New Nikon AF-S Nikkor 105mm f/1.4E ED lens to be announced this week

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 105mm f:1.4E ED lens
This week Nikon will announce a new AF-S Nikkor 105mm f/1.4E ED full frame N lens (with gold ring, without VR). The price is Japan including tax is expected to be ¥233,280 or around $2,100 (US prices are usually lower). The lens will start shipping on August 26th.

Update - here is a quick comparison with the Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 lens (thanks Broxibear):

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 105mm f:1.4E ED compared to 85mm f:1.4 lens

Via Digicame-info

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

    OMG, OMG, OMG! I must have it!

  • Firebrand

    We have a Nikon/Sigma 105/2.8 VR/OS and a Nikon/Sigma 85/1.4.

    What we WANTED was a Nikon 135/1.8 VR (toggle on-off as you desire, you no-shake purists), with Nikon supreme bokeh secret sauce. Where is the 135/1.8 VR, Nikon?? The 105 feels a bit short on Full Frame and doesn’t flatten the subject quite as much. Is this just an 85/1.4 killer — a way to quietly REPLACE the 85/1.4 without admitting it, publicly?

    We LOVE 135mm!

    Where is the 135/1.8 VR..? Show us da’ love, Nikon! The 70-200/4 VR is sweet for daylight and events, but we have other needs. The 135/2 DC is fun, but its aged (Chrom Abber) and not stable handheld at high-resolution. A large majority of us want to get our cameras off the tripod these days. That’s a fact (times be a changing).

    This 105/1.4 looks nice — but as an 85/1.4 REPLACEMENT.

    Anyone buying this lens, just makes it much, much harder for them to buy an 85mm a 105mmVR or a 135 DC. Except, a lot of us already have one or more of those lenses. So we don’t need a 105mm/1.4. If this was “one for the D500” — its really a very poor priority, because what DX needs are f/1.4 WIDE primes. Just like you killed the Nikon 1 system, because of crappy lenses, when you should have been churning out f/1.2 lenses from wide to tele and made a GREAT NAME. This looks like a good lens, but 135/1.8 VR would have had a much more natural place in the line up without killing the 85/1.4 or 105 VR.

    So we could really still use a 135/1.8 VR (take my money), Nikon.

    So where is it? 🙂

    • Firebrand

      Maybe Nikon will come out with a 135/1.8 VR as a sort of pairing to this one, the way it had the 105 DC & 135 DC at the same time? I really, really, really wish! And the VR is crucial at this length for handheld (become modern, Nikon, or be left behind).

      Right after that, a 180/2.8 VR Macro. Finally replacing the 180/2.8 and 200/4 Macro. You’ve got sales to make, Nikon. Do it! 🙂

      • Morris

        whats 105 1.4 with 1.4 TC ? (calculation)

    • TheInconvenientRuth

      Hush. I want 105/1.4.

      • Firebrand

        Just stirring the pot to see if a 135/1.8 VR can pop up out of it. I have no doubt a lot of people will buy the 105/1.4.

        But I still see it as a 85/1.4 replacement — not a 135/1.8 VR replacement. I didn’t really mean it shouldn’t exist. Just that its a peculiar priority, given the 85/1.4 and 105/2.8 VR exist. Not the same… but still can’t blame me for wanting a 135/1.8 VR. 🙂

        • TheInconvenientRuth

          I actually expect that a few months after this is out, there’ll be a 105/1.8VR or 135/1.8VR. Though a 135/1.8VR may be a tad too expensive to round out the set of 1.8 primes Nikon is giving us.

          • Firebrand

            A 135/1.8 VR would be the PRO lens. Its almost impossible to make a 135/2 that is perfect and still compact. A 135/1.8 pushes current technology.

            I do not believe at all that Nikon will make a 105/1.8. I believe they will make a 105/2.8 VR Macro upgrade/update. Even a 105/2 is unbelievable. The 105/1.4 replaces the 105/2 DC entirely. And Nikon is so cost conscious (due to their high margins), that unless their competitors are doing f/2, they will stick to f/2.8.

            I will be interested to see if the 105/1.4 is a “BOKEH” loving dream or if its meant to be super-sharp “ART” lens like. My guess is bokeh — because the Macro f/2.8 version should be super-sharp. And I’m guessing that will be upgraded.

            If this is a bokeh cream machine, it should be very desirable.

  • Captain Megaton

    It’s gentrification of the lens catalog, that’s what it is. If you aren’t willing to put $5k or more towards your kit bag, the message from Nikon these days is “go buy old Ai/AFD lenses on eBay, ya’ cheapskate bum!”

    • Firebrand

      If the new 105mm N f/1.4 E is significantly better than the 84/1.4 N, you’re likely to be seeing a lot of people selling their 105/VR Macro + 85/1.4 Ns for the 105mm N f/1.4 E. Which means you can get an 85/1.4 N cheaper, used.

      But, frankly, the 105/2.8 VR is an excellent portrait lens, and so is the new 85/1.8. And neither of those are very expensive, relative to other lenses. You should consider them, if you’re looking to expand your bag.

    • TheInconvenientRuth

      Wow, go blame Nikon for all your troubles, eh? The 85/1.8G is very good and dirt cheap. As are the other 1.8 primes. Now calm down and have a cookie, kid. Here you go. ( ^ x ^ )_@

      • Captain Megaton

        You have very different definition of “dirt cheap” than I do, which goes a fair ways to prove my point. Now get out of here with your condescension and your fancy cookies, you 1%er!

        • TheInconvenientRuth

          Hmm.. The 85/1.* sells for around US$480, the 85/1.4 for around $1600 and this new 105/1.4 is rumored to hit the shops at around $1900… So the 1.8G is very good value for money. I’m a photo journalist, not exactly the highest paid photography job in the world and if I can make a decent profit using 2.8 zooms and 1.4 primes, then you must be doing something very wrong if you can’t afford a 1.8..

  • REALLY! I Would LOVE a 105G next to my 58G!

  • Robert Isha

    Is this a macro one ?

    • no, a portrait lens

      • Morris

        and the 200 4 discontinued , fishy fishy

  • M. Sauvage

    And yet Nikon still doesn’t have a 135mm F/1.8 or F/2.0
    It’s a focal length that I preferred for its bonus reach in concert photography and that you can use as a 200mm with the D500.

    • BVS

      What about the 135 f/2 D?

  • bushkov

    Nikon would better announce an update for 105 macro.

    • Chaitanya

      I know a lot Nikon users who are perfectly happy that 105mm VR Macro lens. Many of the butterfliers are asking for update to 200mm Macro lens, similar to Canon who is yet to release update to their 180mm Macro.

      • bushkov

        I successfully use my 105 macro too. The most irritating thing there is its loud VR noise. I also wish an additional sharpness of the lens that would correspond to the higher resolution of latest matrices.

  • TheInconvenientRuth

    I cannot express my joy without using words what will get me banned form Disqus for obscenity. I was waiting for a 1.8 for indoor sports but we get a 1.4 OMGWTFXMAS=EARLY! Also, bear in mind that following the 1.4, there could be a cheaper, (possibly sharper?) 1.8 version in the works, as was the case with the 85mm, 35mm and 24mm

  • T.I.M

    Thanks.
    I had that kind of belt years ago (I was selling them on Ebay).
    I now use a wagon, too many lenses for a belt.

    • HF

      We have the wagon close by, too, and choose the lenses separately for each location. Works 99% of the time.

  • NicP

    Thats a reason for a switch over to Nikon.

  • Henning

    I am happy with my 100 Zeiss ZF (without chip, manual focus). So I do not need to buy this. Lucky me!

    • NicP

      Zeiss are great lenses with precise manual focusing but that precision comes with a cost, the cost of very slow manual focusing for walking subjects or switch from a near subject to a far quickly, that slow focus ring turning makes Ai-S much more pleasant to work. For example focus on the bride near and then quickly focus on the groom further away. Zeiss need to turn once change the position of your hand on the ring turn an other round and turn again…. Great lenses though not for the work I do.

      • Michiel953

        You focus close enough to accurate, then finish off by moving yourself and camera. Works a lot better at shallow dof then to keep turning that focus ring.

  • TheInconvenientRuth

    Just a thought; What if Nikon is releasing this now because they feel that the new AF system in the D5, D500 (and probably in the D810 and Df succesors) is finally actually good enough to reliably nail focus wide open with this?

  • vriesk

    Thanks! That’s exactly the bullshit I was talking about.

    The guy in the first article argues for 3D pop in photos with completely different, much sharper lighting conditions. When, in another article, he actually compares a subject in identical lighting, the difference is miniscule if any, which may very well be accounted for by the slight difference in focus. There’s no such thing as a “lens design triangle” as is shown, he made it completely from the top of his head. This guy is the best example of a “directional cable” audiophile of photography that I know of. Look here, he compares a crap zoom lacking microcontrast and resolution with a good classical prime and argues a serious point out of it: http://yannickkhong.com/blog/2015/11/12/depth-vs-flat-lens-quick-comparison

    Now, I wonder if the second article is even more ridiculous. The author makes an argument of a model looking more skinny, while the skinny look is all due to her holding her arms behind her back for the “skinny rendering” 21mm Cooke lens, as opposed to Leica. Leica might have some barrel distiortion or Cooke might have some pincusion distortion that could also account for it and there seem to be some actual field of view differences between those two, but those are optical qualities of a lens quite orthogonal to the presence of ED/asphericall glass. Also, neither Leica nor Cooke bother to disclose the presence/absence of such glass in their respective lenses, so this whole article is not relevant here at all, unless you can find those lens design specs (I couldn’t).

    Your studies won’t help you a bit if you miss a clue.

  • Back to top