# Nikon to Announce AF-S Nikkor 105mm f/1.4E ED



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jul 25, 2016)

```
It looks like Nikon is going to announce the Nikon AF-S Nikkor 105mm f/1.4E ED shortly. The lens is slated to start shipping on August 26, 2016.</p>
<p> </p>
<span id="pty_trigger"></span>
```


----------



## AE-1Burnham (Jul 25, 2016)

Wow Nikon. Interesting move and a lens I would love to own! ( Perhaps replace the 135/2L as sometimes she feels little long,-but only sometimes! 8) )
Interesting to see a "new lens" in terms of focal length and apeture -- Here I come google machine!


----------



## TeT (Jul 25, 2016)

$2000.00 +or-


----------



## RGF (Jul 25, 2016)

Nice if someone would produce a 16 or wide lens that 2.0 or faster with great IQ


----------



## ahsanford (Jul 25, 2016)

*Yowza - Nikon 105mm f/1.4 lens on the way*

How's _that_ for a moonshot?

http://petapixel.com/2016/07/25/nikon-105mm-f1-4-lens-leaked-will-arrive-august-2016/

- A


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 25, 2016)

Although an interesting lens regarding the optics I suppose it will be as big and heavy as the 85/1.2L, at least.
It'll be interesting how fast so much glass can be focused. 

I prefer smaller and lighter lenses with faster AF at this (85 - 105mm) FL. 
And if IQ and AF speed are good at f1.8 or 2.0 that's enough for me


----------



## padam (Jul 25, 2016)

Probably internal focusing, like on the Canon 135/2 and Zeiss 135/1.8 (although the latter is still screw-driven).

The new Canon 85 1.2 BR will probably have it as well.


----------



## aceflibble (Jul 25, 2016)

*Re: Yowza - Nikon 105mm f/1.4 lens on the way*

Assuming it meets optical & AF standards, it'll be a big deal. 100/105mm is the most classic headshot length, being used heavily before the now-standard 85mm and 135mm lenses took over towards the end of the 80s. It's always been my preferred length for 35mm, or it's equivalent for >6x6 medium format and large format.

These are the kinds of new lenses which used to really revolutionise the market and cause big swings in market share. (The last real big one being the Canon 80-200 taking a lot of business away from Nikon.) It'll be interesting to see what effect this len's release has, now we're in a world where people focus on pixel count and noise more than lens choice.


----------



## AE-1Burnham (Jul 26, 2016)

Question: Is this really Nikon just trying to have a competitor to the 85/1.2? (but due to flange distance, mount design they can't design 1.2 lenses so they go for a similar "bokeh monster" equivalent)?
NOTE: Depth of field calculator places them in similar range when shot at 10 ft: 85/1.2 at 0.29 ft and 105/1.4 at 0.23 ft.


----------



## zrz2005101 (Jul 26, 2016)

This could make it an interesting lens. I would love to compare it with the 85L when it is available.

From the online dof calculator it seems at 4 meters away the [email protected] would have a dof of +/-0.08 whereas the [email protected] would have +/-0.06

at 5 meters away [email protected] would have +/-0.12 and the [email protected] would have +0.09 and -0.10.

Comparatively the [email protected] would have +/-0.08 and +0.15 and -0.16 at 5 and 7 meters away respectively.

the [email protected] would have +/-0.04 and +0.14 -0.15 at 5 and 10 meters away respectively.

Theoretically this 1051.4 would give the shallowest dof and best bokeh (assuming Nikon also focuses on this attribute) for a half body portrait.


----------



## NancyP (Jul 26, 2016)

I really like this focal length. I still use the old manual Nikkor AI-S 105 f/2.5 on adapter. Pleasing lens, for the manual focus (nostalgia) crowd. I bet the new 105 f/1.4 is their answer to the 85 f/1.2L


----------



## Maximilian (Jul 26, 2016)

zrz2005101 said:


> ...
> Theoretically this 1051.4 would give the shallowest dof and best bokeh (assuming Nikon also focuses on this attribute) for a half body portrait.


Sorry zrz2005101! 

But you cannot just go on DOF values. All the lenses you mentioned have different FLs and therefore a different angle of view. Even the 20 mm between 85 and 105 are quite a lot here. 
And this would mean different working distances to subject for the same portrait height (for example) and therefore much more difference in in DOF because of the working distance. 
And this would lead to different distances to the BG and give impact on the bokeh. 

Maybe you still can compare the 85 and 105 mm, but 135 and especially 200 mm work totally different.


----------



## zrz2005101 (Jul 26, 2016)

Maximilian said:


> zrz2005101 said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Of course those 4 different focal length would cause different results. Compression alone would make them different. I have listed the dof for the approximate portrait heights if you didn't find them.

What I got here is just a simple dof comparison as you can see assuming all else besides distance to subject and focal length are equal. 200mm is approximately 2x 105mm therefore I compared [email protected]@5m to [email protected]@10m


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 26, 2016)

AE-1Burnham said:


> Question: Is this really Nikon just trying to have a competitor to the 85/1.2? (but due to flange distance, mount design they can't design 1.2 lenses so they go for a similar "bokeh monster" equivalent)?
> NOTE: Depth of field calculator places them in similar range when shot at 10 ft: 85/1.2 at 0.29 ft and 105/1.4 at 0.23 ft.



The Nikon F mount is perfectly capable of f1.2 lenses. Nikon make a 50mm f1.2, and have done for years.

http://www.adorama.com/nk5012u.html?gclid=CN387-W-kc4CFRIdgQod6GwHgg


----------



## AE-1Burnham (Jul 26, 2016)

Ah. Thank you PBD! Of course that lens exists... Is it possible that they can't make their updated electronic AF (non-screw drive) / contemporary mount and manage F1.2? I recall this "fact" from somewhere: physical limitations to Nikon's designers (maybe this was a myth..?).


----------



## TeT (Jul 27, 2016)

dilbert said:


> AE-1Burnham said:
> 
> 
> > Question: Is this really Nikon just trying to have a competitor to the 85/1.2? (but due to flange distance, mount design they can't design 1.2 lenses so they go for a similar "bokeh monster" equivalent)?
> ...



Lets go a step farther... It is Nikon offering something that Sigma and Tamron don't. Those 2 perform better on Nikon then they do on Canon and I would bet Nikon is really feeling a pinch on lens sales because of it...


----------



## psolberg (Jul 28, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> AE-1Burnham said:
> 
> 
> > Question: Is this really Nikon just trying to have a competitor to the 85/1.2? (but due to flange distance, mount design they can't design 1.2 lenses so they go for a similar "bokeh monster" equivalent)?
> ...



Correct, they can, and nikonrumors has shown patents of a new design for an 50 1.2, although never seems to have gone into production as of yet. If made, the electrical contacts would just be extruded into the rear element like canon does given the E lens series nikon launched a decade ago removed the aperture arm actuator that could have constrained them. But focusing on just DOF equations is missing the point.

The real reason that lens never made it out of the lab is likely market research. These days, nobody gets hung up on the 2/3s of a stop because ISOs can go so high, and at f/1.2 the level of CA, fall-off, and reduced sharpness wide open for full frame lenses are no longer acceptable trade offs for such minor gains in speed. That is why Zeiss' uber expensive Otus series, currently the world's standard in 35mm format optics for digital, stop at f/1.4. Simple law of diminishing returns, and the cost of making a lens that can really perform at f/1.2 in today's sensors in line with modern optics and expectations, just do not deliver enough material benefits to the end-user to justify the added cost. As such, Nikon, like Zeiss, focuses on giving you a $2K f/1.4 lens rather than a more compromised $2K lens that had to make the f/1.2 mark by a hair. Zeiss does the same, abeit at even higher standards and cost, yet same balance of priorities.

But I think focusing on the 85mm lens too much is a mistake. Given they already have covered 24, 35, 50, 58, 85 all in 1.4 format so what was left to do? Clearly another take on the 85mm lens wouldn't have excited anybody but the most diehard nikonian. This was the right call I think. They wanted something nobody else has and they did just that.

105mm is noticeably different from 85mm FOV-wise, and the distance compression (telephoto distortion) will produce a very distinct result from this lens on backgrounds and foregrounds. But more interesting than the aperture value, is the fact that they market the sagittal comma flare reduction. That is also what they mentioned with their 58mm 1.4 lens, also another one of nikon's unique takes, which sacrifices some sharpness to achieve incredibly beautiful bokeh and reduce sagittal comma. So I suspect this lens will be more than just a show of optical skill aimed at merely providing 1 stop faster than the competition's 105mm lenses. The goal is clearly a portrait lens of legend. We'll see how it does a this once skilled users get it vs the poor marketing samples they posted.

It also sets a tall order for their 135mm revamp which I wouldn't be surprised see crown their already broad f1.8 nikkor prime lineup. Although it then brings the question of them merely following sony here which has sported a 135 f/1.8 for quite some time now. I'm very interested to see how they will differentiate here.


----------



## privatebydesign (Jul 28, 2016)

Anybody worried about sharpness is entirely missing the point of Canon's two f1.2 lenses.


----------

