Why a new 105 mm lens?

vtc2002

I agree on all points.

framer

WestEndFoto said:

I agree with that. In fact, I hope that Nikon brings out at 105 1.8 for portrait photographers on a budget. The 85 1.8G represents incredible value.

The 105 AF DC f/2 is the lower cost portrait lens. Losing the DC with a AFS 1.8 IMHO would be a step down.

If the new f1.4 105mm has a fast AF motor then it could be it weight in gold for sports in close.

framer

Golf007sd

Shooting with my 105 2.8 and other 1.4, I can assure you the flexibility of the 1.4 prime is very very welcoming. I love my 2.8 lenses, yet if I'm going out shooting at night or other venues where light is going to be an issue...their is no substitute for 1.4 prime lenses. I look forward in seeing more test on this lens.

Golf007sd

WestEndFoto

Framer, as my favorite portrait lens is my 135 DC 2.0, I know how you feel. The current 105 DC 2.0 would be an excellent little brother to the 1.4.

But alas, the design is 25 years old and even though it's qualities warrant it the status of a classic (like the 15mm 3.5AIS is just picked up in excellent condition), most shooters will not appreciate it.

I think of the 85 1.4 and 1.8 Gs. For 3 times the price you get 1.4 and a professional build. However, the optical quality is nearly the same. If I was on a budget, I would be happy to shoot the 1.8 on my D800 and even the D820 I plan to buy next year.

Which brings me to the new 105. If Nikon's MTF charts are to be believed and other optical qualities similarly improve, this is a solid generational upgrade to the current 85s and a TWO generational upgrade to the DCs. This is a significant improvement. While I like to say that my 135 is just as sharp as my 85, this is only really true stopped down a stop (to f/2 on the 85 and 2.8 on the 135). Wide open, the improvements that Nikon has made between 1990 and 2010 are obvious. This latest lens suggests that Nikon is making a similar improvement.

So I think that if Nikon wants to sell lots of 105s, they need a 1.8 that repeats the 85 trick.

As an aside, if Nikon comes out with a 135 1.4, it will be on my list. But I will keep the DC. That is a classic that I will never give up.

And if they upgrade the 85, I will buy the new one, sell the old one, then buy an 85 1.4D, a classic that I would love to have in my collection. I might even throw in an AIS just for the fun of it.

NSXTypeR

The thing is, Nikon makes 2 current 105mm lenses. Would a 105mm 1.8 make sense too?

I get the point about bokeh quality, but I think Nikon may not make 3 lenses of the same focal length. There may not be enough wiggle room to make a $1400 105mm 1.8, especially when you have so many 3rd party manufacturers making 105mm lenses.

moreorless

The main thing Nikon is looking at with this lens is IMHO the Canon 85mm F/1.2, that's been the king of DOF control in the portrait range for years and they've not been able to equal it in an AF lens due to the F-mount but going up to 105mm and F/1.4 allows them to surpass it.

If Nikon released anything for those on a budget perhaps a 135mm F/2.8 would make sense? that could probably be relatively small and cheap even relative to the old F/2 DC lens and could be more designed for sharpness/contrast similar to the F/1.8 primes.

snakebunk

moreorless said:

The main thing Nikon is looking at with this lens is IMHO the Canon 85mm F/1.2, that's been the king of DOF control in the portrait range for years and they've not been able to equal it in an AF lens due to the F-mount but going up to 105mm and F/1.4 allows them to surpass it.

Can you please explain why a longer focal length gives better DOF control? I am thinking that you can move closer with a shorter lense and therefore get a more shallow depht of field (if that is what you want).

WestEndFoto

The longer the focal length, given the same f-stop, the narrower the depth of field.

starralazn

the reproduction ratio of the 105mm 1.4E is marginally higher than the 85mm 1.4G (.13x vs .12x) so i'd guess that the 105mm can have slightly less dof than the 85mm.

it turns out that using dofmasters dof tool, putting in the minimum focusing distances for both lenses on a full frame camera(d800), the 105mm gets .69cm dof, whereas the 85mm gets .76 cm dof(minimum focusing distances of 100cm and 85cm respectively)
something to consider.

vtc2002

I have the 85mm f1.4D and the 85mm f1.4G and they both have issues with chromatic aberration's when shot wide open with back light or open shade subjects. They are both incredibly sharp lenses when stopped down. PitchBlack has a review on the Nikon website for the 85mm f1.4 G with a shot of the chromatic aberrations that he experienced with the lens when shooting at f2. I agree with him that the time it takes to remove them is extremely painful and time consuming. I primarily use the 105 Micro, 105 DC or 135 DC for portraits and they are all incredibly sharp. I do not shoot a lot of portraits but for me the 135 DC gets the job done, especially if it is a planned shoot with a controlled setup. I use the 105 Micro and it is excellent as well. The new 105 will have to exceptional and not have the issues of the 85mm's for me to upgrade.

snakebunk

WestEndFoto said:

The longer the focal length, given the same f-stop, the narrower the depth of field.

I think you are confusing depth of field with isolation of the background.

donaldejose

I have the 105 f2 DC and seldom shoot indoor portraits with it at f1.4 or f1.8 or even f2 because most people I shoot want the full face in focus and are not sophisticated enough to admire great bokeh with the nose and the rear eye fuzzy. However, my suspicion is that this new 105 f1.4 lens will rival the sharpness of the Sigma Art series. I see it as perhaps the first in a new Nikon line of lenses designed for 50+ megapixel sensors. So I see two different uses for this new lens: 1. great bokeh at f1.4 and 2. great sharpness with a high megapixel sensor at about f4. Surely I want one. Just as surely I don't need one. I want so see a comparison between a Sigma 85mm f1.4 Art and this lens. My guess is that this lens will win because Nikon is better at bokeh than Sigma.

MegapixelSchnitzel

Who cares about the IQ or its usefulness? Nothing makes a pro camera look more awesome than a really wide, fat, piece of glass sitting in front of that big, tall, body. Remember how impressive a Noctilux f0.95 looked on the front of a M6? Okay, kidding aside, I already own the old 2.0 105DC and I might (might) be tempted to sell it for this lens after we get some good feedback from its actual field use. That 1.4 sliver of sharp focus really interests me.

Golf007sd

Ironheart

Ah, pepperoni thin slices of focus. Nice.

donaldejose

I like the nice focus fall off but how often can you use f1.4 for portraits? How many people are going to want only one of their eyes in focus like the first picture? Perhaps if you back off more the DOF will be large enough to use this lens wide open to make photos people will actually purchase? Looking for more examples of what the distance might be.

vtc2002

@donaldejose +1. I went through my portraits and less than one percent of the ones I have shot had anything close to that narrow of a focus. I think some portrait photographers will like the f1.4 and the narrow focus but I would think the vast majority of portrait photographers will not use it but would like to have it just in case. I think that is where the cost is going to come into play and whether it is worth the cost and will it provide a return on their investment. I agree with you about seeing some samples with a greater depth of field to see what the lens can do. The bokeh looks good in the samples.

autofocus

Yet another lens I don't need but will probably buy. 500mm f/4 comes first though.

pictureted

I don't need it but, I sure do want one. I don't do portraits as frequently as I did in the past, so it's harder to justify, but…
I'd expect the same shallow DOF of the 200/2 (I'd want it if it were lighter and cheaper) and the same sharpness.

Shoot straight-on and both eyes will be in focus.

donaldejose

pictureted: Agreed, but straight-on is just one pose. I was wondering if you back up so you are shooting 3/4 or full length shots will your DOF be deep enough to get both eyes in focus with a nice bokeh background? Headshots, no unless looking straight into the camera. Head and shoulders, no unless looking straight into the camera. But somewhere between waist up to full body length may work at f1.4 with both eyes in sufficient focus that the client doesn't object. Anyone have practical experience with this?

Ironheart

The two sample images were taken at 3'-8" (1.12m).
Given a 105mm lens, f/1.4 at that distance the DoF is 0.34" (0.87cm)
Double the distance to 7'-4" (2.24m) gives a hefty 1.43" (3.64cm)

There are several 1/2 3/4 and full body shots in this article, all about the new 105mm. It's in french, but google will translate if you ask nicely:

https://lemag.iamyourstory.fr/nouveau-nikkor-105mm/

donaldejose

ironheart: thanks, interesting. Looks like even with 1/2 or 3/4 body images the subject pretty much has to be full frontal face to the camera or the rear eye will be noticeably out of focus. Full body length shots provide more DOF for subject's face not to have to be full frontal. I don't mean to be a heretic but it still seems to me that a 105 mm shot at f1.8, f2 or f2.8 will be sufficient. Just increase distance between the subject and the background to increase bokeh for headshots or head and shoulder shots. But we will see when people get theirs and start shooting with it.

WestEndFoto

donaldejose said:

ironheart: thanks, interesting. Looks like even with 1/2 or 3/4 body images the subject pretty much has to be full frontal face to the camera or the rear eye will be noticeably out of focus. Full body length shots provide more DOF for subject's face not to have to be full frontal. I don't mean to be a heretic but it still seems to me that a 105 mm shot at f1.8, f2 or f2.8 will be sufficient. Just increase distance between the subject and the background to increase bokeh for headshots or head and shoulder shots. But we will see when people get theirs and start shooting with it.

It certainly brings into question why you might need more than 1.4 or even 1.4. However, as you pointed out, there will be times.......

Ironheart

You don't necessarily buy a 1.4 to shoot at 1.4 100% either. A few clicks down will make a super sharp lens with still good bokeh. A f/1.4 lens stopped down to f/2 will be better than a f/2 lens wide open.