Why a new 105 mm lens?

Vipmediastar_JZ

rmp said:

They are very sharp, clean pictures. I have a 105 macro, so a second 105 seems a bit redundant, but those pictures are very sharp. Thanks for posting them.

I agree. I'm looking into selling my macro lens though. Using it for 1% of my photography is not ideal to keep it. This 105mm lens however has my GAS levels high again.

paulr

So having used this lens for a reasonable time first impressions are this is a chunky lens which balances nicely on the D810 with a grip. Its big, but does not seem heavy,It feels good to hold and work with.
Only downside is perhaps a little slower to focus than say an old 24-70 2.8
Image quality is superb especially in the corners of the frame, At 1.4 the lens comes into its own for portrait work, I used it a full day and did not want the day to finish.
The results looking through an iMac 5k screen were mind blowing.even at 400% magnification .If you really what to capture all details in portraiture this is a must have lens. I am going to have great difficult retuning this lens back to Nikon Uk.

And yes I will be buying one!!!!

Vipmediastar_JZ

@paulr I tested it again but I forgot to take ring shots. If you have it can you take a ring photo for a "wedding" type of photo. It's silly to keep the 105 macro if thats all I use it for.

paulr

Vipmediastar, I took the opportunity to do some landscape shots yesterday with the 105e not something I would normally relate to this lens,I was pleasantly surprised with the results. Images were taken in the Yorkshire Dales nr Malham

Vipmediastar_JZ

Very nice. The top one is my favorite.

paulr

Point being, its not just a Portrait lens.

Vipmediastar_JZ

http://nikonrumors.com/2016/12/13/nikon-af-s-nikkor-105mm-f1-4e-ed-lens-tested-at-dxomark-the-best-performing-lens-in-the-lineup-below-200mm.aspx/

PeachBlack

Vipmediastar_JZ said:

http://nikonrumors.com/2016/12/13/nikon-af-s-nikkor-105mm-f1-4e-ed-lens-tested-at-dxomark-the-best-performing-lens-in-the-lineup-below-200mm.aspx/

Not as impressive as it sounds. "Lineup" means "made by Nikon." It's only very slightly better than 85/1.4g with only "marginally more pronounced subject isolation." Also, it doesn't score as well as the Sigma 50mm/1.4 Art. Yup, totally worth $2200. Don't fall victim to the hype train.

[Deleted User]

We would enjoy seeing your images with the new 105 Nikkor as compared to the sigma 85 art. It would allow forum readers an opportunity to confirm the hype you mention. if the 105 compares favorably in results to the 200 f2, and the latter is still in your arsenal, should we would not expect postitive comments? The Nikon albassador Versace posted some very nice portraits with the 105 1.4 (see flickr). The 105 lens has improved color rendering, perhaps oversaturated to your liking? Some in various forums have mentioned a "greyer" tonality to the art series as compared to newer Nikkors and of course some inconsistent focusing. Your thoughts on these items would be welcomed before we move forward with purchasing the new sigma. Thanks.

PeachBlack

flip said:

We would enjoy seeing your images with the new 105 Nikkor as compared to the sigma 85 art.

I don't believe that posting images proves anything. There are far too many confounding variables including the photographer, the conditions under which the photos were shot, the subject, and anything that may have been done in post. Honestly, it's not a competition, and you're much more likely to learn about the relative abilities of these lenses by reading reviews and especially looking at DxO Mark's assessment. Others may nitpick with DxO, but I find that in my work, the lenses they like strongly correlate with the lenses I like. Also, remember, the Sigma 85/1.4 Art is almost exactly half as expensive as the Nikkon 105/1.4 and you could buy the 85 & 35 Art lenses and still have money left over. It would have to be a LOT better in order to justify the price difference, and my guess is that it's not even going to be as good. I could be wrong, but my guess is that the Sigma is going to get Zeiss-like numbers.

Please remember, I'm not saying that the 105 is a bad lens, not by any means. It most definitely is an excellent lens. What I am saying is that it represents a terrible value and exists in a focal range that I personally am not a fan of. But hey, if you do headshots at ƒ1.4 and you really gotta have this lens for some reason, by all means, throw your money at Nikon.

donaldejose

Agreed Peachblack.

heartyfisher

50, 85, 105 mm yawn .. just not my FOVs ... lucky for me!! some nice lenses in those ranges though. the new 105 looks really really nice IQ wise. Recently, I fell for the 50mm talk (you know how great the 50mm is when its spoken of by 50mm enthusiast !!) and its reasonably cheap .. so I bought one.. used it a few times .. got some nice images .. but quickly got bored and not used it since LOL.

You can all "throw your money" at these focal lengths !! ;-)

Seriously though.. I am very happy to see people enjoying THEIR focal lengths! :-) I really am uplifted by the great images shared and the enthusiastic talk of all these wonderful gear. When I am rich I will grab the 105 to play with and then probably forget about it in the bottom shelf LOL !

PeachBlack

heartyfisher said:

50, 85, 105 mm yawn .. just not my FOVs ... lucky for me!!

You make an important point... indirectly. The difference between 85mm & 105mm (20mm difference, sounds like a lot) is only a 3 degree difference in field of view. It really is barely noticeable and in 95% of cases you can use the lenses interchangeably.

The field of view difference between a 50mm and a 35mm (only a 15mm difference), however, is 10 degrees, and the difference between 35mm and 24mm (9mm difference) is 15 degrees. It's much harder to use these lenses interchangeably.

As you noted, there's a huge difference between a 50, 35, and 24. You lump all of those others into a single category because they are all the same to you, which they kind of are—when you pass from normal to telephoto—in terms field of view.

Vipmediastar_JZ

My conversation with BnH
85mm art vs 105 1.4

BnH: The 105 1.4 is the super bokeh lens. If you want the lens with maximum bokeh that is the lens to get.
BnH: The 105 1.4 is not a macro lens so it will not show small detail of a ring unfortunately. ( asked if i can use it for ring shots)
Me: besides the bokeh which one is the superior lens overall
BnH: The 105 as it is sharper.
Me: awesome. so you recommend to buy the 105 vs the 85 art. any other thing you can provide would be great
BnH: If you register it with Nikon you get 5 year warranty in the USA.

I agree on the price being expensive but since i'm a bokeh fan that is why I looked into this lens in the first place.

Then the next thing is to consider working distance of 85 vs 105mm lens and min focus distance.

Many things to consider as well.

PeachBlack

Vipmediastar_JZ said:

My conversation with BnH
85mm art vs 105 1.4.....
Many things to consider as well.

Do you really believe the B&H guy? Why? How is he an expert? Where does his information come from? I think he's just making this stuff up. The Nikon isn't even as sharp as the Sigma 50/1.4 Art according to DxO, and I think the 85 is even sharper. The dude is full of poo. Do you really think you'd actually notice the bokeh difference? Really? Do you really think anyone would notice the difference? Do you really think anyone would notice $1100 worth of difference? Please...

Vipmediastar_JZ

Only one way to find out. Rent each one and give it a go

PeachBlack

Vipmediastar_JZ said:

Only one way to find out. Rent each one and give it a go

Beware of confirmation bias: we tend to believe what we want to believe. There is test after test showing that people who are told that a wine is expensive say that it's amazing while those that are told it's a supermarket brand say it's terrible: same wine.

Likewise, you will never be able to tell a Zeiss Otus owner that the Sigma 50 Art is just as good. They will always say that the Zeiss one looks better. If you label the Zeiss and Sigma, and the Sigma as Zeiss, they will almost inevitably find some reason in the false-Zeiss to explain why it's better. The truth is that they are far too similar to see any difference in practice, but the Zeiss owner will absolutely insist.

I suggest that you take a bunch of alternating photos with the 85 and the 105, mix them up, and judge them without knowing which is which. Score them on a 5 point scale, then take the average. I'm guessing there will be no difference if you truly manage to avoid confirmation bias.

Vipmediastar_JZ

I agree on all your points. I like Lambrusco wine btw. Inexpensive and it does the job.

I'll have to find a way to test these lens. There is a local store that has these for rental and also studio space for renting. I'll see if I can make that happen.

paulr

PeachBlack

Likewise, you will never be able to tell a Zeiss Otus owner that the Sigma 50 Art is just as good. They will always say that the Zeiss one looks better. If you label the Zeiss and Sigma, and the Sigma as Zeiss, they will almost inevitably find some reason in the false-Zeiss to explain why it's better. The truth is that they are far too similar to see any difference in practice, but the Zeiss owner will absolutely insist.

Zeiss Otus owners just go out and buy the lenses and get on with their photography,unlike some Sigma owners who want to seem to want prove they think they have bought the best lens.Its not a competition, its called choice.

PeachBlack

paulr said:

Zeiss Otus owners just go out and buy the lenses and get on with their photography

Do they? I don't? I'm a professional fashion photographer, not some fanboy. I'm the exact opposite of an evangelist. All I care about is using the best possible tools for the job. I sold $15,000+ of Canon equipment to switch to Nikon when the D800 came out because I realized it was better for the job. I am not a hobbyist. I am the opposite of a label-snob. I use tools. I use the best tools for the job.

The Zeiss Otus is a bad tool for a fashion photographer. It's not as sharp as the Sigma 50/Art, and only scores better than the Sigma because of marginally better control of vignetting and chromatic aberration.

I can shoot ten photos with autofocus in the time it would take me to focus manual on an eyeball. Models hate manual focus and telling a model to hold still leads to stilted and awkward poses as I ask them to hold still. Any benefit from using the Otus evaporates when I can choose amongst 10 photos instead of the one, plus there are all those photos where I missed focus. Any professional will tell you that having a large selection of photos is the key to getting that one great shot. It's a simple matter of probabilities, and I have never seen a serious fashion photographer who uses a Zeiss Otus. Ever. It's the same reason why I've never seen a serious fashion photographer use a Leica. Sure, when the stars align, the results are amazing, but the stars align rarely and cannot be counted upon.

Does this sound like the ravings of a hipster? Of a fanboy? I don't think so. I choose my gear carefully and always with the mind of taking the best photos possible. I don't get caught up in hype and I always cast a doubtful eye at any claim. I have the best gear that I can buy for my work—not the cheapest, the best.

Do people buy Sigma Art lenses just because of the name? No. Do people buy Zeiss lenses or Nikon lenses, or Leica cameras because they wouldn't deign to own a "lesser" lens or camera? Maybe you don't, but certainly many do.

It is my honest opinion as a seasoned professional, that unless you have a very specific reason to own the 105/1.4 from Nikon, that it's a bad choice. Unless you are a portrait photographer who specializes in headshots, who absolutely needs to shoot wide open, I believe this lens isn't the best choice. It's extremely expensive, not particularly versatile, it offers marginal advantages over other choices, and decreases your ability to communicate with your subject if you want to shoot anything other than a headshot. If you already own an 85/1.4 (either Nikon or Sigma Art), you probably don't need this lens. If you don't have an 85/1.4, you're probably better off with that lens than this lens. If you will be shooting 95% of the time at ƒ2.0+, the Nikon/1.8 is probably the wisest choice. If you shoot fashion beauty, you're probably best off with the Nikon 105/2.8 Macro because of it's ability to get in close, its sharpness, and the fact that you never shoot beauty wide open. The only context under which I see this being the ideal choice is for outdoor headshots, and even then, the 85/1.4 would provide results with little noticeable difference. This site exists to discuss gear and whether or not it will serve. This is my opinion as a professional.

Vipmediastar_JZ

PeachBlack said:

paulr said:

Zeiss Otus owners just go out and buy the lenses and get on with their photography

It is my honest opinion as a seasoned professional, that unless you have a very specific reason to own the 105/1.4 from Nikon, that it's a bad choice. Unless you are a portrait photographer who specializes in headshots, who absolutely needs to shoot wide open, I believe this lens isn't the best choice. It's extremely expensive, not particularly versatile, it offers marginal advantages over other choices, and decreases your ability to communicate with your subject if you want to shoot anything other than a headshot. If you already own an 85/1.4 (either Nikon or Sigma Art), you probably don't need this lens. If you don't have an 85/1.4, you're probably better off with that lens than this lens. If you will be shooting 95% of the time at ƒ2.0+, the Nikon/1.8 is probably the wisest choice. If you shoot fashion beauty, you're probably best off with the Nikon 105/2.8 Macro because of it's ability to get in close, its sharpness, and the fact that you never shoot beauty wide open. The only context under which I see this being the ideal choice is for outdoor headshots, and even then, the 85/1.4 would provide results with little noticeable difference. This site exists to discuss gear and whether or not it will serve. This is my opinion as a professional.

Those are some very strong points.

I like shooting tight and from far away as possible. I started with DX and switching to FX made everything "wider" and in my head I never made the proper adjustments to compesate until recently. I just prefer the subject to fill the frame more from a distance.
I always have two bodies one with a 70-200F4. Im usually at 200mm and sometimes 300mmf4.

I have made mistakes with this shooting by not accounting for DOF and shooting at 2.8 caused the eye to be in focus and not the ear (thanks spraynpray). This is where the 85mm would probably be better with DOF.

By learning my mistakes I can now take a shot at 200mm or 300mm and know how far I need to be to get the face and ears in focus but that makes me get farther away with the model.
So my saga began getting a shorter prime and the 105mm 1.4 caught my interest because i can shoot at 1.4 at events and for fashion shoots. For events i currently use the beloved 58mm 1.4 and sigma 35mm 1.4 usually towards the end during the dancing as the lights are turned off and by this time im tired and 58mm and 85mm is lighter but I most likely have the 70-200f4 for the things that catch my interest at a distance.

We are getting there. keep the healthy discussion going.

vtc2002

Peachblack has made excellent points. I hope my points are not repetitive but for me it is business and return on investment. The portraits that I primarily shoot are for concerts, venue advertisements and promotions. The promoters or clients are looking for a specific qualities in the photos that I provide to them. Most of my work is shot with a 50mm at f5.6+ or 85mm f5.6+ to insure all of the subject(s) is in focus. I occasionally will shoot 105mm 2.8. The question for me in making the decision to purchase a lens like the 105mm 1.4 is will it produce photos that would justify charging my clients more money and will my clients feel that the additional cost be seen in the quality of the images that I produce for them. I also have to factor in how many clients I will have to book in order to recover my cost. As Peachblack has eloquently described and the reviews I have read I do not see the 105 1.4 providing a sharper image for what I shoot (in the f stop range) to the point that my client would notice or care and I certainly would not be able to increase my price to cover the cost of my investment. The Sigma 85mm does represent a good investment but also provides a solution to the chromatic aberrations that I have to deal with in my Nikon 85mm lens and looks like it is sharper. For me this is a no brainer. I am sure there are photographers that based on their work can go through the same analysis and be able to justify buying the 105 1.4. If it the right tool for them to use that great but it's not for me. I am sure there will also be some photographers that will buy the lens so that they can brag that they have it in their bag.

PeachBlack

I can actually see a 105/1.4 being quite useful for concerts. I shot ballet backstage alternating between the 50/1.4 Art and the 200mm/2.0 Nikon. The 200 was great for the closeups and the 50 was great for wider shots. Still, I think a 105 could've been very useful. It would be nice paired with a 50 and gives you better reach than the 85. Still is a lot of money, though.

heartyfisher

Looks like a very nice lense! :-) still.. probably not for me ... just not my FOV.. May be I will try it if I get the chance :-) I go shooting with some local photographers .. they have some nice gear that I get to play with .. I hope the richer ones get into this :-) off to promote it in the "club" LOL !!

heartyfisher

Found another review.. I have forwarded to the summary in the link below, but you can watch the whole thing.... Just in case the link dont work, forward to 13:45 for the summary.