term covering yaw, pitch, and yaw. No need to make up rules.

The Nikon lens looks good, but I am not really sure why they made it though: because they could? There seems to be a real "race to the top" going on where companies are trying to empty the pockets of people with plenty of disposable income (mainly young techie types is my guess). Who can blame them? Sony are doing the same thing, and Leica have been doing it for years (although more to older non-techie types).

I have the legendary Nippon Kogaku 105/2.5 in LTM (2) and F mount. I love it. I would love to add this 105/1.4 to my arsenal one day after I am done disposing my unused photo gears 🤔.

It used to be you bought an f/1.4 lens so you could get really nice pictures at f/2, the widest aperture being more a "class" designation than anything else. Have things changed?

I have the same question about sensors. What is the high-quality ISO limit these days, as opposed to the advertised upper limit?

Seems like a brethren of the new Sony GM 85 f1.4 lens for the Alpha 7 system. But 82mm filter thread??? Maybe the reason for that is to share the filter size with the recent 24-70 f2.8?

P.S. Why are the more recent versions of the f2.8 zooms from Canikon and Sony 82mm threads?

I liked the currently available 105mm f/2 DC, during a brief trial. Size and weight (640g) were fine. Not a lot of depth of field at f/2:

Personally, for the type of stuff I'm shooting, the current f/2.8 macro lens would be better suited, especially as it's optically stabilised.

Why would you even need such as lens today when you can use Photoshop to simulate out of focus areas and use higher ISO's with slower lenses?

It kinda' reminds me of Detroit automaker in the 60s and 70s that continued to make monster cars like the Cadillac while the rest of the world moved to mid and small cars.

Nikon continues to make bodies and lenses for the FX line but fails to support DX. Yes, I know, the just released the D500 but what of lenses for the DX line? Not much at all and still only 3 primes for the DX bodies.

The zooms for DX aren't all that great either.

And what about the 3xxx, 5xxx, and the 7xxx bodies? Have they reached the end?

I don't get it. Guess I'm with the crowd on that. I'm a fan of the Nikon 105 series -- I currently own two AI versions, macro and straight -- but I don't understand the 1.4 aperture.

The only thing I see here is "bragging rights" -- for Nikon and for the customers. Maybe Nikon feels Sony closing in and wants to get some buzz going. (FWIW I'll be selling my D800 as soon as I can afford an A7rII, but I'll be keeping the 105s. I already have adapters.)

The f/2.5...
The one lens more than any other that made me fall in love with photography back in the late 70s/early 80s. On an FM body that I still own...

It's ironic though that with age my favorite FLs started shrinking. First to 50, then 35, now 28, and I'm beginning to toy with 21...

Time to fish out the 90mm Elmarit for my M9, or even find some film to load that FM with 105 attached. Might make me feel like the past 30 years never happened?

Good question about why f/1.4 and I imagine it's partly for NIKON engineers' bragging rights and partly because there's a base of users who need that much light gathering. Rock and theater photographers, shooters of indoor sports like wrasslin', volleyball, and b-ball, weddings, and of course portrait photographers whose clients want the ultra shallow look because it can make a very enchanting picture when done right.

While this lens certainly has more of everything, more speed, more size, more optical correction, more price than previous lenses, the classic medium telephotos have been languishing at Nikon. The current portrait lens in the lineup is the 105/2 DC, a solid 90's design with outdated auto focus. Apparently Nikon doesn't believe that the classic focal lengths of yesteryear are hot sellers anymore.

At the same time new lenses seems to strive for more contrast and higher MTF measurements. What if Nikon introduced classic designs such as the 105/2.5 in an AF version? The look was beautiful in the 70s and something a bit special might sell, especially since 5 element lenses shouldn't be hard to manufacture.

I still use an inherited AIS 105/2.5 with adapter on a Canon 6D. It renders beautifully and is lightweight.

This lens is actually not that outrageous if compared with Zeiss 135mm f2 ZF.

I love the shallow depth of field look, but I'm in the Canon camp, so I'm just waiting to snag a nice used 85mm f1.2. I do agree that at close distances f1.2-f1.4 is overkill, but when doing half to full body shots, the separation you get at those apertures is just perfect in my book!

Portrait, smortrait. Sure, it'll do just fine at that, but this here is a fantabulous reportage and basketball lens.

If I got it, it would be one of the shortest lens I put on my D810. But no VR ...

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007