lone ranger Loc: Port Saint Lucie, Florida

Well even though i have a extensive collection of Nikon Lenses, Including the holy trinity!. i read the reviews of the new nikon 105 1.4..........and decided it will work for me, where as my nikon 105 2.8 macro.........would not be as sharp or give me the bokeh, that i like in portrait shots, stay tuned for my first test results, its arriving tmrw.........

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

Yes, test results would be nice.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

I am very interested in this new 105 too. I have not ordered one yet, but GAS is imminent.
Please---post your impressions of it.

lone ranger Loc: Port Saint Lucie, Florida

hopefully i will be home when the UPS truck arrives, as a signature, is required for this lens.......

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Personally, if you already own the holy trinity, which means you already own the 70-200 2.8 vr II lens, which, in my opinion, is the BEST broken lens ever made. Why do you need the 105, I mean really, I shoot portraits with the 70-200 at 200mm wide open and it will give as nice a broken at 200 mm at 2.8 as the 105 at 1.4. Why spend the money. If you are a professional and make your living with your lenses then I can understand, but if your an amateur than it is just an ego trip.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

Sorry you lenses are broken!

Leitz Loc: Solms

Don't you just hate it when someone else thinks differently than you??!!

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

There is nothing wrong, or egocentric, about admiring and wanting good quality lenses.
I own the Holy Trinity, and agree that the 70-200 is a superb portrait lens. So is the 85mm 1.4, the 58mm 1.4, the 105mm 2.8, as well as other lenses.
Still, I would like to own the 105mm 1.4. That has nothing to do with ego at this point in life.
No controversy intended.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

The upside of being an NPS member is that you can get stuff at the starting gate, the downside is that you most often get to pay the release price. That being said, I plan to pick up a 105/1.4 this weekend, perhaps, and it will become, with the 85/1.4G, one of my first two picks for portrait and headshot work. I, and my subjects, will appreciate the additional "breathing room" this lens will give me! I have used my 105/2.8D macro for this work but much prefer the wider apertures and more out-of-focus backgrounds of the 1.4 lenses. I have NO plans to sell my existing 105 as I love it for macro work! I have also used my 70-200/2.8 for this work, but again, prefer the 1.4. I would expect, from discussions I have had with others who have used the new 105, that I will like it very much and it will be a "keeper" but I can't comment personally as I haven't used one yet. For the asking price, I am expecting it to be good! Best of luck!

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

ptcanon3ti Loc: NJ

The 105 Macro, or any macro made for Nikon, is not a true 2.8 anyway - so yes the 105 1.4 will be better for portraits.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

I don't think anyone was attesting to the actual aperture when in the macro mode. That is simply Nikon's designation for that particular model. Most lenses made today are not EXACTLY the stated aperture anyway, kind of like 50" Class TV screens!

ptcanon3ti Loc: NJ

That's not the point. If someone wanted to use a 105 macro for portraits, which is a great idea, but they were expecting an actual 2.8...they're SOL when it comes to Nikon design. So, like I said the 105 1.4 is the way to go.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

It's bokeh, not broken. But I knew what you meant to say.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

That is MY point. When I use a lens for something I would normally know what to expect as I've done that before. Although I'm a typically anal engineer by training, I spend absolutely no time worrying about actual aperture or focal length as long as I have experience with a particular lens and it's performance. A good example of what I'm talking about is my total non-interest in the fact that there is significant "focus breathing" in my version of Nikon's 70-200/2.8. It means nothing to me as I know what I can expect from that lens when used for portraits and I don't worry one iota about its effective focal length -- just the results. I judge my equipment by how it assists me in getting whatever results I want at the time, and what the files look like. As I age, I find myself more concerned with weight although I have no intention to plunk down 11k for the latest 400/2.8 when my AF-S version works fine for me. If I were younger -- perhaps. Specs are much less important than results. As in anything, I've found that, generally, you get what you pay for! Works for me anyway! Best of luck!