Over to you Canon! (Nikons new 105mm f/1.4)

So it seems Nikon now has the king of short telephoto, light gathering monsters in its arsenal with this new lens:

https://www.dpreview.c​om …105mm-f1-4e-ed-prime-lens

The Canon 85mm f/1.2L has always been the envy of Nikon (and other make shooters) for many years, but this will have Canon shooters looking on lustfully I suspect! Will Canon surprise us at Photokina?

And Nikon is quite proud of that two pounds of glass, with a price tag of $2,199.95.
Hate to see lens prices continuing to rise. Surely that won't mean Canon's next new lens will top that (and I know, don't call you Shirley).

f8andBeThere wrote in post #18079123
And Nikon is quite proud of that two pounds of glass, with a price tag of $2,199.95.
Hate to see lens prices continuing to rise. Surely that won't mean Canon's next new lens will top that (and I know, don't call you Shirley).

The RRP of brand new equipment is always high at launch, give it 6 months to a year and the price will drop.

Nikon 105 > canon 85

cant believe this would ever happen.... I would LOVE a 105 f1.4, I've had the old 105 2.5 AIS, a gem, optically so impressive, but only f2.5. Canon 85ii weighs a bit more than this lens.

the price is high, but not a staggering amount higher than a really old design 85Lii

Size doesn't matter. Let's see the results.
The Nikon 85/1.4 is already quite good, so this one needs to use quite amazing glass/design to avoid cannibalizing the "smaller" brother.
Also, I would rather have a 50/1 than a 105/1.4. Nikon is 27 years late on this, and counting

Wish they would make a AF 50mm 1.2/AF 85mm 1.2 instead.

Interesting choice of focal length, I'll be curious to see how popular it ends up.

Canon's "affordable" USM Prime line up has included two of the "best bang for your buck" lenses for decades, the 85mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2.

Obviously at slower aperture than 1.4, but if we compare the two Canons, the 100mm has the same lightning fast and confident AF, similar price, size and weight, and with it's better tamed CA, has better IQ, and gives up so little aperture to the 85mm 1.8 that it's hardly worth mentioning...

..and yet the 85mm has ALWAYS won the popularity contest between the two by orders of magnitude (in sales) which would suggest that when all else is equal, or even when the 100mm is a little better, the 85mm is the one people want.

So will 105mm be able to compete with the 85mm lenses in popularity?

Also, another thing occurs to me, why is a 105mm f/1.4 so heavy and costly when optical light gathering physics would put it almost the same math as a 200mm f/2.8? Wouldn't it? Canon's is only about $850.00 last I looked.

Well, the 85mm 1.8 is $130 cheaper than its 100mm sibling, it seems more similar to the expensive f/1.2, it's that "classic" portrait length (though not at all on a crop) and it competes less with the popular 100mm macro lenses.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18079430
Interesting choice of focal length, I'll be curious to see how popular it ends up.

Canon's "affordable" USM Prime line up has included two of the "best bang for your buck" lenses for decades, the 85mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2.

Obviously at slower aperture than 1.4, but if we compare the two Canons, the 100mm has the same lightning fast and confident AF, similar price, size and weight, and with it's better tamed CA, has better IQ, and gives up so little aperture to the 85mm 1.8 that it's hardly worth mentioning...

..and yet the 85mm has ALWAYS won the popularity contest between the two by orders of magnitude (in sales) which would suggest that when all else is equal, or even when the 100mm is a little better, the 85mm is the one people want.

So will 105mm be able to compete with the 85mm lenses in popularity?

Also, another thing occurs to me, why is a 105mm f/1.4 so heavy and costly when optical light gathering physics would put it almost the same math as a 200mm f/2.8? Wouldn't it? Canon's is only about $850.00 last I looked.

Hosted photo: posted by CyberDyneSystems in
./showthread.php?p=180​79430&i=i149428850
forum: Nikon Lenses

NOT TO SCALE

Hosted photo: posted by CyberDyneSystems in
./showthread.php?p=180​79430&i=i177478836
forum: Nikon Lenses

probably has to do with a lot of crop users finding the 85 easier to use than the 100..... however, I dont really care for such popularity contests, I just want a 105 1.4, would be amazing. I do have a soft spot for the nikon 105, just so good, and the EF 100 also very good.

i'd expect sigma to come out with something before canon...

would the 85 f1.2 still give you more blur than the 105mm f1.4?
http://howmuchblur.com ….2-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject

DreDaze wrote in post #18079517
i'd expect sigma to come out with something before canon...

would the 85 f1.2 still give you more blur than the 105mm f1.4?
http://howmuchblur.com ….2-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject

That was the first thing I looked up when I saw this. For real world uses, it seems the 85L vs 105 is largely academic at best when it comes to blur, the main difference in choice between the two lenses would be focal length's perspective. For a sense of scale, here's the two compared to the 85 1.8.

http://howmuchblur.com ….8-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject

DreDaze wrote in post #18079517
i'd expect sigma to come out with something before canon...

would the 85 f1.2 still give you more blur than the 105mm f1.4?
http://howmuchblur.com ….2-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject

Actually, this is the "right" graph:

http://howmuchblur.com …26-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject

The 85L is actually a f/1.26 lens (1/3 stop faster than f/1.4).

In any case, lens design may also alter the shape of the curve, so take these synthetic graphs with a grain of salt. The only way to compare the lenses is shooting actual photos.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18079430
Also, another thing occurs to me, why is a 105mm f/1.4 so heavy and costly when optical light gathering physics would put it almost the same math as a 200mm f/2.8? Wouldn't it? Canon's is only about $850.00 last I looked.

That is because the lens design for that performance requires a higher number of elements.
Light gathering ability is not the most important factor driving lens weight and complexity. It is performance. Think about the Canon 17/4 weighing 820g (to be fair that is a retrofocus design, but you get the idea).
And don't forget the materials. I am sure a full-metal Zeiss equivalent would weigh even more.

CheshireCat wrote in post #18079893
Actually, this is the "right" graph:

http://howmuchblur.com …26-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject

The 85L is actually a f/1.26 lens (1/3 stop faster than f/1.4).

In any case, lens design may also alter the shape of the curve, so take these synthetic graphs with a grain of salt. The only way to compare the lenses is shooting actual photos.

The Nikon would be a 1.41, not a 1.4 assuming both are exactly equal to the stops they are rounded to. The difference is completely insignificant however in any real world application.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #18079430
Interesting choice of focal length, I'll be curious to see how popular it ends up.

Canon's "affordable" USM Prime line up has included two of the "best bang for your buck" lenses for decades, the 85mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2.

Obviously at slower aperture than 1.4, but if we compare the two Canons, the 100mm has the same lightning fast and confident AF, similar price, size and weight, and with it's better tamed CA, has better IQ, and gives up so little aperture to the 85mm 1.8 that it's hardly worth mentioning...

..and yet the 85mm has ALWAYS won the popularity contest between the two by orders of magnitude (in sales) which would suggest that when all else is equal, or even when the 100mm is a little better, the 85mm is the one people want.

So will 105mm be able to compete with the 85mm lenses in popularity?

Also, another thing occurs to me, why is a 105mm f/1.4 so heavy and costly when optical light gathering physics would put it almost the same math as a 200mm f/2.8? Wouldn't it? Canon's is only about $850.00 last I looked.

Hosted photo: posted by CyberDyneSystems in
./showthread.php?p=180​79430&i=i149428850
forum: Nikon Lenses

NOT TO SCALE

Hosted photo: posted by CyberDyneSystems in
./showthread.php?p=180​79430&i=i177478836
forum: Nikon Lenses

I'm a Canon man myself but you gotta admit that 105 1.4 is sexy.