Has anyone used the 85 1.4G and the 105? I'm curious to see if the 105 is sharper wide open. The rendering and bokeh are jaw dropping, but just how sharp is it compared to the 85?
I saw some comparisons on dpreview, but hard to tell from them.
I'm seeing a nice lens but not a spectacular one by any metric. The old 105 DC gave me more a wow feeling - when the focus worked perfectly, which often was it's major frustration. Is this causing gas because its new?
What's the reproduction ratio? My favorite Nikon lens is the 105 micro VR for IQ and bokeh, both. Mind you, this is a very nice lens from what I see, just not the "greatest" ever.
and the price is very near "Ream me please" territory. Is Nikon photography now some kind of Leica like, upscale, pursuit for the well healed dilettantes? The old 105 DC was more complex, metal and a bit over 800 bucks, last time I checked. WTF?
Pavel wrote:
I'm seeing a nice lens but not a spectacular one by any metric. The old 105 DC gave me more a wow feeling - when the focus worked perfectly, which often was it's major frustration. Is this causing gas because its new?
What's the reproduction ratio? My favorite Nikon lens is the 105 micro VR for IQ and bokeh, both. Mind you, this is a very nice lens from what I see, just not the "greatest" ever.
and the price is very near "Ream me please" territory. Is Nikon photography now some kind of Leica like, upscale, pursuit for the well healed dilettantes? The old 105 DC was more complex, metal and a bit over 800 bucks, last time I checked. WTF?...Show more →
really? is this thread going to go down that alley?
no "wow factor to you?... that's cool.
like the 105 DC and 105vr better?... you've saved some money.
Leica like, upscale pursuit for well healed dilettantes?... yawn. SMH
It's ok to spend you money how you want - and to be defensive. Really. Had the same when the 105 DC was the thing. Check out the Leica 35 summilux. It should be right up your alley and blow your mind even better.
Pavel wrote:
I'm seeing a nice lens but not a spectacular one by any metric. The old 105 DC gave me more a wow feeling - when the focus worked perfectly, which often was it's major frustration. Is this causing gas because its new?
What's the reproduction ratio? My favorite Nikon lens is the 105 micro VR for IQ and bokeh, both. Mind you, this is a very nice lens from what I see, just not the "greatest" ever.
and the price is very near "Ream me please" territory. Is Nikon photography now some kind of Leica like, upscale, pursuit for the well healed dilettantes? The old 105 DC was more complex, metal and a bit over 800 bucks, last time I checked. WTF?...Show more →
Well, very nice but not mind-blowing would be my assessment so far as well, from the samples we've seen. But people haven't had it very long. Though personally I do find it superior to either of the DC's, which I never liked much.
And yeah, it's pricey, but newer Nikon & Canon gear is all pricey. The DC was from a different era. And f/1.4 @ 105mm is a pretty tall order. Certainly this is a drastically better value than the 58/1.4, for example.
Pavel wrote:
I'm seeing a nice lens but not a spectacular one by any metric. The old 105 DC gave me more a wow feeling - when the focus worked perfectly, which often was it's major frustration. Is this causing gas because its new?
What's the reproduction ratio? My favorite Nikon lens is the 105 micro VR for IQ and bokeh, both. Mind you, this is a very nice lens from what I see, just not the "greatest" ever.
and the price is very near "Ream me please" territory. Is Nikon photography now some kind of Leica like, upscale, pursuit for the well healed dilettantes? The old 105 DC was more complex, metal and a bit over 800 bucks, last time I checked. WTF?...Show more →
I realize much of this is preference. But I don't know how anyone can say the DC lenses were more impressive than the 105 1.4E when you can't even shoot wide open with the DC lenses and get a sharp photo. I fine tune adjusted, and to get sharp shots I had to shoot at 3.2, which defeated the purpose of owning the lens. As far as the price, I do agree there. Nikon is reaming people IMO. Yes it's a great lens, but not $2300.
I could get a sharp lens wide open enough to my tastes, but the point is taken and correct. But as far as clinical sharp, I like it too, but sometimes a lens has a character that while not super sharp give the shots a mood. The 105 DC was a lens I really liked in that sense, hard as it was to shoot with confidence. Some of my minor woes of course were probably due to not enough experience with it, though I kept it for a long while.
I think I sounded a bit harsh about what I said of the new 105. It looks good. But when I was shooting Canon I twice had the Canon 135 L. That lens and this one have the same "feel" or "look" or whatever you want to call it. Sure this one is faster, but I can fudge just as fine a dof with the 2.8 micro by moving close, so that is not all that impressive to me. My disappointment is the wtf pricing, if you consider that the Canon L is 1,200 US cheaper.
But I didn't mean to knock it. It's nice to have choice and it only costs a kidney.
one other thing ... it was long ago so my memory is kind of faded but I seem to recall getting my best results by moving the ring to front focus. I seem to think anyways, that such was the thing that worked best. It was a bitchy beast. Fault likely mine, because when things aligned, it was a unique fabulous look, in my book.
Pavel wrote:
I'm seeing a nice lens but not a spectacular one by any metric. The old 105 DC gave me more a wow feeling - when the focus worked perfectly, which often was it's major frustration. Is this causing gas because its new?
What's the reproduction ratio? My favorite Nikon lens is the 105 micro VR for IQ and bokeh, both. Mind you, this is a very nice lens from what I see, just not the "greatest" ever.
and the price is very near "Ream me please" territory. Is Nikon photography now some kind of Leica like, upscale, pursuit for the well healed dilettantes? The old 105 DC was more complex, metal and a bit over 800 bucks, last time I checked. WTF?...Show more →
great, so the 105mm f1.4 is not your cup of tea, got it! More for the rest of us!
And $800 for the 105 DC? Last time I check they're $1200 brand new. I love when people try to support their arguments by comparing used prices to new. It really shows their bias and their inability to compare apples to apples.
Pavel wrote:
It's ok to spend you money how you want - and to be defensive. Really. Had the same when the 105 DC was the thing. Check out the Leica 35 summilux. It should be right up your alley and blow your mind even better.
do people go into the Canon forums to bash their stuff as much as they come into this forum to bash on Nikon? just wondering....why not just be happy with what you have and let the other guy be?!?!
I'm a Bimmer guy and I don't make fun of or bash my Mercedes Benz driving friends.......even if they can't drive a manual....long as they're happy with their slush boxes I let them be....
I hate this thread....simply because the more I stop in and look at the photos...the more likely I'm going to have to sell my 85 and get the 105mm, that thing (105) takes ridiculously nice photos
