Why a new 105 mm lens?

Vipmediastar_JZ

This is a comparison from the article on the sites blog 105dc vs new

Maybe this is one lens the 105 dc and 135 dc that People claim is such a superb and classic item but doesn't convince me. The samples that I have seen do not convince me but Maybe I have looked at the wrong samples. I have done google searches and Flickr searches and what I see doesn't look spectacular to me.

I'm not trying to pick a fight I would like to see or someone explain who knows how to properly use this lens to point me in the right direction.

donaldejose

Vipmediastar_JZ: both the 105 and the 135 were designed for portrait use to create improved bokeh. Most people feel the improvement was slight. The new 105 f1.4 is supposed to be designed both for improved bokeh and improved sharpness. We will see when more comparisons are available. I too find the flicker images unimpressive but I also find the sample image Nikon put out for the new 105 unimpressive. Bokeh is nice but detail is lacking. I found this comparison review helpful. www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUHbSVaUO9o

I have the 105 f2 DC and have tuned it with AF fine tune so that the eyelashes are sharp at one half length portrait distance. I tend to shoot middle age women who no longer have flawless skin and do not want their flaws to be obvious. I find that I can tune even a 24=85, 24-120 or 28-300 zoom lens with AF fine tune sufficient to get sharp eyelashes at normal portrait distance so an increase in sharpness is not needed. I shoot a lot of portraits at f4 - f5.6 so increased speed is not needed. If I want increased sharpness and speed I can shoot at f1.8 or f2 with my 85mm f1.8, which is a great value. Or I can use my 50mm f1.4. Thus, I have no need for a sharper or faster 105. However, I do expect the new 105 F1.4 will be sharper and that I will want one but also that I won't buy one.

AmericanLoonie

I picked up the 105 DC and have been shooting with it with my D800 for just under two days. At this point, after a couple hundred shots, I am likely going to return it. The optics themselves are fantastic, and when I hit a shot just right the results can be really stunning. It does wonderful things with skin tones and the color rendering in general is frankly amazing. It also has great contrast and creates a beautiful "feeling" – the character is great.

Then we get to autofocus issues... I have long heard that these lenses have problems, especially when you are using the DC feature. I was hoping they wouldn't be that bad, but my copy certainly has some major issues. Long story short: the autofocus tuning needs (and subsequent settings) fluctuate a great deal depending on minor distances between shooter and subject. When the subject is beyond 10-15 ft., everything seems to work nicely. Getting close in for faces and the like has proven to be very hit or miss. Without the DC feature activated preformance is much better, requiring little if any fine tuning.

This lens does amazing thing with stationary models and the right scenes – outdoor shots with background foliage are especially nice. I can also see it doing especially awesome things with still life work using live view, as the lens can be extremely sharp as well as uniquely beautiful when you get the focus on point. My problem is that I am more of a photo journalist type shooter and rarely have those types of controlled scenarios. I love taking pictures of my toddler and she's crazy, so the combination of us moving around and the DC's irregular and inconsistent autofocus problems are yielding maybe a 50% hit rate. It is really too bad because when you hit a shot right, the results are gorgeous.

None of the drawbacks of the DC mentioned here are abnormal given the nature of this lens, so what this all says to me is the following: if the DC was considered as "the" 105mm portrait lens, its once-benchmark performance and optics are valued at $1200 USD. We can now start to answer the original question in this thread even without the new lens, which is what makes the new 1.4 worth it? There is no question that the new lens can render better wide open, whether one shoots at 1.4/2 or not. Seeing as the DC requires a stop down to 2.8 for truly usable performance, it is safe to assume the new 1.4 at 2.8 will be ridiculous – far more ridiculous than the DC. It is clear the 1.4 will also resolve far better on high MP sensors. Most important: autofocus will actually work and be consistent on the new lens (I suspect at least...). Just as the DC feature doesn't add that much to a photo to make it (necessarily) worth it, I don't think the minor loss of "3-Dness" in rendering is enough to trump these other improvements. I think it is safe to assume that the 1.4 is worth an additional $1000 based on this alone. Obviously it isn't for everyone, but neither is the DC.

autofocus

I like what I've seen so far with the new lens. I just don't know if it has a place in my lens lineup. Of course that doesn't always stop my impulse GAS.

Vipmediastar_JZ

Likewise. If I can shoot Macro shots for the Wedding rings with the 55 ais 2.8 macro then the 105mm 2.8 macro might get the boot. The 105mm is my least used lense as I tend to use it for the details shots and its sometimes just shot in manual mode.
GASA (GAS anonymous)

MegapixelSchnitzel

I've never had a problem with focus on my 105 DC... not to say there isn't some problem with other ones. One thing I do is focus first (whether auto or manual) and then manipulate the DC ring.

Ironheart

+1 @MegapixelSchnitzel That's how I thought these beasties worked...

donaldejose

I do it differently. I decide what f-stop I am going to use, set the defocus ring for that f-stop and then I compose, autofocus and shoot. I don't see the point of not setting the Defocus control ring once you have chosen your f-stop because that ring is set according to the f-stop you are using.

moreorless

Yeah I don't see the point of leaving the DC until after you've focused, besides the shift it causes you also have more potential for subject movement.

I do think AF performance with the DC active can be a bit unpredictable although having said that I don't think that the DC is actually all that useful in situations where your dealing with very shallow DOF to the degree small errors can have an effect. I think its much more useful when dealing with situations with deeper DOF, say either shooting quite distant subjects or shooting stopped down a bit when the background isn't massively out of focus and nervousness of bokeh can be more noticeable. If the background is already a formless blur then I don't think DC helps much which is why I think a lot of the tests you see on the net that do just this don't do it justice.

My guess is if Nikon release a more budget minded lens in this range it will be a 135mm one not a 105mm. I think the 105mm was basically chosen to get around the lack of F/1.2 on the F-mount with AF, looking to potentially replace an 85mm lens. For the budget market though they would probably look to something that could be used as well as an 85mm F/1.8 not instead of although it would probably need to be a bit slower to offer a cheaper price and small size, an F/2.8 lens?

NSXTypeR

I've never used them myself, but Sigma also makes a 150mm and a 180mm macro, both of which are F/2.8 lenses.

It would seem like they would be nice short telephotos, but who knows how well they focus in low light.

donaldejose

f2 would be enough for a budget 105 or 135.

heartyfisher

I have the sigma 150 F2.8 macro.. old one no OS.. and I like it a lot for Portraits :-)

MegapixelSchnitzel

donaldejose said:

I do it differently. I decide what f-stop I am going to use, set the defocus ring for that f-stop and then I compose, autofocus and shoot. I don't see the point of not setting the Defocus control ring once you have chosen your f-stop because that ring is set according to the f-stop you are using.

Oh, I'm not saying that MY way is THE way. Its the way I do it. If the DC ring is moving the field of acceptable focus front or back, I simply make a sharp, manual focus on my subject and simply decide whether I want foreground or background bokeh enhanced. For me its almost always background.

donaldejose

I didn't know the DC ring moved the focus plane. I also always set mine to defocus the background. However, since I almost always am using this lens in a studio with a muslin or paper background I don't really see any effect or need any defocus of the background. It would be more useful outside or with objects in the background to blur out. Interestingly, if the theory of "fewer lens elements create greater perception of depth (less flatness)" is correct the old 6 element 105 DC will be good even if you set the defocus ring to zero.

WestEndFoto

I don't think the DC ring moves the focus plain but I do think it slightly reduces sharpness. And I am using it properly - the defocus ring should be set the same as the aperture.

I do sometimes set the defocus ring to a setting higher than the aperture. I like the "soft focus like" affect this produces.

MegapixelSchnitzel

You know, I'd be interested in knowing exactly what parameter(s) the DC ring IS affecting - but not so much as to drown in the explanation. When I've used a standard lens to front or rear focus, I get a very similar effect to that of manipulating that ring on the 105DC... in my experience. I just considered the DC more convenient because the limits are already marked and set. Using the DOF scales on lenses with my old F2A and F3 was a lot more tedious and tricky. On another forum I got into this discussion and some gearhead buried me in a tedious lecture of aberrations and other such technobabble. All I can say is, I want the picture. And I want it the way I feel and see it. And the way I use my DC gets it for me. It might be the product of dark energy exciting tiny nebulae within my diaphram, all having been placed in there by faeries at the Nikon plant. I just want it to work when I want it.

And yes, Donaldejose, it is very good at zero!

paulr

I been offered a free 105 1.4 Loan Lens to take images in my Cuba Trip, and report back to Nikon and sadly return the lens, will be a good proving ground for the lens.

spraynpray

Whoa! Enjoy.

Vipmediastar_JZ

Nice. Congrats on the loaner. Can't wait to see more photos from this lens. Sigma just announced the 85 art but I feel this 105 would be the sweet lens.

paulr

Will be interesting to see how it compares to the Z Otus 55/1.4.

donaldejose

Another point of view. www.youtube.com/watch?v=66DGMwf-diY

AmericanLoonie

Hyperbolic as usual, but he makes some fair points regarding the swirly bokeh and especially the cats eye/lemon bokeh, which bothered me since the first samples were released. I would like to see that micro contrast test shot at a wider aperture – say f4 – as well as the color, SOOC images. I know he says that shouldn't effect the test, but I am concerned that stopping down so much and going B&W hides some drawbacks of the DC (furthering/best-supporting his arguments). And what about doing the test on a tripod for truly comparable frames, mirror up, base ISO, yada yada yada...

All that said, I am extremely happy so far with my 105 DC and I absolutely agree with much of his commentary. In a nut shell, the 1.4 is simply not worth the price. If you have the resources to get it, then by all means... If not, the 1.4 is not the lens one should be stretching a budget for (in my opinion).

EDIT: I didn't see them, but here are his micro contrast test images in color, SOOC.
105mm f1.4: https://flic.kr/p/LJNeQo
105mm f2 DC: https://flic.kr/p/MDfdAC
Direct, full res JPEGs:
105mm f1.4: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5242/29364012314_bbb5a85f5f_o_d.jpg
105mm f2 DC: https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8127/29957538856_a3466c789a_o_d.jpg

donaldejose

good sample images http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/105mm-f14.htm

WestEndFoto

We just need an upgrade of the remaining 1.4 primes to this standard.

donaldejose

Ken's images reveal an impressively sharp lens at f1.4. I think it is better than the well regarded 85mm f1.4. Maybe the 105 f1.4 is the start of a new Nikon lens line for high mp sensor bodies (soon to come in a replacement for the D810 with a 50+mp sensor?). But just maybe Nikon will put the D5 sensor into a D500 body, it if fits, and create a new D700 type camera selling for about $2,500? What do you suppose is the differential cost of the D5 sensor over and above the D500 sensor, maybe $500 more? Or maybe Nikon will put a 75 mp sensor into the D5 body for a D5x?