Result is a bit unpleasant and destructing to some degree, probably no lens would do better under circumstance, even 200mm f2.0 and longer top-of-the line Nikon primes sometimes produce that kind of weird bokeh when background is cluttered and at a certain distance from the subject.
But ... what do you mean by "This lens destroyed it"?
Elijah wrote:
Because there was a very strange, uneven background... This lens destroyed it.
Todd wrote:
So I have my 105mm and I can see some dust behind the front element. I then look closer with a led light...OMG! Dust covers the entire backside of the front element. And there is quite a bit of it.
Those of you that own one, if you did the same and looked at the front element with a light, is there also dust in your copy?? I realize there is "some" dust in all lenses, but there shouldn't be this much. I'll be looking at getting this one replaced.
That's a bit strange, a few specs of dust may be normal, but if you see that much...
Like i just mentioned a couple of post ago, this is the first 1.4 lens from Nikon that is not made in Japan.
For the price that Nikon is asking for this lens, i hope that they got their QA right.
I haven't been using the 105mm the past week!
I was using my 24/58 a lot though.
I'm REALLY happy with 24/58/105
virtually the same as 28/58/105, which I know many of you have!
popinvasion wrote:
Correct imo it's better. It has that 58 swirl but with the 200f2 background disappearance and enough compression to get the job done.
It looks 95% the same as the 85 1.4, which also does not produce results nearly as good as the 200 F2. I love the 105 1.4E, but it's no 200 F2.
agelessphotog wrote:
It looks 95% the same as the 85 1.4, which also does not produce results nearly as good as the 200 F2. I love the 105 1.4E, but it's no 200 F2.
I finally got the chance to shoot with the lens today. I've owned the 85 1.4G(many times) and IMHO the 105 absolutely clobbers the 85 1.4 hands down, but, having owned the 200 f2 VRII, I don't think the 105 is quite at the same level as the chub. The 200 f2 is almost impossible to match. Short of the Otus(maybe), I've never shot anything I liked better than the chub.
Not trying to run down an amazing lens, and I do think it's the best Nikon lens in a very long time. I'll be buying one. The big upside for me is that it's so much easier to carry and therefore get used more, than the chub.
Jonathan wrote:
I finally got the chance to shoot with the lens today. I've owned the 85 1.4G(many times) and IMHO the 105 absolutely clobbers the 85 1.4 hands down, but, having owned the 200 f2 VRII, I don't think the 105 is quite at the same level as the chub. The 200 f2 is almost impossible to match. Short of the Otus(maybe), I've never shot anything I liked better than the chub.
Not trying to run down an amazing lens, and I do think it's the best Nikon lens in a very long time. I'll be buying one. The big upside for me is that it's so much easier to carry and therefore get used more, than the chub.
popinvasion wrote:
Correct imo it's better. It has that 58 swirl but with the 200f2 background disappearance and enough compression to get the job done.
Nikon seems to be making their bokeh stand apart from everyone else with the swirl of the 58 and now the 105. They have a very "alternative lens" feeling.
It's probably a better way to generate buzz than just trying to copy the look of a 200 or a 135 / 2.
JHerr wrote:
Nikon seems to be making their bokeh stand apart from everyone else with the swirl of the 58 and now the 105. They have a very "alternative lens" feeling.
It's probably a better way to generate buzz than just trying to copy the look of a 200 or a 135 / 2.
Exactly-that's what I prefer-a lens with a little more attitude and character. I love the chub but imo it's clinical in comparison. I just wish they would update the old 28 1.4.
This lens destroyed it. 
