Todays shoot with the wife made me realize that the 105E is just a glorified, sharper version of the 85mm f/1.4G.
However, it does produce mini-chub-like-ish results.
I realized this would be the best glass to use for full body shots without having to back up a mile like I would for 200/2
Elijah wrote:
Todays shoot with the wife made me realize that the 105E is just a glorified, sharper version of the 85mm f/1.4G.
However, it does produce mini-chub-like-ish results.
I realized this would be the best glass to use for full body shots without having to back up a mile like I would for 200/2
Yeah, the more photos I see here it reminds me of a sigma 85 1.4 but like just a touch better compression.
Elijah wrote:
Todays shoot with the wife made me realize that the 105E is just a glorified, sharper version of the 85mm f/1.4G.
However, it does produce mini-chub-like-ish results.
So... liking it as much as you thought you would??
Depth of Feel wrote:
Yeah, the more photos I see here it reminds me of a sigma 85 1.4 but like just a touch better compression.
Sigma 85 is a joke compared to the 105E
---------------------------------------------
Donzo98 wrote:
So... liking it as much as you thought you would??
I like it a lot! I've always wanted a longer modern prime next to my 58G, but 200/2 was just too much.
The 58G and 105E will finally compliment each other perfectly!!
But come on, realistically if you want the best of everything, nothing beats the 200/2.
But with 200/2, you will need to sacrifice weight, size, shape, money, dedication, etc.
The best stuff in life comes with hard work, lots of dedication, lots of money, lots of patience...
Below is how I chill with my 105E. Same situation wouldn't be possible with the chub.
Yes, I'm a weirdo
Gang, thanks all for sharing the pictures (and especially to Corey: wonderful shots)!
I am on the fence, and willing to order the 105 to use it in a 24A-35A-105G trio.
But, as I have been "burned" by Nikon many times in the last years (24/35/85G, 24-70VR...), can I ask the owners a couple of questions?
1) Does the lens suffer from focus shift? The 1.4G trio does to a serious degree (and I read the 28G does too...), and AF calibrating them was just wasted time (for me, of course). Sold the 35G and 85G, not much for their poor performance wide open, but because focusing them was a hassle, and calibrating was senseless. I don't want to spend (other) 2 thousands, to have to calibrate the lens at 2, so that it will be practically unuseable at 1.4, but at least semi-consistent between 2 and 5.6 (not that the 24/35/85G were ever really useful at 1.4-1.8 for me).
2) How does it perform at 1.4-2 with regards to lateral aberrations? The 85G (1.4) may well be sharp "enough" to be useable wide open, but give it high contrast, and CA becomes obnoxiously pervasive. I hated shooting mine below 2.
What I am seeing from your samples is truly outstanding, and sharpness looks quite high wide open.
But... honestly, I don't want to be "Nikon-ed" once again...
I sold the wonderful 105/2 DC as it was impossible to focus on all my bodies, but if this 1.4 has even "only" as much IQ as that, and focuses reliably, I wouldn't think about it a second!
My copy of the sigma 85 doesn't suffer from any issues. I have no complaints about it on my nikon bodies. When I shot canon it was all over the place. I did get it fine tuned though by a local shop before I even tried it out. I can shoot into sun and get similar results as the 105e, it focuses fairly fast, and has good micro contrast. I wouldn't call it a joke as I purposely chose it over the 85g. You might have had a bad early copy or two.
This lens looks nice. I am not seeing 50 1.0 WOW level bokeh though. You could trade these photos for 85 1.2 shots and I'm not sure If I could tell the difference.
ilnonno wrote:
Gang, thanks all for sharing the pictures (and especially to Corey: wonderful shots)!
I am on the fence, and willing to order the 105 to use it in a 24A-35A-105G trio.
But, as I have been "burned" by Nikon many times in the last years (24/35/85G, 24-70VR...), can I ask the owners a couple of questions?
1) Does the lens suffer from focus shift? The 1.4G trio does to a serious degree (and I read the 28G does too...), and AF calibrating them was just wasted time (for me, of course). Sold the 35G and 85G, not much for their poor performance wide open, but because focusing them was a hassle, and calibrating was senseless. I don't want to spend (other) 2 thousands, to have to calibrate the lens at 2, so that it will be practically unuseable at 1.4, but at least semi-consistent between 2 and 5.6 (not that the 24/35/85G were ever really useful at 1.4-1.8 for me).
2) How does it perform at 1.4-2 with regards to lateral aberrations? The 85G (1.4) may well be sharp "enough" to be useable wide open, but give it high contrast, and CA becomes obnoxiously pervasive. I hated shooting mine below 2.
What I am seeing from your samples is truly outstanding, and sharpness looks quite high wide open.
But... honestly, I don't want to be "Nikon-ed" once again...
I sold the wonderful 105/2 DC as it was impossible to focus on all my bodies, but if this 1.4 has even "only" as much IQ as that, and focuses reliably, I wouldn't think about it a second!
It may provide some updates on your focus shift dilemma.
The most interesting revelation is that the more modern Nikon DSLRs (D810 and onwards) have focus shift algorithms built into firmware (The L firmware).
Thanks Nanolicious.
I checked the thread, and of course... couldn't help but be quite disappointed.
Lovely treatment of LoCa, much better than the 85 1.4G, but focus shift once again...
Oh well...
Thanks again, although you took away my impetus from the purchase button
It may provide some updates on your focus shift dilemma.
The most interesting revelation is that the more modern Nikon DSLRs (D810 and onwards) have focus shift algorithms built into firmware (The L firmware).
I don't see any focus shift on mine (D810). However the article stated that a D800/E was used. Those models were know to have issues with ficus, especially the outer left points. I bought a Sigma 85mm when I had a D800 and went through three copies and they never focused properly. AF fine tune was all over the place. I couldn't even used the AF assist in the SB 900 on the D800/E because it made the image out of focus. That all stopped with the D810. I think the 800/E series cameras had several focus issues especially with third party lenses. Anyway, my 105 works fine on my 810 and it only required a +4 AF fine-tune adjustment. So don't let that article discourage you unless you're using a D800/E series camera.
Marianne Oelund talks about the 105E's focus shift in this post. Somewhere I read the newer Nikon bodies (D810 up) have built-in compensation for focus shift, sorry I can't find the post.
Elijah wrote:
Todays shoot with the wife made me realize that the 105E is just a glorified, sharper version of the 85mm f/1.4G.
However, it does produce mini-chub-like-ish results.
I realized this would be the best glass to use for full body shots without having to back up a mile like I would for 200/2
I said all along it was much closer to the 85 1.4 than the 200 F2, you weren't trying to hear it because you sold your 200 F2 and was hoping you had filled it's place. That's why I kept my 200 F2. I think i'm holding off for another year or two and see if someone brings out a 135, if not I might by the 105 by then if they don't. I would love to see a lens like this but at 135.
Bohemien wrote:
Marianne Oelund talks about the 105E's focus shift in this post. Somewhere I read the newer Nikon bodies (D810 up) have built-in compensation for focus shift, sorry I can't find the post.
Markus
So who is this woman? Is she famous or something like that? Do her articles and words have any credibility?
Marianne is my kind of chickwish she posted on FM. On older bodies, I expect the focus shift to manageable with a little fudging at intermediate apertures. For photogs that don't use intermediate apertures (Elijah ), it's a moot issue. For me the big deal of 105E is the low level of CA (particularly impressive given the speed). Much as I like the 58/1.4, the CA turns me off completely. The 105 has found the perfect balance between the fast 58 and 200. Finger is hovering over the Buy button...
Todd wrote:
So who is this woman? Is she famous or something like that? Do her articles and words have any credibility?
Marianne Oelund is an incredibly smart and gracious woman who shares her vast knowledge freely with her forum friends over on the DPReview Nikon Lens Forum. She is a Electronics Engineer by day, but also an accomplished photographer who loves to study the characteristics of lenses in a scientific way. She is truly an asset to that forum and many have learned much from her contributions. Probably one of the most credible forum members I've ever had the pleasure to come across
Agreed, the Siggy 85/1.4 is "no joke". I find it to be an excellent lens, and in effect the "first" of the Art lenses although it was not so designated. Like the Art primes, it is, at the very least, equal to or superior to its Nikon counterparts, "IMO". The residual animus to Sigma apparently lives on in the minds of many.
I purchase and use lenses based upon my perception of what they can do for me. I am holding off on the new 105 as I have the Zeiss 135 and the Chub as well as the Nikon 105 macro. There is certainly no current "need" for me, and the "want" impulse has not yet kicked in, based on what I, subjectively, have seen. However, the photos posted on this thread have, generally, been excellent.
), it's a moot issue. For me the big deal of 105E is the low level of CA (particularly impressive given the speed). Much as I like the 58/1.4, the CA turns me off completely. The 105 has found the perfect balance between the fast 58 and 200. Finger is hovering over the Buy button...
