I've been playing with the Nikon 105mm 1.4E along with a Sigma ART 135 and while I used to love the 135 FL I'm finding that it is a bit too far for most of what I do these days (outdoor portraits), the 105 is definitely a more friendly distance in that regard and the images I am getting from it are stunning, but at times I'm finding even the 105 is a bit too long, of course I have my trusty 85 which is my workhorse, but I just ordered the 58mm f/1.4G, my fear is that I'll want both the 58 and the 105! Here's a few snapshots I took of an old Cadillac at the Broadmoor recently. All shots were wide open at 1.4
^ I don't own this lens, never used it. Am I wrong to be surprised to see the CA around the grooms hair and around the lights on photo above? I expect that to be well controlled with this lens.
Axial Chromatic Aberration (ACA) is becoming a trademark for Nikon lenses, and only now that they are taking it seriously in their latest S-series lenses as seen in their advertisements.
Normally, ACA can be seen when shooting dark subjects against a bright background as in this case. My 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6G ED VR shooting at 400mm wide open shows even worst results than this, and Nikon here says is normal because their reference set also have this problem. Huh! I really wonder if they are telling the truth? Than what is ED elements and Nano coatings for?
My 105mm f/1.4E also show similar results, but just not as bad as in this picture. So, yes the 105mm f/1.4E does have this problem that so far no reviewers has ever mentioned about.
Actually, there are many pictures in this thread that has this problem, including the third picture on the first page that I think Nikon used in their lens brochures (Code No NSG-EA-SGP-NIKKOR-BOOK (1612/C)K page 46 here. Just look at the light spots behind the model. It is definitely there! And than look at the second last picture in the above post, the green evils around signs at the back.
For a user with the above list of lenses, it is really hard to believe that one will not be bother by loca or sharpening halo.
Why bother to get all the above lenses if image quality is not of concern?
Or is it because you do not own this lens or not doing pay shoots for your clients.
If you are not interested, I also wonder how come you are so familiar with the actual term "loca" used for axial or longitudinal chromatic aberration, which I intentionally not use due to the close resemblance to LCA or lateral chromatic aberration.
They each meant two different types of chromatic aberration differ by 90 degrees apart. One is radial while the other is tangential. LCA is easily correctable by software while LoCA (ACA) is not.
The next thing is you are also the one who first brought out that it might be caused by over sharpening to throw off this topic of chromatic aberration.
Sharpening will not create greenish (cyan) or reddish (magenta) halos, but more often is white or black between the borders of two colors.
You used the term "To be honest". How honest and why? 🙄🤔
Please give me imperfect lenses with aberrations Just about all fast lenses both old and new have quirks and it is what often makes them unique and lends to their personality. My favorite lenses have been the M 50 Nocti f/1.0, 75 Lux, 50L, 85L II, ZA 135/1.8 and the 105E is now my favorite and is one of my best all time portrait lenses. If I wish for a more technically correct lenses I have the 24/35 and 50 Art lenses.
I do feel often many read too many specs rather than just go out taking images. Even the lowly 50/1.4G is capable of taking excellent shots but it really depends on the photographer
For a user with the above list of lenses, it is really hard to believe that one will not be bother by loca or sharpening halo.
Why bother to get all the above lenses if image quality is not of concern?
Or is it because you do not own this lens or not doing pay shoots for your clients.
If you are not interested, I also wonder how come you are so familiar with the actual term "loca" used for axial or longitudinal chromatic aberration, which I intentionally not use due to the close resemblance to LCA or lateral chromatic aberration.
They each meant two different types of chromatic aberration differ by 90 degrees apart. One is radial while the other is tangential. LCA is easily correctable by software while LoCA (ACA) is not.
The next thing is you are also the one who first brought out that it might be caused by over sharpening to throw off this topic of chromatic aberration.
Sharpening will not create greenish (cyan) or reddish (magenta) halos, but more often is white or black between the borders of two colors.
You used the term "To be honest". How honest and why? 🙄🤔 ...Show more →
Well, I did not mean it in general term at all, and hopefully that explains what I meant. . I meant that in that particular image, 'ACA' did not bother me. That is why I said,'honestly'. Honestly, it did not bother me in that image. I hate to make this image thread get further off topic, so hopefully this satisfy your inquiry.
Charles Loy wrote:
CA is not acceptable on 2200 dollar prime portrait lens, shocked it does not bother you
Like I said, it was not meant to be a general comment. It was specifically for that particular image. Now, I don't own this lens, but I see beautiful rendering from this lens shown throughout this thread,. If I were in the market for 105mm ( which I am not ), and if fund allows it, I will not hesitate to get this lens.
I took my kids for fall photos about a month ago and my favorite of the day was a candid I grabbed when I was checking for focus. If this lens has flaws, and I'm sure it does, I don't care.
I took my kids for fall photos about a month ago and my favorite of the day was a candid I grabbed when I was checking for focus. If this lens has flaws, and I'm sure it does, I don't care.
Any 105 owners also have the 58? Do I need the 58? I generally don't shoot anything that short for portrait work, I have a 50 that I never mount, and I prefer a longer working distance. That being said I'd love something shorter, for the rare indoor photos I take, that has a little magic in it. Will I use it?
I have both and you'll DEFINITELY need the 58 or something wider. The 58 is a great lens, but it's not NEARLY as sharp as the 105 wide open.
Vcook wrote:
Any 105 owners also have the 58? Do I need the 58? I generally don't shoot anything that short for portrait work, I have a 50 that I never mount, and I prefer a longer working distance. That being said I'd love something shorter, for the rare indoor photos I take, that has a little magic in it. Will I use it?
Just about all fast lenses both old and new have quirks and it is what often makes them unique and lends to their personality. My favorite lenses have been the M 50 Nocti f/1.0, 75 Lux, 50L, 85L II, ZA 135/1.8 and the 105E is now my favorite and is one of my best all time portrait lenses. If I wish for a more technically correct lenses I have the 24/35 and 50 Art lenses.
