Nikon AF-S 105mm f/2 lens patent

Back in December of 2010 I reported on a rumor for a new Nikon AF-S 105mm f/2 VRII Nano lens:

“2011 fall no more DC but VR and 77mm filter size min. focusing to 3.6 feet and max magnification of 1:3.4 priced at $2199 no more 135DC”

Yesterday a patent for a new Nikon 105mm f/2 lens appeared in the JPO (Japan Patent Office):

  • Patent #: 2011-112955
  • Published date: June 9th, 2011
  • Filing date: November 27th, 2011
  • Focal length: 104.02mm
  • Aperture: 1.98
  • Angle of view: 23.48°
  • Image height: 21.60mm
  • Total lens length: 127.09mm
  • Back focus: 44.44mm
  • Maximum magnification: -0.13080
  • No aspherical elements
  • Internal Focus

Nikon currently still has the AF DC-Nikkor 105mm f/2D lens in their product line which has similar lens design as the one from the patent:

This entry was posted in Nikon Lenses, Nikon Patents. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Andrew

    was considering the 135mm for xmas

  • Narut

    Damn it! Nano makes everything expensive

    • Global

      Not really. Its just an excuse to raise the price by $500~1,000. Need cash, Nikon? Take out the DC, fit in a VR. Take out the Aperture ring. Sprinkle in some magic-N fairy dust and slap an additional $500US invoice on top.

      I’m guessing it wont have the built-in hood. And probably 77mm, one would hope to fit most people pro filters.

      • Dammit! Quit taking out the fricken aperture ring! I need it! Until I get it, I won’t be buying any new Nikkor lenses.

        • Jo

          Well then you will never buy a new Nikon lens again. Your loss.

  • Troy

    It does…it’s going to make people deal with the older lenses and just put up with the flare or get a good filter

  • Alexander


    what does everybody think on the 135 DC/2 ?

    I was very much hoping for an update (eg a 135 2 VR oder 135 DC/2 or whatever – a specialized portrait lense for my d700) – but this rumor looks like there wont be a new portrait 135.

    What do you think?

    Thanks, Alex

    • gt

      that lens is AMAZING. buy now, think later. it’ll hold its value.

    • Discontinued

      “– but this rumor looks like there wont be a new portrait 135.”

      Why do think so? In times of manual focus Nikon had not just a line of 85, 105 and 135mm lenses happily coexisting but two of each focal length equally happily coexisting.
      Demand for primes my have decreased since zooms got better. There probably wont be a 135 2.8 ever again but I guess there is still a high enough demand for a decent 135mm 2.0. Just my two cents.

      • PHB

        With digital cameras it is very easy to crop. So there just isn’t the same need for every one of the prime focal lengths from the film days.

        But if that were true, why have an 85 f/1.4 and a 105 f/2? Only reason I can think would be smaller and get VR.

        I can’t see the price of this lens being more than the 85 f/1.4. The 85 has an aperture of 60mm, the 105 would be 50mm. And its the aperture that drives cost of the lens. Looks more like a $1200 lens to me.

        I have never used a DC lens. But I can’t quite see the point. How often do users adjust the DC feature? If I want less bokeh I reduce the aperture. Is it really that important to be able to choose between the good bokeh being in the foreground or the background?

        • John M

          I use the DC feature frequently. It’s not about getting “more or less” bokeh, it’s about ensuring smooth bokeh. The DC feature guarantees that, from f/2 to f/5.6, you will not get bad/distracting bokeh.

          • PHB

            I am still not sure what you mean here.

            My 85 f/1.4 produces smooth background bokeh at every aperture without the need to fiddle with controls.

            The justification for DC would seem to me to have to alter the quality of the bokeh in some useful way to be justified. Otherwise its just a correction the lens should do for itself.

        • vinman

          It’s also about subject isolation. While nice bokeh makes the effect more apparent, there is no substitute for increased focal length. The difference in isolation with the 135 vs the 105 is pretty substantial. Guess I’ll be looking for a good copy of the 135DC soon, as this will almost certainly drive up the price of existing samlples 🙁

          • PHB

            True, but the question here is whether a 135mm AF DC is to be preferred to a 135mm AFS and the same for 105mm.

            Obviously a 135mm is going to have advantages for some shots over the 85mm. And the 200mm is going to have yet more advantages if you want to take portraits from a couple of blocks away.

            Since I shoot with DX, I already have a lens that is the right focal length for taking full length portraits with that type of effect (no don’t start on the FX is better argument unless you are prepared to do the math, the effect is identical because the laws of Newtonian optics are scale invariant).

      • Anthony D’Atri

        The Canon 135 f/2 L is very popular, and one thing that holds me to Canon. The Nikon 135 has steampunk AF and is is what, 20 years old? I’d hoped that a modern 135 would come out with (I’m dreaming here) not to steep of a Nikon tax, so that I could seriously consider jumping to a D700 successor. If in fact there won’t be one, I’m more likely to stay with Canon.

        • dpnsan

          I would be surprised if they could improve the optics of the 135 significantly. It’s a superlative lens as-is. AF-S and nano-coating would just be icing on the cake. Personally, I’d like to see an update if it meant I could pick up a cheap, used AF-D model.

          • there are pros and cons to everything. Steam punk AF will still work in 20 years. USM and SWM motors do die. In fact I have a 100mm F2 ef on my desk that has a dead usm in it. I have heard of many other people that have had the same issue with Nikon and Canon lenses with built im motors. meanwhile all my screw drive lenses work like a charm. Especially my 300 F4 af which kicks butt over the afs model. This thing is like a club. and it has drop in filters!

          • Roger

            They absolutely can improve the optics of the 135 DC. It already is the worst of the 3 135/2s (Sony Zeiss, Canon, Nikon). It’s not as sharp as it can be and it’s a real CA-monster.

        • El Aura

          And the Canon is 15 years old. Is that really that much younger than the 20 years of the Nikon?

    • Anonymus Maximus

      The lens is great and the DC feature is equally worthwhile. If there is no successor it will keep value.

    • Um, the 135mm f/2 DC is one of the most underrated lenses in Nikon’s arsenal… and DC is an underrated feature.

      105 is lame, because it’s too close to both the 85 and 135 to really justify an investment.

      • The 135mm f/2.o is not an underrated lens IMO, as anyone who has used it has raved about it. It may be a lens that is not widely familiarized because of the prime aspect. I have each of the 70-200 VRII, the 135mm DC, as well as the 85 f/1.4 AF-S for portrait purposes. I admit the one I grab the most nowadays for indoor/studio work is the 84mm F/1.4 AF-S because that’s the focal length I use the most, the AF is fast, and the bokeh is very nice. However once I go outdoors, it’s either the 70-200mm VR II or the 13mm DC, depending whether I need to travel (in that case I bring only the 70-200). If I am shooting commercial grade outdoor portrait stuff, and shoot time is not limited, can’t beat a D3x + 135mm DC.

      • Where’s my…

        While not in focal length, 105 f2 DC should easily be sufficiently different from 85 1.4 in other optical characteristics. It may be close to 135 f2 DC, but then so would 135 f2 DC be too close to 105 f2 DC and 180 2.8 AF. Especially shooting both DX and 35mm 105 is much more practical than 135.

  • Daniyar

    Seems like Nikon decided to double the price on every new lens they introduce. 50mm used to be $100, now $200. Old 105 micro was $400, new one is $900. 85mm used to be $900, now $1800. And this one is double the price of the old one.

    I know technology is getting to be more expensive and with dollar being weak and all, but this is nuts. It’s either buy 18-55 for $100 or come back when you win the lottery. I’ve been waiting for the new 300 F4 or 80-400, but I am guessing new version will be above $2k easily.

    • Don’t forget that the dollar has lost more than twice its value since 2008. Thanks to Washington for continuous devaluation by printing money.

      • Cold Hands Luke

        “Don’t forget that the dollar has lost more than twice its value since 2008.”

        So a dollar today is worth what, less than -1 2008 dollars?

    • Anonymus Maximus

      I am sorry to be off topic and gloomy, but ….

      A majority of politicians has been professionally trained as lawyers.
      The written law is always imperfect (as mathematically proven by Goedel 1923)
      and a good deal of the training consists of ways how to wiggle out of it.

      This people have therefore NO understanding whats however that you can not wiggle out or negotiate your way through the laws of nature or ecconomics.

      Nuclear fuel rods do not care about safety minimum standards. If you don’t cool them the nuclear reaction will get out of control.

      Equally the laws of economics do not care why we print money like hell. There will be inflation no matter what the politicians say.

      Double the price will be very soon the new normal, for everything. Then the lenses will no longer look sooo expensive in comparison.

      • Anonymus Maximus

        P.S. Part of a strategy to preserve your wealth, can be to invest into real assets that will still be in demand tomorrow.

        • Darkness

          Indeed, someone said somewhere that if you bought Apple shares instead of Apple products you would be worth millions.

          • Stuff

            Indeed — I’ve been making about $3000 a month for a while now from Apple’s up and down status this year. Buy on 330, for example, sell on 350.

            Rinse and repeat.

            It’s not real money but it pays for a few good lenses.

        • Michael

          I do agree – that’s why i buy a land:)

      • I need to re-read Godel to figure out how this applies…

        Are you saying this because a system of human laws could never be simultaneously complete and consistent?

        • PHB

          I think it is more of a rhetorical flourish there than an argument. ‘Hey I know Goedel, so what I say must be important’.

          Goedel’s proof applies to abstract mathematical systems and demonstrates that they cannot be perfect. No serious economist has ever claimed that the state of economic theory was remotely perfect. It is not called the dismal science for nothing. The only people who claim absolute truth in economics are the charlatans peddling some fiction designed to support a political agenda. Like the folk who claim that lowering taxes always increases revenues despite the fact that it has not worked the last three times it was tried.

          The reason that Japanese lenses have increased in price is that the Yen has appreciated. And that is because of a large number of factors but one of the biggest is the many hundred billion dollars of investment and insurance money flooding into the country after the tsunami. The insurance policies are in Yen so the re-insurers need to buy Yen to pay them out.

          Given that the current economic problem in the US is lack of demand the problem the serious policy people are trying to avoid is deflation. If that takes hold you would want cash.

          Deflation is pretty much the worst economic situation to be in. We know how to bring inflation under control. But deflation is a different matter.

          There might be inflation if Congress refuses to pass the increase in the debt limit or tries to tie raising the limit to the phase out of Medicair and replacement with vouchercare.

          That would mean a choice between a US default and a global crash bigger than the 2008 Bush crash and keeping the US government running by printing money. Since interest rates are currently less than 1% the government can probably do that for quite a while before the inflation becomes self-sustaining.

        • Anonymus Maximus

          Hmm let’s see how it works out.

          There is no precedent in history where an increase in money supply waaaay beyond increase in real GDP did NOT fuel bad inflation. Where shall the money go? How will you contract the money sufficiently quick once necessary? As we have the most reckless money supply increase right now, how will the most reckless money contraction look like? Or will the GDP miraculously reach 50% growth rate next year?

          My car once lost grip on a patch of pure ice, that I did not see coming. It was pretty clear to me once I lost control, that the only choice I had was to determine to some extend WHERE I will crash, not whether there will be crash. Hitting the gas pedal at that point of time thinking that greater speed will somehow stabilize my car would have been the wrong thing to do.

          • Victor

            “There is no precedent in history where an increase in money supply waaaay beyond increase in real GDP did NOT fuel bad inflation.”

            The main reason behind the great depression was the fact that the government did not increase the money supply. Once they did unemployment fell from the mid 20% to nearly 1% and then stabilized at a healthy 5-6%.

        • Anonymus Maximus

          His proof was indeed about mathematical systems and shows that it is not possible to construct one without spots where no determination is possible.

          The analogy to law comes rather from the software world where it is the reason that algorithmic systems have limitations, like for example it will not be possible to construct the unfailing “robo judge” that way.

          Introducing stochastic methods (fuzzy logic) will allow to overcome that limitation to some degree but it also introduces a margin or error.

          Which is, to bring this back to the photographic field, the reason why in rare cases your matrix meter is wrong.

    • TaoTeJared

      The technology is increasing. AF-D lenses did not have motors in them, all new AFS ones do. That adds significant cost as do updated glass that resolves much finer than older models.

  • kaze kaze

    Soudns interesting… VRII for a f/2 lens. May be it’s just me after a long day n 4 glass of coffee but I dont see the VR group on the CS above and looks like it’s going to be a long travel path for the focusing group.

    • BaoKeWen

      Well spotted, guess I need more coffee. Can’t see a VR group either. As for the long focussing travel, the existing 105 has this too and it makes sense. This lens is made for shooting wide open and therefore accurate focussing is critical. I mostly focus mine manually and in that case the long turn is a great help. Sure, it made the AF a bit sluggish on the 105DC, but the AF-s should compensate for that on the new version.
      If you shoot at f/2 at, say, between 1,5-2m subject distance on a DX body you’ll be looking at milimeters of DoF; you’ll need bloody accurate focussing there, so the long travel is a necessity.

      • TaoTeJared

        +1 I see no VR as well.

  • It will never be on the market this 105. However, I will wait 135mm with AF-S. 🙂

    • broxibear

      Hi fotograf,
      Same here, I was hoping a new 135mm f2 or f1.8 might appear first… might just get a 70-200mm meanwhile ?

      • 70-200mm f/2.8 it is to big and heavy for me and intimidate my subjects. The 135mm with f/1.8 or with f/2 and VR it’s all i need. 😉

        • broxibear

          Hi fotograf,
          Sorry…I meant I might get a 70-200mm until a 135mm appears, my grammar wasn’t particularly good.

      • Unfortunately, Nikon will have nothing to compete with Sony’s amazing Zeiss Sonnar 135/1.8.

  • BaoKeWen

    THE ‘old’ 105D 2.0DC is still one of THE very best lenses Nikon ever made. I use it for 90% of all my people work. I love it so much I bought a 2nd one and leave it on my D2x all the time (no sensor cleaning, yay!). Sadly it tends to give a fair amount of fringing in the OOF areas when I put one on a D3x. Sure, you can ‘fix it in post’ but I for one are really looking forward to an updated version. While the new 85G is seriously good, I just have a strong personal preference for the slightly more compressed perspective, narrower field of view and shallower DoF of the 105. And – subjectively- it seems to render skin in a way only this lens can (don’t even mention the Macro 105… Harsh…). The DeFocus controls I never really used, so I won’t miss them. Sure, price will be high but they’ll have to as they’ll never sell that many, certainly not compared to the 85G or even the 70-200/2.8

    • Darkness

      The 105 2.8 VR is a stunner…Rather they made a 135 version.

  • fiatlux

    This patented design does NOT feature VR. I’d be surprised is a non-VR non-DC 105 f/2 was much more than 1000$.

    • that’s correct, the rumor from December indicated a VRII in this lens

  • fredflash

    Nice Nikon, but please don’t forget the DX crowd. A lot of us are waiting for a 2.8/50-150 AFS/VR. Why leave the field and give Sigma a win? Even a 4.0/70-210 AFS/VR would be fine … today you can only be beginner or professional – what about the “advanced amateurs”?

    • they should learn that they can get superior primes and save in the process for little walk & swap.

      • fredflash

        I know that primes are great – I like to use my 1.4/85 or 2.8/180. The 1.4/50 and the 2.8/24 are not bad too. But I like zooms too. My 16-85 works really fine on my D7000. What I miss would be a newer version of the 4.0/70-210 FX or something like the 50-135 Tokina (DX) or 50-150 Sigma (DX).

      • dave

        And I’m supposed to switch primes when action moves to the other end of the rink/court/field? And switch back when action gets closer again? and don’t tell me to just crop. Cropping just accentuates any high-ISO noise, D700 or not.

    • +1.

      They already have a pretty good 70-210 f/4 design from about 1986 or so. (

      Might be a bit churlish me saying this but all they need to do is add VR and they’re off

      • If you can figure out how to just slap in VR to an existing design, you’re one up on the smartest optical engineers in the world.

        • fredflash

          Unfortunately, you are right – it is not THAT easy. But a lot of DX shooters would be glad to have such a lens in their bag. So a ROI would come fast – no problem to get the ok from the CEO to develop this lens …

  • come to me baby! oh yea!

  • inginerul

    When I swhiched to full frame I had to choose a tele prime between the 105 f/2 or the 85. I went for the 85 for it’s general purpose but I miss having a longer focal lens for portraits (used to have the 105 VR, great lens) and this rumor gives me hope of consistent focus on my D700 (odd nobody mentioned the 105 and 135’s focus errors on the new cameras) and nanocoating.
    I just hope they do not add VR, the 105 micro was such a heavy lens partly because of it, there is the 70-200 for those that want it, and that they keep the price to a reasonable value, there is no point in paying 70-200 money for a fixed focal with f/2.

  • If NIKON announce 85/1.8 AF-S and 135/2 AF-S in 2011, that would be great!

  • Arthur

    Hmmm, I like that close focusing distance! 🙂

    But I’d rather have f/1.4 than f/2.0 with VR.

    • vinman

      An open aperture equivalent to f1.4 on a 105mm lens would be impractical for nearly anything other than shooting images of paper. The dof would be so shallow that at head and shoulders portrait distance, you’d have to select whether to focus on the shortest eyelash or the corneal membrane – they wouldn’t both be in focus. f2 offers great dof compromise at 105mm. It’s even hard to nail focus at f2 with the 135, but when you do, it’s outstanding.

      • Arthur

        You have to stop down on close focus distances of course for portraits. But f/1.4 is extremely handy for my concert shoots, and 85mm is just too short.

        There was a 135mm f/1.5, so 105mm f/1.4 should be do-able I think.

        However, I doubt if the close focusing distance would still be possible as I don’t know much very fast and long lenses that can focus closely…

        • Roger

          There is a 135/1.5 and it’s really, really, really big. It’s an overkill.

  • Ricardson Williams

    Nikon AFS 85mm f/1.4 and 135mm f/2 is a great combo for portrait so I think Nikon will update 135mm f/2 but the price…….. this is a big problem not the AFS 85mm f/1.4 its much more expensive……

    • Ricardson Williams

      the AFS 85mm f/1.4 its much more expensive…… than D version……

      • inginerul

        I’ve tested them both and the price difference is justifiable in my opinion. That is to say that I would buy the AFs, if I could afford it.

  • broxibear

    Talking of patents, I came across this one which was published yesterday it’s describing a “A mirror retention structure to reduce rebounding of a sub mirror and to prevent shifting of the mirror-down position.”
    That’s all a bit dull…but look at Fig.1…D800 ?

    • Jacen Photo

      Looks like an interesting find! The only part of that patent that threw me off was when it says that a CCD sensor would be employed, but it goes on to say that it is may be CMOS as well. Nice to see it registed to Nikon as well, and correct me if I am wrong, but it appears to be full frame.

      • chuck

        To me the pentaprism housing looks more angular like a d70 as does the cliff like edge under the lens mount.
        I also thought that the pentaprism took up a majority of space in the housings of full frame cameras?

  • I just bought the older 135mm f/2 Defocusing Lens. AMAZING. It’s for studio work, do you really need anti-flare, VR? so sharp.

  • broxibear

    A couple of new dates posted on the Nikon site that might be of interest…
    First Quarter of the Year ending March 2012 Financial Results will be announced on August 10th 2011 at approximately 15:00 Japanese Time.
    The 147th Annual General Shareholders’ Meeting on June 29th 2011

  • lets wait and see what will be under the christmas tree

  • zobeleye

    there must be something wrong here.
    how can it be anounced as max magnification 1:3.4, when the near distance is 3.6ft(1,09m)
    and the old 105DC is listed with 2.9ft(0.9m) and has max magn. 1:7.7 ???
    can somebody explain?

  • Bullsnot

    If this turns out to be true then I’ll sure be happy that I just got the 135DC.

    I got the 135 because I already have the 85 1.8D, and a 105 is just too close to the 85 to justify having. The price looks borderline ridiculous, I’ll be floored if this lens costs that much especially if it has no VR!

    • vinman

      I’m with ya. 135 is a great focal length on an FX body along with an 85. 50 and 105 are great on DX. I think I’m done waiting on an updated 135 and I’ll start shopping for a good copy of one very soon. Even if they do update this lens, it’ll be very costly which will drive up the value of the current one. In fact, if an updated expensive 105DC is released, that will probably also drive up the cost…

  • Hope you’re enjoying yourself Admin 😀

    • Yes, I am – good timing because it’s very slow right now.

      • LGO

        For DX, some fast yet inexpensive prime in the 16-24mm range would be most welcome as would a new 16-55mm f/2.8 VR.

        I would not be surprised if Nikon releases some new lenses this July or August. Except for the 50mm f/1.8G which was outed by accident, Nikon has yet to release any new lenses this year.

        I noticed that Nikon has been very good in keeping its new products under wraps recently. But does it really serve Nikon’s interest to do so, specially with the new product launch dates so close?

        • Roger

          Theres no such things as accidents.

  • D700guy

    Finally! Something to look forward to!!!
    Of course, we’ll never see it actually materialize.
    But it’s a nice idea never the less.

  • Eric Pepin

    Very strange they wouldnt go for a 135. I personally wouldnt buy a 85 1.4 and a 135. If i had nothing Id just get the 85 or the 105, or the 85 and the 135 but that may not be an option. Nikon needs to release new long primes badly though, now that we have 24, 35, 50, 85 they need slow versions and they need 135 and maybe 180 or 105 and 150 would work as well.

  • This is long overdue in my opinion. Kind of sucks if the claim of no 135mm f/2 is true. With my lens gapping, I’d rather spring for the 135mm f/2 as the next optic up from my 85 1.4. 105 is a healthy jump, but 135 is a good mark between 85 and 200 f/2. Maybe that’s why Nikon MIGHT be considering letting it fall away. Canon’s 135mm is super sharp and at an incredible value! No IS though.

    Again, a 135mm f/2 VRII lens would be worth about $2200 for me. $2200 for a 105 seems a bit high, but all these new VRII N lenses have really proven stellar and will doubt see another upgrade for a decade or more.

    The long portraits – 105/135 – have long been my criticism for Nikon in the revamp department. I’m glad to see the 24, 35, 50 and 85s and of course we have the 200. The 105 and 135 have been the missing link in the prime speed category and I hope we will be able to get our hands on something here very soon.

    • Roger

      Just cause there’s no info on the 135, doesnt mean there wont be one. In fact, you can bet there will be.

      $2200 for a 135mm F2 is frankly $600 too much.

      • Anthony D’Atri

        The extent (and antiquated) 135 f/2 DC is already $1400 (down from $1600 or so). Neither Nikon nor Canon have shown any willingness to place new versions of lenses at existing price points, so I fear that a new and badly-overdue 135 f/2 without the DC crap would be priced no less than $1800. If the Canon rumors are true that a new 135L is on the way, the appearance of that, which would of course cost more than the existing and awesome version, would only support an even higher margin for Nikon.

  • John

    Since N won’t build an 85mm 1.4 w/ VR, this may be the only real alternative for concert photography. :-/

  • Cold Hands Luke

    I was hoping that when Nikon replaced the DC lenses they’d keep the DC feature, add AF-S, NOT add VR, and maybe widen the apertures. (In a 77mm front element there’s room (theoretically) for a 135mm f/1.8, or a 105mm f/1.4.)

    The DC lenses are, to me, all about the bokeh. DC aids bokeh, as does a wide aperture.

    VR makes horrible bokeh. Yes you can turn it off, but the lens still needs to be redesigned around the VR elements. And the lens is all about the bokeh, so what’s the point in it having VR?

    AF-S of course should not have any effect on bokeh. But I hoped they’d make it fast, as there are surely some nutters out there (e.g. me) who’d want to use these lenses for sports/action photography.

    • Cold Hands Luke

      Looking at this patent, it appears nearly identical to the current 105/2. I suspect it’s an update with AF-S, no VR, and sadly no DC, even though the “DC elements” are still there.

  • Cesar

    Oh yay, a AF-S 105mm f2!!! Oh wait it’s $2200… Ever seen a shattered dream?

  • photonut

    Where’s the 24 mm f2.8 update?

  • broxibear

    Kai over at Digitalrev has just posted this Nikon 50mm f/1.8G AF-S vs 50mm f/1.8D video

  • FM-2 fan

    for video the DC will be amzing! whatever the update is, it will be one of the lens, that should be considered a milestone in lens design. still fairly simple, thus very high image quality t be expected

  • NikonMikon

    Here’s a question for you guys, what are some other telephoto lenses (prime or otherwise) that focus extremely close like the 135mm f2 does. I am looking for lenses with the closest focusing specs. The 35mm f2 also does this and it is one of the best features of that lens and I use it all the time. Because it’s a portrait oriented lens, I heard that the 135mm f2 focuses closer than other lenses of similar length (200mm f2 i believe). Anyone have an easy way of looking at all of nikon’s lens lineup and sort by close focus spec?

    • NikonMikon

      Oh and obviously macro lenses would be at the top of the list but disregard those unless they double as decent portrait lenses.

    • D700guy

      The 105mm 2.8 Macro focuses extremely close, like within an inch or so. The specs say 1 foot, but I know I’ve been up close to insects, flowers etc and focused on them for those macro shoots.

      • NikonMikon

        NICE! Does this lens perform well for portraits? I did some looking into making lenses focus closer and realized extension tubes do this. Care to elaborate a little on them if you can? I really love getting in peoples faces and focusing. Are there any really wide angle lenses that focus really close? like 18mm?

    • broxibear
      • NikonMikon

        hey thanks for the response but the link didnt work 🙁 what was it?

      • NikonMikon

        This link did not work either 🙁

        • broxibear

          Oops, don’t know what happened to that link ?
          Here’s another with the same information, it’s a Nikon lens chart where you can compare the closest focus distances, as well as other details…

          • NikonMikon

            Why thank you good sir. Forgive me for being a photography noob but… I’ve noticed the wider lenses focus closer correct? Obviously the physical construction of the lens will affect how close you can physically get because the measurement is to the sensor but, I was wondering… is it possible to have a very wide angle shot with a very shallow depth of field? (i’ve noticed close focusing does this with my other lenses)

            • D700guy

              The trouble with using wide angle lenses for portraits (anything wider than 50mm on a full frame) is that you get the distorted head look. Usually not very flattering.
              The 105mm 2.8 is a superb portrait lens. One of the best in my opinion. Especially when the image has some depth and you can take advantage of the bokeh. Additionally, a photographer can get a lot closer to their subject with a macro lens the they would be able to with other primes. My 85mm has a much further minimum focus distance than the 105mm does so taking those emotion capturing close up shots isnt even possible. But the macro enables you to have that freedom.

            • NikonMikon

              Ah thank you for that information man. It has shed a little light for me. I also have never even considered the 105mm 2.8 until you mentioned it. I wasn’t even aware of its existence! I may seek one out now.

  • Peter A.

    sick, canon has a 105mm f/2 USM lens that costs a bit more then the 85mm f/1.8… and performes extremly well… 2000$ is just mad.

  • Back to top