New Nikon 105 f1.4E....Thoughts (besides Freaking Awesome!)?

Dj R wrote in post #18112734
look out 200 f2!

now, 200 f2 vs 105 f1.4
they are completely different tools
similar to RPG vs M16.

one can do a little more damage than the other, but both are dangerous.

one is a little easier to manage on a daily basis.

therefore, the 105e may become the new "go-to" special weapon for the mobile guys. guys who shoot weddings and engagement sessions, people who shoot their families, or do portrait sessions with kids (who don't want to be so far away).

I think of it as the 85L
while the 85 1.4g is amazing, it doesn't have that "it" factor.
the 105e does, it's just special.

main take away regarding the 105e is that it has the swirl and bokeh of the 58mm 1.4g, but the 105e is sharper wide open.

I don't deny that the 105 f1.4 is a better choice for day to day shooting vs the 200 f2 but to compare it to the 200 f2 by saying the 200 does "a little more damage" is a bit of a stretch. The comparison between these two lens has been made on several other sites with what I believe to be the best one over on the FredMiranda forums. The individual who has a 105 f1.4 actually likens it more to the 85 f1.8G rather than the 200 f2. They posted photos taken between the 105 and 85 wide open and while there is a slight difference of course in bokeh and compression the sharpness of the 85 f1.8 even at f1.8 definitely held up quite well when comparing the like images making it a negligible factor when considering either lens. The contrast of the 105, especially at f1.4 was more noticeable so that was a plus factor for anyone considering a 105 f1.4.

However, the 200 f2 is better than either of those lens when you consider the overall quality of the bokeh, contrast and sharpness of the lens. A huge weakness of the 200 f2 if one was shooting handheld all day would be the weight, I've done so and it is telling on the arms/neck/shoulders. Of course if you own a 200 f2 then you know this before making the decision to own one.

Please don't take what I've said the wrong way, I would love to own the 105 f1.4 and do plan on purchasing one when I can find one for around $1500. It may be a few years from now after the lens has been out for awhile and either a used or refurbished copy but I do plan on owning one at some point. I love primes and the 105 f1.4 has changed my plans for my next high dollar lens purchase.

Thorrulz wrote in post #18163337
I don't deny that the 105 f1.4 is a better choice for day to day shooting vs the 200 f2 but to compare it to the 200 f2 by saying the 200 does "a little more damage" is a bit of a stretch. The comparison between these two lens has been made on several other sites with what I believe to be the best one over on the FredMiranda forums. The individual who has a 105 f1.4 actually likens it more to the 85 f1.8G rather than the 200 f2. They posted photos taken between the 105 and 85 wide open and while there is a slight difference of course in bokeh and compression the sharpness of the 85 f1.8 even at f1.8 definitely held up quite well when comparing the like images making it a negligible factor when considering either lens. The contrast of the 105, especially at f1.4 was more noticeable so that was a plus factor for anyone considering a 105 f1.4.

However, the 200 f2 is better than either of those lens when you consider the overall quality of the bokeh, contrast and sharpness of the lens. A huge weakness of the 200 f2 if one was shooting handheld all day would be the weight, I've done so and it is telling on the arms/neck/shoulders. Of course if you own a 200 f2 then you know this before making the decision to own one.

Please don't take what I've said the wrong way, I would love to own the 105 f1.4 and do plan on purchasing one when I can find one for around $1500. It may be a few years from now after the lens has been out for awhile and either a used or refurbished copy but I do plan on owning one at some point. I love primes and the 105 f1.4 has changed my plans for my next high dollar lens purchase.

I think you mean 85 1.4g

I think he means the 1.8. It's very sharp; sharper than the 1.4. Many celebrity pros/bloggers have sold the 1.4 in favor of the 1.8 due to the sharpness, quicker AF (typically slower in a 1.4) and, obviously, cost savings. It does 90% of what the 1.4 does (some people do complain that it looks too busy) and though it has higher CA and lower micro contrast, these things are easily fixed in post.

Dj R wrote in post #18163418
I think you mean 85 1.4g

spooky action wrote in post #18163656
I think he means the 1.8. It's very sharp; sharper than the 1.4. Many celebrity pros/bloggers have sold the 1.4 in favor of the 1.8 due to the sharpness, quicker AF (typically slower in a 1.4) and, obviously, cost savings. It does 90% of what the 1.4 does (some people do complain that it looks too busy) and though it has higher CA and lower micro contrast, these things are easily fixed in post.

It is the 85 f1.8G and not the f1.4 that was used in the comparison. High praise indeed for a $400 - $500 lens.

Thorrulz wrote in post #18163837
It is the 85 f1.8G and not the f1.4 that was used in the comparison. High praise indeed for a $400 - $500 lens.

that's nuts.

the 105e is as sharp and creamy as the 85L
it's a really special lens for sure

spooky action wrote in post #18163656
I think he means the 1.8. It's very sharp; sharper than the 1.4. Many celebrity pros/bloggers have sold the 1.4 in favor of the 1.8 due to the sharpness, quicker AF (typically slower in a 1.4) and, obviously, cost savings. It does 90% of what the 1.4 does (some people do complain that it looks too busy) and though it has higher CA and lower micro contrast, these things are easily fixed in post.

Really? That convinces me that I won't bother with a used 1.4G. I'll just get the Art after release. The 1.8G I got a week or so ago was less than inspiring last Thursday. It needed f/2.8 to deliver good sharpness and in a situation where I would have really liked 1.4 or 2.0 to reduce noise it was an unnecessary handicap.

Must have been a bad copy. The 1.8 is nothing if not sharp, including wide open. It's a great match for my D810's 36mp.

not everyone needs to own one of these,
it's quite pricey.

the individual who has a 105 f1.4 who likens it more to the 85 f1.8G rather than the 200 f2... he/she is crazy.
FOCAL length wise, sure....
but there is an 85 1.4G with creamy bokeh.
the 85 1.8G, not so much.

the 105E's creamy bokeh is closer to the quality of the 200, and 58 than any other Nikon lenses. No other Nikon lens can come anywhere close to the 105E.

Sharpness wise it's the sharpest pro prime, IMO, that Nikon makes.

sign this girl up for modeling
she. is. ten.

metadata won't be accurate until someone here adds this 105 e 1.4

How does this compare to the Canon 135L? I haven't seen anyone comparing these two and it's the one lens that I really miss from my Canon days.

This is the next lens I am saving up for, waiting for Nikon rebate at Blackfriday.

I only dove back into Nikon recently and the 105 was one of the lenses I purchased. I wanted something I never had before. However, with work and other of lives variables, I've done little if any shooting lately and think I should sell this lens. Then I do get to take it out and wind up with a shot like this, heavily cropped on the D850. This is not at all a mean dog. LOL. He's merely running full speed up a hill and his mouth is open to breathe. AV mode, 1/2500 @ f/ 2.8, ISO 500 (auto ISO).

IMAGE LINK: http://markrichman.zen​folio.com/img/s/v-3/p2778649125-5.jpg

Mine's on the way. Yay.

Subscribed.


Update: Had to cancel the order for financial reasons. May get it soon, though.

Congrats!