Pavel wrote:
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. ...Show more →
I was going to say the same thing, the Canon 135 L is about on the same level IQ as the 105 1.4E and it's so much cheaper. Nikon is charging too much.
agelessphotog wrote:
I was going to say the same thing, the Canon 135 L is about on the same level IQ as the 105 1.4E and it's so much cheaper. Nikon is charging too much.
Having owned both-not true. The 135L has a little less background blur and the bokeh is a tad busy. Not to mention the sensor in the camera will be inferior.
You may not agree with the price now, but the fact that you are following the page since page 1 shows that you are secretly interested.
The good thing is that one day the price may adjust to your comfort zone, however the quality of he lens will remain. At that time, we will see you posting nice pics and enjoying.
Following thread of lenses in denial mode is too poisonous. You will be bought over too easily. I got the 200f2 and many others because of following those threads.
For us, this lens didn't come easy. Some had to drive for hours across the country, or wait at the door for days for the delivery man, or even have a fight with the wife.
Let the early adopters have their bragging rights. After all we tested the lens for design defects so that you didn't have to.
popinvasion wrote:
Having owned both-not true. The 135L has a little less background blur and the bokeh is a tad busy. Not to mention the sensor in the camera will be inferior.
Yes the bokeh looks smoother, but it has less compression. I don't know what the sensor of the camera has to do with the price of the lens?
vickee wrote:
You may not agree with the price now, but the fact that you are following the page since page 1 shows that you are secretly interested.
The good thing is that one day the price may adjust to your comfort zone, however the quality of he lens will remain. At that time, we will see you posting nice pics and enjoying.
Following thread of lenses in denial mode is too poisonous. You will be bought over too easily. I got the 200f2 and many others because of following those threads.
For us, this lens didn't come easy. Some had to drive for hours across the country, or wait at the door for days for the delivery man, or even have a fight with the wife.
Let the early adopters have their bragging rights. After all we tested the lens for design defects so that you didn't have to.
glowhunter wrote:
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.
I said "last time I checked" ... that was about three years or so ago. I bought mine new for about 650 - before veblen goods pricing. You're right, Nikon has raised the price to 1200. Nikon's all about raising prices lately. A few here love to defend the price gouging as if it made it better.
Can't we admit that Nikon makes nice stuff, always has, but they screw us better and better as time goes by. It's a lens, not a rare religious relic.
I know a friend who goes bass fishing. He has more that 160 grand tied up in his hobby - to go and kill a dang fish. Nikons making it similar and laughing at the insecure little worshipers bleed Nikon Yellow with US green - and they like it, it would seem, like it made them "badd-ass" instead of "dumb-ass".
Shame this price gouging. I'd been shooting Nikon since 76 but I still don't get the fan-boys. But on the other hand I can sell most of my Nikon lenses for more than I paid for them new - so perhaps I'm looking at this the wrong way.
Care to buy a Nikon 50 F 1.4 for three grand? You soon will, just give it a few more years.
agelessphotog wrote:
Yes the bokeh looks smoother, but it has less compression. I don't know what the sensor of the camera has to do with the price of the lens?
Nikon sensors have better resolution which means you can't achieve Nikon like results with any canon camera.
It is one of a kind.
There are no other 105mm f1.4 in other manufacturers. Surely Nikon can charge a premium for it until there are similar competitors, or until Sigma decide to do something similar.
Pavel wrote:
Not arguing the point, but it's something I've not heard before. Can you explain more?
I'm just saying you can't achieve the same results. I've shot canon for years but Nikon has better files with better dynamic range and cleaner shadows and more room to push the files. So let's take new prices 5DMK4+135L=$4500.
D750+105 1.4=$4200. Both new prices. And I guarantee the Nikon files will be better.
vickee wrote:
It is one of a kind.
There are no other 105mm f1.4 in other manufacturers. Surely Nikon can charge a premium for it until there are similar competitors, or until Sigma decide to do something similar.
Vickee ... I can see it that way, but to my mind that is the essence of gouging. It is just like Adorama charging $100 dollars right now, for the $60 dollar battery for the Fuji X-T2, because it is new, and in very short supply. I buy from Adoram, B&H and Amazon about eaqually. It will be a desperate moment before I give Adorama any future business because they are such slime to do this. Ditto Nikon in a much smaller way.
popinvasion wrote:
I'm just saying you can't achieve the same results. I've shot canon for years but Nikon has better files with better dynamic range and cleaner shadows and more room to push the files. So let's take new prices 5DMK4+135L=$4500.
D750+105 1.4=$4200. Both new prices. And I guarantee the Nikon files will be better.
Well I'd say that the "look" of a sensor is a personal thing. Some like the Canon results, some the Nikon. I'm in the Nikon camp, the canon files are often somewhat "baby soft" to my mind, which works better than Nikon for a lot of portraiture, but overall I favor the look of the Nikon files. But I'd never say that spagetti is "better" than sushi. It's a taste thing. And for what it's worth ... the files from my Fujis just simply kill the files from my Nikons - according to my tastes. YMMV.
Pavel wrote:
Vickee ... I can see it that way, but to my mind that is the essence of gouging. It is just like Adorama charging $100 dollars right now, for the $60 dollar battery for the Fuji X-T2, because it is new, and in very short supply. I buy from Adoram, B&H and Amazon about eaqually. It will be a desperate moment before I give Adorama any future business because they are such slime to do this. Ditto Nikon in a much smaller way.
I remembered that when the 300f4 pf was available in my country, I was skeptical of it and wanted to let others try and review first. (wait 2 months)
After that I got badly poisoned and I wanted it real bad for the size. All shops are always out of stock or long waiting list. After another 3 months, I found a unit.
The guy in the waiting list dropped out and the salesman released it to me, at a big premium, knowing how badly i wanted it.
I drove down immediately and grabbed it. Happily paid the premium even I know I am being ripped off. The 3 months of waiting aimlessly were among the worse days of my life.
Up till now, the lens is still always out of stock.
What to do?
We are locked in at their system. We are at their mercy.
But we can choose to change system, or choose not to have the very best of their products.
Too bad I cannot.
Pavel wrote:
I said "last time I checked" ... that was about three years or so ago. I bought mine new for about 650 - before veblen goods pricing. You're right, Nikon has raised the price to 1200. Nikon's all about raising prices lately. A few here love to defend the price gouging as if it made it better.
Can't we admit that Nikon makes nice stuff, always has, but they screw us better and better as time goes by. It's a lens, not a rare religious relic.
I know a friend who goes bass fishing. He has more that 160 grand tied up in his hobby - to go and kill a dang fish. Nikons making it similar and laughing at the insecure little worshipers bleed Nikon Yellow with US green - and they like it, it would seem, like it made them "badd-ass" instead of "dumb-ass".
Shame this price gouging. I'd been shooting Nikon since 76 but I still don't get the fan-boys. But on the other hand I can sell most of my Nikon lenses for more than I paid for them new - so perhaps I'm looking at this the wrong way.
wow, did you really say nikon is "price gouging" and "screwing us over"? lmao. Slow down there buddy, it's only a lens. You don't need this lens to operate your Nikon camera or to take great pictures. Nikon sells plenty of high quality cheap lenses you can use. I would love to own a Ferrari but I don't go on Ferrari forums and claim Ferrari is price gouging because I can't afford one. lol
Buddy, I actually used to drive a Ferrari (a 308 GT ) way back when. Not as nice as a Lotus Esprit Turbo of the same vintage but it used to impress more. It was expensive. Stupid expensive. But if someone wanted to pass of a really nice Mustang for that price - I guess I'd have to call that car a Nikon 105 F 1.4.
And Nikon makes some pretty sucky cheap lenses. You gotta be a real loser fan-boy to love em.
Pavel wrote:
Buddy, I actually used to drive a Ferrari (a 308 GT ) way back when. Not as nice as a Lotus Esprit Turbo of the same vintage but it used to impress more. It was expensive. Stupid expensive. But if someone wanted to pass of a really nice Mustang for that price - I guess I'd have to call that car a Nikon 105 F 1.4.
And Nikon makes some pretty sucky cheap lenses. You gotta be a real loser fan-boy to love em.
ahh, there you have it fellas. If you spent as much time saving your pennies as you do trolling this thread, you could actually afford the nikon 105 f1.4 without having to whine about it. lol
So got my lens today and did a quick little test with my daughter and before the sun went down.
Tested the 85, 105, Zeiss135 and 200mm all shot wipe open.
Nothing done to these other than bumping exposure on the zeiss and 200 so they match the 1.4's
For a bit of fun, Here's one from a few weeks ago with the Sigma 50-100 shot in crop mode of the d810
same location but a little off center 100mm @f2 http://studio102.net/uploads/lenstest/_BUD3431.jpg
