Nikon's new 105mm f/1.4 is sharp like a katana

[ahsanford]

Wow:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/11/nikon-105mm-f1-4-e-mtf-bench-tests/

Sharper at f/1.4 than the 135L is at f/2 and nearly as sharp (again, at f/1.4) as the 100L at f/2.8.

That's impressive.

- A

 

[AcutancePhotography]

The 105 looks like a handy FL too.

Although I don't understand why it has to be compared to a Canon lens. Two different lenses for two different systems.

I think there is an unnecessary risk of getting the fans spun up.

 

[Refurb7]

Wow:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/11/nikon-105mm-f1-4-e-mtf-bench-tests/

Sharper at f/1.4 than the 135L is at f/2 and nearly as sharp (again, at f/1.4) as the 100L at f/2.8.

That's impressive.

- A

Yep, that looks fantastic.

 

[ahsanford]

The 105 looks like a handy FL too.

Although I don't understand why it has to be compared to a Canon lens. Two different lenses for two different systems.

I think there is an unnecessary risk of getting the fans spun up.

They have to compare it against something, and apparently Canon does well in those FLs.

Roger is as 'deliberately fanboy inflammatory' as an ice pack -- winding people up isn't his thing. He's simply offering data for us to compare to.

- A

 

[Larsskv]

The 105 looks like a handy FL too.

Although I don't understand why it has to be compared to a Canon lens. Two different lenses for two different systems.

I think there is an unnecessary risk of getting the fans spun up.

Well, have a look at his article on the 16-35 f2.8LIII. Canon gets their fare share of praise from mr Cicala!

 

[Refurb7]

How funny that this lens was trashed as junk by some YouTuber who thinks it has too many elements and renders badly. He went on a trolling spree calling Nikon and buyers of this lens idiots and fools.

 

[fish_shooter]

The 105 looks like a handy FL too.

Although I don't understand why it has to be compared to a Canon lens. Two different lenses for two different systems.

I think there is an unnecessary risk of getting the fans spun up.

The rationale for also comparing to a Canon lens is given in the article. He compares to other Nikon and Zeiss lenses as well as Canon. For a different view see Thom Hogan's review: http://www.dslrbodies.com/lenses/nikon-lens-reviews/nikkor-prime-lens-reviews/nikon-105mm-f14e-af-s-ed.html

Note the mention of axial color error (longitudinal CA). Therefore not an apochromatic lens so a bit lower performance (outside of MTF) than a Zeiss Otus.

 

[StudentOfLight]

Wow:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/11/nikon-105mm-f1-4-e-mtf-bench-tests/

Sharper at f/1.4 than the 135L is at f/2 and nearly as sharp (again, at f/1.4) as the 100L at f/2.8.

That's impressive.

- A

The 135L is not perfect wide open. Dustin Abbott recently shared some comparisons to the new Milvus lenses which show the age of the 135L. It's good but in honesty not perfect wide open.

I must say that the Nikon 105/1.4 is sharper wide open than I expected. I thought it would be decent at f/1.4 but very sharp at f/2 and f/2.8. This one appears to be like the Canon 35L II... i.e. very sharp wide open and with low astigmatism, so perhaps it could also be good for "deep-sky" astro mosaic shots. We'll have to see if the low astigmatism translates into low "coma" as well or if f/1.4 will summon seagulls in the corners. At that price though the Zeiss 135 Milvus looks like better value for money.