The color, sharpness and bokeh make this seem more like a sigma art then a 58. The 58 character people talk about I can only assume means the 1.4 softness and, subtle warmth, and cats eye bokeh. This things is a very worthy lens. Is it workth the premeium, hard to say. With no competition they could charge 2600 if they wanted.
vickee wrote:
Hasn't it been all along that Nikon f1.4 primes in this price range?
It has... We just have too many complainers, nothing new.
Think about it, back in 2010, six years ago, the 85mm f/1.4G was released at $1,600.
Six years later the 105E was announced. You adjust inflation and the size & shape of the lens as well as glass size itself, you get $600 more.
Again, people complain too much. I'm sure lots complained about the price of the 85G in 2010...
vickee wrote:
The lens itself is a beauty.
Like the 85f1.4, I can spend a whole morning looking at the front element.
, I do the same thing. Set it up attached to my camera on a tripod and put it by my bedside....see it when I wake up. But I do stare a t the front element often... Love it!. Can't wait to test it on the milky way or andromeda galaxy.
Todd wrote: , I do the same thing. Set it up attached to my camera on a tripod and put it by my bedside....see it when I wake up. But I do stare a t the front element often... Love it!. Can't wait to test it on the milky way or andromeda galaxy.
If anyone with this lens, and also owns or has access to the Zeiss 100MP, could you compare them at MFD at f/2? This lens has me seriously thinking about getting rid of it and my Sigma 50Art. I never thought I'd part with the Zeiss but dang this is tempting.
m.sommers00 wrote:
If anyone with this lens, and also owns or has access to the Zeiss 100MP, could you compare them at MFD at f/2? This lens has me seriously thinking about getting rid of it and my Sigma 50Art. I never thought I'd part with the Zeiss but dang this is tempting.
The better correction in the Nikon lens would be most of the motivation needed, but there is still something special about that 100MP at closer distances...
Elijah wrote:
Comparing 105E and Zeiss 100MP is something people should do. Not comparing 105E and 200/2
Why not? If we want to see the difference to decide on whether we need to keep the 200 F2 or not. All I want to see is how they look compared to each other, don't care about being different focal lengths.
agelessphotog wrote:
Why not? If we want to see the difference to decide on whether we need to keep the 200 F2 or not. All I want to see is how they look compared to each other, don't care about being different focal lengths.
I keep reading how some of you are referring to this Nikon 105mm f/1.4E as being the new "mini Chubmeister"... therefore it only seems logical that people would want to compare how the two lenses render their images
As for me, I don't have a horse in this race I love my 85mm 1.4 AIS, Nippon Kogaku 105P, and my Zeiss 135APO f2. I am however, considering picking up a 200f2 though
No Regrets wrote:
I keep reading how some of you are referring to this Nikon 105mm f/1.4E as being the new "mini Chubmeister"... therefore it only seems logical that people would want to compare how the two lenses render their images
As for me, I don't have a horse in this race I love my 85mm 1.4 AIS, Nippon Kogaku 105P, and my Zeiss 135APO f2. I am however, considering picking up a 200f2 though
Best wishes,
Don
That's what i'm saying. All this talk about being able to sell the 200 F2 and the 105 being a mini chub, yet we shouldn't compare them?!!?
, I do the same thing. Set it up attached to my camera on a tripod and put it by my bedside....see it when I wake up. But I do stare a t the front element often... Love it!. Can't wait to test it on the milky way or andromeda galaxy. 
