Nikon AF-S Nikkor 105mm f/1.4E ED lens pre-order links

Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-105mm-f1.4E-ED-lens.4E-ED-lens
The new Nikon AF-S Nikkor 105mm f/1.4E ED lens is now available for pre-order at:

Additional informationย on the new Nikon 105mm f/1.4 lens can be found here.

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
  • Eric Calabros

    BH has a picture showing this on D810. Its really big! and D810 is the biggest no-vertical-grip Nikon DSLR body. Imagine this on D5500 ๐Ÿ™‚
    (camerasize.com hasnt updated yet)

    • here is the lens attached to the D5

      • fanboy fagz

        surprisingly compact. I wonder if its the cheap gear af motor u find in the kit lenses or the piezo type motor.

        • Spy Black

          I’m impressed Nikon didn’t use aspheric elements in this design. This should be a very interesting lens indeed.

      • Mikycoud

        Hi peter,
        Do you know what happened to Super ED elements? I haven’t seen any mention of it in any of nikon lenses since the 200 f2.
        I thought they kept that for super large aperture lenses and was kind of hoping to see it in the 105 1.4, but alas….
        Anyway, I hAve this super ed element in my 200 f2 and find it allows a level of CA control that I haven’t found in any other non apo lenses. I wish niton used it more. Or perhaps I am mistaken and they still use it but rebadged it under a different name?

        • Don’t know

        • T.I.M

          Nikon user a super ED element (+ several ED elements) in the 200mm f/2 because of the f/2 aperture, at f/2 you see chromatic aberration more compared to f/2.8 or f/4 apertures.
          It does not help with shorter lenses because chromatic aberrations increase with the lens’s focal.

          • T.I.M

            If Nikon had super ED glass back in the 80s, I’m sure the Ai-s 300mm f/2 would have it.

      • br0xibear

        Here’s an accurate side by side size comparison with the 85mm and 58mm 1.4s…

        • rosestraf

          Oh that softy 58.

          • T.I.M

            The 58mm f/1.4 IS NOT soft, you may need to calibrate your camera’s focusing (it’s easy to do)

            • rosestraf

              U mean that highly praised 58mm …?.. That over priced soft plastic-crap. I rented several different copies..my own eyes got it right..not everything Nikkor…is all that great. Why not you compare to the Otus 55..at 1.4 and Nikkor 58 1.4. I am sure there is a link somewhere…

            • T.I.M

              You may need new glasses ?
              Yes it’s expensive but I needed a lens between my 35mm f/1.4 and the 85mm f/1.4
              The AF-s 50mm f/1.4 is not very good so I tried that 58mm f/1.4 and IT IS GOOD.
              I have been selling and testing thousands lenses for the last 13 years, I think that by now I can tell if a lens is good or not.
              Search on Ebay, you will find a test chart to check if your lens focusing need to be adjusted.

            • rosestraf

              Stay the spin course…do you work for IB..Internet Blunders? Try again..Otus 55 1.4 and Nikkor 58 1.4. There seems to be a few links..

            • If you are comparing the Otus 55 to the Nikon 58, you need to learn more about photography. Those are two completely different lenses with completely different purposes.

            • rosestraf

              I think that plastic softy Nikkor 58mm scored a low 31 on a D810…and the Sigma 50mm scored on same Nikon D810 a 46 and that big ol Otus 55mm scored a 49. Yep 31 score, in the new math is still way lower score than 46 and 49..over at Dxo Mark. I can provide links where the professional all agree…on the Nikkor 58 Softie.

            • Again, you obviously don’t understand what the 58mm Nikon is about. The lens is designed with uncorrected spherical aberration…on purpose. It’s a portrait lens primarily, but also good for still life and some landscape applications. If you know how to use it you can achieve a very interesting beautiful “look” to your images. Nikon makes other ~50mm lenses for the kind of photography you’re talking about. And, if you’re making buying decisions based on DxO scores good luck with that.

            • rosestraf

              The guy over at LensTip…on a Rare occasion will give a lens a highly recommend…but not your comical..using his phrase..Nikkor 58. It is a massively overpriced failure from Nikon. 11. Summary

              Pros:
              high image quality in the frame centre from f/2.8,
              very good control of the lateral chromatic aberration,
              not bothersome distortion,
              very good coma correction in the corners of APS-C/DX,
              nice blur images,
              moderate vignetting,
              sensible work against bright light.
              Cons:

              too much plastics in the casing for a top-of-the-range 50 mm device which is supposed to be a successor of the Noct-Nikkor,
              weak image quality in the frame centre near the maximum relative aperture,
              very weak image quality on the edge of the frame,
              longitudinal chromatic aberration could have been lower,
              noticeable coma in the full frame corners,
              strange performance of autofocus,
              disastrous price quality ratio.
              Perhaps I am naive but I admit when Zeiss announced their Otus 1.4/55 and Nikon โ€“ the Nikkor AF-S 58 mm f/1.4G I though we were going to deal with two lenses which were a match for each other. It seems, though, that only Zeiss was serious about it and Nikon was joking all along, trying to sell you a rough piece of trash for a lot of money under a cover of a storied Nikon legacy. I really donโ€™t intend to torture the tested Nikkor any longer because it is not worth the time and trouble. However, in order to finish this test with a comical accent let me quote the words of one of Nikon company representatives, published on the day of the launch as the official press release.

            • Lol. Which hand do you use as you read all this stuff? Do you ever make actual photographs yourself?

            • rosestraf

              No..I found out dem lenses will not fit on my Kodak.

            • rosestraf

              Pete u seem to love plastic.

            • Unfortunately, I fell for your bait in an earlier comment and thought you were actually a photographer. Clearly, you are simply a troll. I will not make the mistake again.

            • JasonsArgonauts

              You have no idea what you’re talking about if you think that the only thing that makes a lens good is an MTF chart. My 58mm is tack-sharp, at all distances, under all conditions and produces some of my (and my client’s) favourite images. I tried the Otus before I bought it, and the pictures were only slightly sharper at 200% on screen, definitely more uniform across the focal plane, but lacked the soul and look that the 58mm has. I could afford either but I chose the cheaper Nikon lens because of the way it renders the images you can produce with it. Yes, the Zeiss is built like a brick and is beautiful to hold in the hand, but when you stop talking about lenses and actually get off your armchair and shoot with it, you’ll find that the 58 has the edge.

            • El Aura

              There is resolution & contrast at the focal plane and then there is bokeh. The 58 mm has quite a unique bokeh characteristic which relies upon under-corrected spherical aberrations. That drops MTF50 values at the focal plane somewhat but you get a very soft background bokeh:
              https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58088963

            • Beautiful. Oh, that goes for the lens, and the wine.

            • peter w

              this wine has a lousy label, that was designed somewhere in the ’80s…
              It is not a nice model to look at, and you don’t need to look at it to enhance your anticipation. It may just rest in a dark cellar for years and at last may lay down for its ‘anti chambre’ behind a chair or chaise longue. You may decant it into an elegant carafe if yo think that improves your senses, but you could as well drink it from a stone mug.

              It is for tasting.

              The picture could have been madde with a 50 F1,8. I guess you made it with the 58 out of sheer respect…

              ๐Ÿ˜‰

            • T.I.M

              The bottle is a gift from a friend when I visited France back in 2005.
              I must be the only French person who does not drink red wine (I do drink Champagne) , so the bottle is just a display (it’s value went up to $800 !)
              This is an expensive wine and the sticker is made with very fine printing, reason why I like to use it for quick focusing accuracy tests.

            • Wide open it’s soft.

              What was that shot, ฦ’/8 or so?

            • T.I.M

              That picture was not wide open (and with slow shutter speed) so it does not show how good is the 58mm f/1.4
              Just make sure that you adjust the AF fine tune in your camera, if after that your lens is still soft wide open, then you may have a bad sample.
              When checking focus accuracy make sure you use a tripod, flash, and 1/500s minimum shutter speed.
              Here is an other picture took with the 58mm f/1.4 few weeks ago.

            • JasonsArgonauts

              My copy isn’t soft wide open. If you don’t own it, then rent it, get a copy of FoCal and do the tests-Mine needed zero adjustment, but that’s unusual. The Sigma 50mm 1.4 ART that I owned until recently needed +18 to get it acceptably sharp. I found the 58 to be as sharp as the ART in the centre and had a completely different feel to it, especially in the out of focus areas. The Sigma was far better in the corners though-But that’s not the point of this lens. It’s designed to be flattering for portraits.

          • I do not understand why you believe the 58 is soft and feel the need to make snarky comments about the lens. Have you used the lens or are you simply comparing some MTF number to the MTF number from some other lens that you read on some website?

        • thanks, I will add this to my next post

        • T.I.M

          could you add the 200mm f/2 to the comparison ?

          • br0xibear

            • T.I.M

              Thanks.

            • Aldo

              Can you add the 800mm to the comparison too? (Kidding)

            • br0xibear

              Just for you Aldo, lol…

            • Aldo

              You da best

            • T.I.M

              why did you do that ?????
              now my AF-S 200mm f/2G VR look ridiculously small !
              (could you add my AF-I 400mm f/2.8, it will make me feel better)
              :o)

            • TheInconvenientRuth

              Cheer up TIM, at least it didn’ make your mother in law look ridiculously small.

            • T.I.M

              She is small (less than 5 feet).
              But like I always say, the right height is when your feet touch the ground…

            • 247th

              I’m actually dying of laughter right now!

            • Nice fun just your 800 is a bit too short by looking at 200f2, precisely 6 cm shorter ๐Ÿ™‚ then it should be in that ratio ๐Ÿ™‚

            • EnPassant

              Meh. Lenses for wimps only! That new 800/5.6 lens is even shorter and much lighter than the Ai-S 600/4 N lens! ๐Ÿ˜€

            • Bob Thane

              The 24-70 is freaking massive, I had no idea.

            • br0xibear

              Yeah, and that’s without the lens hoods in this comparison.

        • Proto

          new nikon lens have 82mm front end… this one and 24-70 VR

          • br0xibear

            Hi Proto
            The dimensions are the maximum diameter of the lens, and the distance from camera lens mount flange (from the Nikon website)…the 82mm figure is the filter attachment size.

      • TheInconvenientRuth

        Oh now that makes me all weak and moist…

        • FountainHead

          Go on…

          • TheInconvenientRuth

            Um… I had a slight faint due to low blood pressure and the heavy humidity here in ShenZhen made my clothes clammy… Yeah, that’s it.

            • TheInconvenientRuth

              Note to self: Don’t post when drunk.

      • Charles

        WOW!!!

    • A 2+ pound prime. And that’s with a LOT of plastic. A lot of glass and motors I guess.

  • Davis5

    It is a wild boar puppy! The Next King of Bokeh?

  • Mikycoud

    Oh yeah! I was waiting for the sigma art 85mm 1.4, but now I’ll also be keeping an eye on this one. Not a huge compression difference between 105mm and 85mm. I guess the winner will be the one with the least spherochromatism. I love my sigma 85 1.4 non-art, but that green/purple fringing at 1.4 makes me wanna sell it every time I look at the contrasty zones on my pics.
    I would even be ready to give up a bit of sharpness for better CA correction. Of course, if they pull out some kind of Otus magic and give us super sharpness with apo quality, and add some functionnal and accurate AF, it’ll be Christmas. ..at a cost…

    • fanboy fagz

      the boss peter said, an 85 ART is being baked as we speak, hang tight. if you got the paper, then this wont bother u at $2200, otherwise im certain the sigma will be around a grand less.

  • FountainHead

    Somewhat surprised there wasn’t more of a discount off the Japanese price.

    • Me too, usually the price difference is bigger and the dollar is strong now.

      • SGG

        You’ll see this lens will be $300 or $400 off for Christmas
        The price is too high for USA market I think. Look at the 24mm – it was $2100 several years ago when I bought it. How much it is now?

        • T.I.M

          still to much !

        • nek4life

          Really you think it will be discounted that much so soon? Price does seem pretty high though, at least for my wallet.

          • saywhatuwill

            The D500 price is discounted by $500 and it just came out! I’m hoping the lens will be discounted soon. The 24mm lens is still $2000.

            • The D500 is not discounted one penny, the overpriced kit lens is, and about to end unless they extend it.

            • Allen_Wentz

              Neither the D500 nor the (good) 16-80mm f/2.8-4 overpriced lens that I paid full price for have been discounted. Only the combo kit of D500+lens is discounted.

            • FountainHead

              A distinction without a difference.

            • Chris

              Isn’t kit lens always cheaper than the same lens sold alone?

        • Chris

          The price comes with cost of operation and 6-yr warranty. if you consider typical cost of US handiwork…. So now, the point is, take advantage as long as you paid for it.

        • Adam Padgett

          I feel like I overpaid for the 24 1.4 too. It sank in value more quickly than other lenses and especially when the Sigma 24 came out.

          Didn’t the 58 drop in price by a couple hundred fairly quickly too?

          Ill probably end up picking this lens up, but if Sigma does come out with a 135 f2 at a cheaper price…. it’ll be a tough call. I wonder if Nikon isn’t expecting Sigma to release that at photokina and is trying to beat them to the punch with this release.

      • ZoetMB

        Not as high as it was. It’s about 106 Yen. For fiscal 2016 1st half (ending September 2015) it was at 122. It’s almost 12% lower than it was in 2007, which was at 120 (although it was only 79 in 2012). Nikon estimated 110 for Fiscal 2017 as of 5/13/16, but I bet they lower it in the next estimate.

  • ยฃ2049 in the UK is having a laugh. That puts this at ยฃ1k more than the 85mm 1.4G. Not sure that extra bit of reach is worth that. It’s about double the price of the Zeiss 100mm f/2 too. Not sure everyone will be rushing to order as a result, but then again Nikon must expect relatively low sales for this.

    • padam

      Most of it is down to the combination of strong yen and weak pound.
      Any other new lens will be priced higher as well and a price increase on current items is also expected.

      • TheInconvenientRuth

        Yup, Brexit vote is going to hurt your wallets…

    • T.I.M

      If that new lens is sharp (really sharp) at f/1.4 then Nikon will sell a lot of them.
      Now, if it’s not sharper than the AF-S 85mm f/1.4 wide open, then you’ll find that 105mm f/1.4 on sale at $1695 in few months.
      The AF-S 200mm f/2 is so sharp that you can’t see any difference between f/2 and f/2.8.
      But that’s a much more expensive lens (around $5700)

      • Steve

        Another fool that only thinks about how sharp a lens is and bases everything on that one factor…

        • T.I.M

          You’re 100% right about that !
          And I’m not the only one doing that, I know a car racer who think that fast cars are better for racing, what a fool !

          • Steve

            hahahahaha!

        • Andy Aungthwin

          Something is seriously wrong with tim. I scrolled down the thread and there he is with his 2 cents worth in replying to every post.

          Fast cars are better for racing? Well, do you know anyone who thinks that a slow car is better for racing?

          • Steve

            He forgot to consider the handling of said “car”…
            It’s clear the guy’s a fud, his only requirement for a lens is that it’s sharp sharp sharp…

            • Paco Ignacio

              Some people are mentally challenged. Be gentle with him.

            • T.I.M

              Thanks, I got take my pills.

            • Aldo

              What an appropiate avatar for someone who needs to make fun of others to feel better…

            • Paco Ignacio

              It is, isn’t it?

            • Aldo

              His point is right on… though I agree sharpness shouldnt be the only factor to consider… sharpness could very well be to photography as speed to racing.

            • T.I.M

              my priorities for a lens:
              1 sharpness
              2 distortion
              3 contrast
              4 AF speed/accuracy
              5 fall off (vignetting)
              6 minimum focusing distance
              7 weather/dust sealing
              8 price.

          • Aldo

            You completely missed his point…

            • Andy Aungthwin

              Ah, no. I was saying something as stupid as he did.

              So, unfortunately it is you who missed the point.

              Try reading all of his mindless, self important comments he needs to make not just in this thread but also in the past.

            • Aldo

              I think he made a good analogy… as for his comments in general they may not be everyones cup of tea.. but he the insults are not deserved by any means.

  • neonspark

    sweet lord!

  • T.I.M

    B&H will let me know once it become available.
    Any good suggestion on how persuade my wife that I need that lens ?
    (a while ago we had a deal, I buy a new lens, she buy a new purse…)
    Here is a sample of the AF-S 200mm f/2 (+ x1.4) on D800
    I think the 200mm f/2 will stay the king of the lenses for several more years !

    • peter w

      nice bird, which allows you to get so close.
      compliments

  • T.I.M

    Never mind !
    82mm filter size
    no aspherical elements
    1.0 meter minimal focusing (3.3 feet).
    E lens (not compatible with F6 camera)
    Not a lens for me…
    :o(

  • nek4life

    I wonder if they are going to start updating their other primes with the E aperture.

  • T.I.M

    Hi Peter, the nasty looking add (teeth) show up again, here is the link:

    https://www.whitelightsmile.com/ss1/

    • Ok, I blocked them but I am pretty sure that you recently Google something related to teeth/dentist.

      • T.I.M

        no I did not and I’m the only person using this computer.
        strange….
        I do google D900 everyday, I never seen adds related to the D900 on NR !
        :o)

        • I wonder why you never see D900 banners ๐Ÿ™‚

          • T.I.M

            Now this one look much better to me (still an add from NR)

            • Eric Calabros

              Smart naughty ads! They know your wife is asian

        • TheInconvenientRuth

          T.I.M. the ads you see are based on what you google. Don’t blame Peter, blame yourself.

          • T.I.M

            Again, I do not google Asian girls (I date them), so it is not based on what I google, this computer is very important to me, I never click on adds or websites that could get me viruses or other crap.

        • reductron

          Adblock Plus plugin would help you.

  • rosestraf

    Big Lens, Sony Proud Prices.

  • Aldo

    Too rich for my blood… my 85 1.8g doesnt flatter all my subjects as it is… I woudnt go for even more compression. Im always looking for ways to make people look their best. This is the main reason I stay away from the traditional 200mm portraits. I dont work with victorias secret models.

    That said Im excited for those who can really use this lens… I sure hope it delivers as it is priced.

    • T.I.M

      if you like compression (and take your breakfasts at Dunking donuts ) then you could try the Nikon 500mm f/8 mirror (the new version with orange ring is about $600-$700 for a nice one)

      • Aldo

        Those donuts look good… but yeah the excess compression is what I try to avoid as it makes people’s faces wider.

        • T.I.M

          LOL !
          No, that lady (my wife) does not seems to have a flat face, she is Asian, most Asian people have a flat face (and often a flat behind) !
          When God created humans he must have ran of space and stock Asian people on top of each other !

          • Aldo

            Your wife is lovely.. Im just saying there are certain lens perspectives that favor different type of faces… Im not talking photoshop… but simply accent a flattering field of view… that is all.

    • Steve

      No, people look better in portraits with longer lenses…

      • Aldo

        Not all people. Longer faces look less flattering with wider lenses….. but wider faces… or round faces dont benefit much from tele portrait lenses.

        • TheInconvenientRuth

          Actually, over 135mm, the compression of faces doesn’t change noticably at all, all it does is show you less background.

          • Steve

            He’s a little confused…

            • Aldo

              Im confused because you simply dont understand? This is whats wrong with the world

            • Steve

              What, do you shoot portraits with a 24mm or something right?

            • Aldo

              I shoot portraits with w/e ‘I’ consider to flatter my subject best… whether it is a 35… 50 or 85… Im not bound to the general rules of photography.

            • Steve

              We’ve all shot a portrait with a 35mm before mate. It’s very different to come out with the bollocks your spouting about long focal lengths start making people look worse.

            • Aldo

              Seems like you got it all figured out.

          • Aldo

            105 is the lens in question… I own an 85… again reader error?

      • murdoc2009

        Another person that simply doesn’t get it. Re-read all of Aldo’s original points because your reading comprehension skills are lacking.

        • Aldo

          Im not alone in the universe?

    • TheInconvenientRuth

      If your 85/1.8G doesn’t flatter youir subjects, then all I can say is that it is user error….

      • Aldo

        Yes it doesnt flatter ‘all’ subjects… not a user error but a reader error =)

        • T.I.M

          You can make a nice background with a 120mm.

          • Aldo

            Actually on this photo I kinda wanna see the background… its not blown enough to ignore. Subject isolation doesnt always work as we intend… I would have shot this picture with a closed lens… risking difraction even to reveal more of that background

            • T.I.M

              yes the picture was taken at f/4 because the place is an historical touristic place and I wanted to keep the background not to blurry.
              Also f/4 helped to have both shoulders in focus.

    • fanboy fagz

      I never use anything less than 85mm and mostly im using 135+ for pics. how doesnt it flatter?

      • Aldo

        Im surprised how many people dont pay attention to this… you can have the perfect lighting… the creamiest bokeh possible… yet if your client think she ‘looks’ too fat … the picture is trash… now you can either be like “not my fault” or go out of your way to tweak your gear and use tricks to make your subject love the photos. Why do you think people take selfies at a high angle? I dont use gear uniformly… I use what I consider will flatter a particular subject.

        • fanboy fagz

          ok. what works for you.
          just dont shoot babies or people to look like mutants
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/7c980a6782c72ed59fd3277461bcedfe292fa3459a971c3d1370802d1c8a8e1a.jpg

          • Aldo

            Dont wanna waste too much time on this… really this is something basic that everyone should know… especially if you are getting paid thousands of dollars for a job. On the left is the 85… right 35mm.

            • Big girls and babies look good with wide angles – from the right angle, of course.

              I look best at 135mm + most of my models too.

            • Aldo

              Idk about babies… cuz ya know… the fatter. The cutter… or so people say.

          • Aldo

            Now if your subject looks something like this (dont mind the fringing)… you can shoot your portraits with an 800mm if you want. My technique revolves around subjects with round faces and/or wide faces… and overweight. I want them to love their photos… That’s my goal.

            • John Mackay

              I wish my 800mmn lens came with that model, all I got was a 1.25 tc ๐Ÿ™

            • T.I.M

              if you can afford the AF-S 800mm f/5.6 then you should have no problems finding models.

            • John Mackay

              But that’s where the lens becomes economical, you just hide and sneak up on models!

            • T.I.M

              nice portrait.

            • Aldo

              Thanks

          • murdoc2009

            Facepalm.

            Your example pic is the epitome of an amateur photographer who doesn’t understand perspective, angles, vantage point, and how distortion works.

            Let me give you a hint. When you use a wider angle lens for a portrait, you don’t get so close to the subject that it’s nearly in your face and the distortion becomes blatantly apparent. Learn to take a few steps back and then re-evaluate.

            Another case in point, most cell phone cameras have wide lenses, around 24mm, yet many people are able to take great selfies with them. Why? Because they actually understand angles, vantage point, etc.

            I feel like a lot of these smartphone photographers are better than traditional photographers because traditional photographers keep using this tired out rhetoric that a longer focal length is always the best option for a portrait because it’s not. It’s like saying a wide angle is always better for a landscape than a mid-range zoom.

            • Aldo

              Pretty much.

            • fanboy fagz

              youd be very surprised who this photographer of the baby pic is. from one of the most known commercial photo website staff. its no amateur. do what the fuck you like. shoot how you want. in photography there are certain things you do that makes it aesthetic to the eye. pros have been shooting a certain way for the longest time and it works. you want different, do it, I couldnt give a rats ass.

            • peter w

              I would suggest to apply some censoring to the words you use along with the word ‘aesthetic’.

              By the way, I find your arguments and example rather weak.

  • Wesley

    Want. $2200, can’t.

    • T.I.M

      just wait, $1600 by Xmas.

  • T.I.M

    FOR D500 OWNERS:

    Here is a great deal ($300 off) on the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 (DX), probably the best DX zoom lens so far.
    (for some reasons I can’t paste the link to B&H)
    :o(

    • HD10

      I have the NNikkor 17-55mm f2.8 and this ia one tough rugged and fast AF lens. But for optics, the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 reigns.

      • TheInconvenientRuth

        Yup, still have one too, bought it new in 2004. Been sitting in the cupboard for the last 4 years, but has come out again recently with the arrival of the D500 ๐Ÿ™‚

    • Nothing new – this is part of the current Nikon rebates, I already have two posts on them: http://nikonrumors.com/2016/07/26/nikon-rebates-to-expire-soon.aspx/

  • Michiel953

    Interesting discussion about focal length and “flattering” portraits. Seems to me “perspective” is more a function of distance then of focal length. More distance, combined with a longer focal length (in effect cropping) leads to “flattening”, not “flattering”. Imo.

    • T.I.M

      yesterday I looked at the moon with my Nikon 500mm f/8+ x1.4 +x1.7 +x2.0 converters.
      I think the moon is flat.

      • Michiel953

        Everyone knows the moon is flat, and so is the earth.

        • T.I.M

          Not everyone.
          When I tell my wife that earth is flat, she always says: “my butt”
          Or maybe she is talking about her behind being flat…

          • Michiel953

            Nahh; don’t think so. I do know for a fact though the D900 is very very flat.

            • T.I.M

              I hope Nikon will not put a stupid tiltable screen on it.
              I’m getting tired waiting for that D30x30, that remind me the wait for the D700.
              The photokina is the biggest show/event in the photography world, please Nikon, show off your new king of the DSLR, the Nikon D900 !

            • reductron

              And I’m still waiting for the D400. I’m tired.

            • peter w

              In the meantime I hope a D820 with a really proper mirror and shutter will show up.
              (I am affraid of even more pixels to crop into. A 200 MP camera would yield files suitable for deconvolution, and lenses could become much cheaper.)

            • T.I.M

              I have 14 Nikon lenses but only one of them is a zoom lens (AF-s 24-120mm f/4)
              So I do a lot of cropping, Nikon D800’s 36MP is already plenty space to crop in, but I’m waiting for the D30x30 with its 48MP and cleaner ISO (1 step better than the D800)

      • Charles

        Yeah… Me too….

    • Aldo

      Perspective is indeed affected by distance and not focal length…BUT… by changing the focal length you change the required distance to fill the frame with your subject… thus it is focal length which is often spoken of to change perspective.

    • El Aura

      Sure, but combine subject size (eg, head) with distance and you end up with a focal length.

      • Michiel953

        And, for some, a lot of compression.

  • Clifford Martin

    I got an email from NPS about doing a pre-order, so Nikon must be expecting high demand for this lens.

    • I think it is more that the demand will be balanced to the supply and they want to make sure that NPS members get first crack at it.

  • MB

    It seams to me that the main competitor for this lens is … Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 …
    DOF is about the same at 200mm … but 70-200 gives more working distance and is more practical for portrait work in my opinion, and being a VR zoom it is just more practical overall … and is about the same price …
    So it seams that we should all just wait for new and improved 70-200.

  • TheInconvenientRuth

    Dear Nikon,

    To commemorate the launch of the world’s fastest 105mm lens, I have written a poem for you;

    I like fast glass and I can not lie
    You other shooters can’t deny
    That when a lens comes in with a funky chunky waist
    And a huge element in your face
    You get sprung, want to pull up focus
    ‘Cause you know that optic won’t choke us
    Deep in the coatings she’s wearing
    I’m hooked and I can’t stop staring
    Oh baby, I want to get wit’cha
    And take more pictures
    My homeboys tried to warn me
    But that bokeh you got makes (me so happy)

    • saywhatuwill

      Sir Mix-a-lot doesn’t take too kindly to people that use his rhymes. Just ask Weird Al. ๐Ÿ˜‰

      • TheInconvenientRuth

        Well, I won’t be releasing an MP3 version of this anytime soon…

        • saywhatuwill

          Or a music video shot with a D500 at 4k? Come on, fess up. ๐Ÿ˜‰

          • TheInconvenientRuth

            Still sorting out a glass dress, might take a bit……

  • Espen4u

    Hefty pricetag, but that’s in line with other recent lens releases from N. Just have to wait a year or so for the first rebates.

  • DP

    LOL@how oversized, overweight, and over-priced this 105mm f/1.4 Nikon is!
    Now that’s a trifecta worth aspiring to, eh Nikon?

    • BVS

      One could argue the price, but size and weight is more a matter of physics than Nikon.

  • AYWY

    Comparing to recent Zeiss Otuses and Sigma Arts, I consider the fact that this weighs less than a kilogram to be the most impressive engineering feat.
    (And weather-sealed too, unlike the ART line)

  • Dang… That first shot is my shot. The 58mm is my favorite lenses of all time. Been using it for wedding work for over two years. I can’t wait to lay my hands on this 105mm

    • Max

      It’s yours? Nice!!!

      • Yup. When you visit fredmiranda 58mm f/1.4G thread, I’m probably the most active on there. I posted tons of shots from the 58G, mostly wide open shots.

  • JasonsArgonauts

    A lot of the commenters on this thread seem to be missing the point of this lens. It’s been launched using similar wording to the spiel on the 58mm f/1.4. This means it’s *probably* not for the pixel peepers or people who want edge-to-edge sharpness, but what it will give you is a beautifully defocussed background, a faster shutter speed in lower light and a ‘look’ that something like the Zeiss 100mm f/2 or Nikon 200mm f/2 (great lenses though they are) won’t. It’s that 3D effect and special look about the images they produce that can’t be quantified on MTF charts. I’ve used the 58mm for about a year for weddings and commercial stuff now, and it’s phenomenal. Not in a “I wish this was sharper for the money” way either. My copy is pin-sharp at every distance and you can create the most amazing images with it. It remains to be seen how this lens performs (especially for the money they’re asking), but if it has even the slightest hint of the magic going on in the 58mm then it will be very special indeed. I’ve ordered one anyway-I just hope it turns up before the end of the busiest part of the UK wedding season. ๐Ÿ™‚

    • vriesk

      If the MTF charts produced by Nikon don’t lie, this lens is supposed to be much sharper than the 58mm.

  • murdoc2009

    +1 to Aldo as he obviously gets it and I’m surprised a lot of people on here don’t. Just re-emphasizes that a lot of people here are either amateurs or too set in their ways to understand how to be creative.

    I shoot portraits normally for clients and everything he says regarding focal length is correct. Just because these are marketed as “portrait” lenses does NOT mean that they are always the best choice for your subject. The only reason why longer lenses are marketed as such is to help Novice photographers better understand the purpose of a lens at the beginning.

    The reason why wider lenses like 35mm are such maligned in portrait photographer is because they use these ridiculous examples where the photograph is literally up in the subject’s face. Of COURSE you are going to get large amounts of distortion when the person’s nose is practically touching your camera lens. Learn to take a few steps back and understand how the perspective and distortion changes once you’re further away from the subject.

    Take for example a heavy set person. Take a picture of them at 50mm and then take a picture of them at 135mm. Then compare the two and even ask the client which one makes them more flattering. If you actually understand how basic photography elements like angles, perspective and vantage point work, you’ll realize that a 50mm would provide more flattering pictures in this case a majority of the time. Aldo even provided a great example below.

    Last point, take camera phones for example that use very wide lenses like 24mm. If wide angle lenses were so bad for portraits, nobody would be taking selfies, period. Yet you have masses of people that seem to have a better understanding of photography than most traditional photographers do, and are able to get great portraits using a camera with even such a wide angle as 24mm.

    Reinforcing what Aldo stated below, there is no one focal length that will provide the best portrait in any given situation, learn to work with different focal lengths and understand the advantages of each to your benefit. Just as a wide angle isn’t always going to be the best lens for every landscape photo, a telephoto lens isn’t always going to be the best lens for every portrait.

  • rosestraf

    I truly hope that Nikon Nikkor will revamp the 50mm 1.4 and 1.8. They need to do what Sigma did for their 50mm 1.4 Art Line. A Excellent Lens. I am excited about the new 105mm 1.4. Oh please do not release another comical..lol 58 ever again. There are times when Nikkor is really serious about lens production..the 85mm 1.4 and 1.8…till that Otus flew in..did u see what I did there? I have used the Otus 55 and 85 and without a doubt ..the blacks r black and the whites are whites..crystal clear..tack sharp…amazing lenses…but hold onto your feathers, did u get that?…Sigma 50mm 1.4 at 899…Comes awful close to that Otus 55mm …

    And ..no to the programmed hater patrol..never have I had an issue with focus on my Sigma Art Line on my Nikon D810. And the Sigma 35mm Art ..destroys the Nikkor 35’s. In sharpness and quality. And Swooping in very soon is a Otus 35mm 1.4 and a Otus 105mm 1.4, I keep hearing from this girl who works at the snack bar at Carl Zeiss.

  • Back to top