wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

that is very true, but why would you want a lens with a greater aperture than f2.0? in a rangefinder camera, it makes no difference as to the maximum aperture of the lens, as the viewfinder remains unaffected. in the old days, e leitz defined the correct focal length lens for portraiture based on the diagonal of a 35mm negative/transparency as between 58mm and 60mm. my most used lens for portraits is the nikkor 60mm f2.8 macro lens, which provides for a flat field at the edges of the negative/transparency.

now, the very popular 105mm non af length, which i have for my nikon f and a 100mm f2 af minolta lens function perfectly on an slr or dslr for portraiture. the problem here being if you compare the 90mm f2 sumicron results with either of the above lenses, you will easily see the superior results from the sumicron. three reasons for this. the first is the lens itself, the second is the lesser focal length and the third, and perhaps most telling, is the rear lens element lies closer to the film plane/sensor as there is no mirror box in a rangefinder camera body.

anyone using the legendary 90mm series 1 vivitars or the 90mm f2.8 tamron macro lens on the slr/dslr bodies would find their portraiture results far superior to a 100/105 focal length lens, even though these are most popular in today's market.

for the leicas the 90mm f2.0 is the perfect lens for today's style of portraiture. and as it is such a stunning lens, leica never saw the need for a longer focal length to be coupled to the rangefinder cameras beginning with the IIIG and M3 models. i would never make a portrait photograph with any lens, wide open at f2.0, or greater. my beginning working aperture for an acceptable portrait begins at f5.6. this allows a depth of field from the tip of the nose to the farther edge of the ear; but my standard and most used aperture, in 35mm is f8. for 35mm film/transparency or an fx (full frame digital slr).

for larger format portraits, the aperture tends to increase, with my 5x7 camera at an effective apertures at f16 or f22 depending on bellows length and lens.

the only advantage i can see in "faster" lenses is the ability to gather more light through the viewfinder window, which, for some folks, makes it easier to see the subject. any prime lens, at its maximum aperture, is not particularly great, no matter what the subject, and what the lens formulation.

i know others have opinions and the above may be subject to folks with lesser than fx (full frame) digital imaging devices. but the much of the above would also apply to their lens choices. and lastly, and for me, most importantly, the lack of external aperture rings on these lenses. it strikes me as no more than a cost saving move on the part of the manufacturer.

so, there you go. apologies for being so wordy, but the lust for "faster" lenses always makes me wonder about the desires of the market. i find it amusing that many obsess over the weight and size of digital bodies, but want to hang the heaviest "big glass" on them. sort of a contradiction in attitudes.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

happy to do so,
in order to to make room for the mirror box in an slr/dslr, all lenses must be retrofocus designs, with a lens group in the front of the sensor or film to increase the "back focus" of the lens.

in a rangefinder camera, there is no need for a retrofocus design. so, for instance, a 35mm f2 summicron is much smaller than a 35mm f2 nikkor lens. an slr/dslr lens is more complex in its lens groups, heavier and the rear element is farther away from the film/sensor array.

rangefinder lenses are not retrofocus, as there is no need, so they are smaller, lighter, and the rear element of the lens lies closer to the film/sensor array. therefore "back focus" on the lens, being closer to the film/sensor array, produces a more detailed image. in addition, rangefinder lenses are less complicated and lens groups easier to formulate. this is particularly true with wide angle lenses.

it is the old closer the rear element is to the film/sensor array, the better the results. this is why those proficient in macro/micro photography and large format photography usually have a tape measure in their kit. it is all a matter of how far the rear element of the lens is from the film/sensor plane.

sometimes, nothing really changes, despite new methods of making a picture or digital image.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Thank you very much - you've given me lots to think about.

asiafish Loc: Bakersfield, CA

Why wouldn't you want faster than f/2?

Most people who buy fast lenses do so for their creative uses and those lenses work just as well, if not better on a rangefinder. Leica and Zeiss used to have 85mm f/1.5 lenses for rangefinder cameras that make fabulous portrait lenses. Rangefinder focusing is, when properly calibrated, more accurate than SLR focusing. No, you can't see the effects of shallow DoF through the viewfinder, but with experience you know what you will get.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

For amazing background blur effects.

The new Nikkor 105/1.4 should be a truly stunning portrait lens, by any measure.

It ain't no lightweight, though.... price: $2000+ USD... weight: over 2 lb.... filter: 82mm.

It's a portrait lens... not a macro lens.

Even as a Canon shooter myself, I'm really glad to see Nikon (and Tamron) pushing the envelope. Canon's 50/1.2L, 85/1.2L and 135/2L are wonderful tools for wedding photographers and other portraitists. But they have some room for improvement, and there's nothing like a bit of competition to get Canon to up their game.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

if you want the face to be blurred, and it will be at 1:1.4, then simply place the subject out of focus with your regular len. my subjects want and receive sharp images of themselves.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

you are correct. they used to have. but no more and for good reason. 85mm on a rangefinder camera makes little sense when you match it with the 90mm summicron.

i am not saying that old ltm lenses are not useable on leica and canon rangefinders. i am saying the lens glass and formulations are inferior to that which currently exists. for instance, i have a 50mm f1:1.5 summitar on my leica IIIF body. finding one in acceptable condition, as i was able to do, is rare and expensive. very soft front element and even cleaning the lens will cause marks on the front surface. it is a great lens for very specific things, where you wish to have a very specific "look". those are rare occasions. it usually lives in my gadget bag.

as for the old, fast 85mm leica and zeiss lenses. they, as general use lenses were noticeably lousy lenses. sure you can use them for specific subjects under certain conditions, but other than that, why bother with paying the price for really clean ones when you can put your money toward current lenses? you can always get canon ltm lenses cheap on ebay, for instance, and play around with them, along with eastern european brands from the ussr period.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Not if it does what you want it to do. I am going to love it.

Jim Bob

Correct. Only 95.5 percent of the time based on my subjective analysis. Why in the hell didn't you just say you've tried the lens for..."a very brief time.." and based on your preliminary observations you think it's great? I'm not a sand box guy. I'm sure the reason would be of no interest to you.

Jim Bob

Ridiculous price, regardless.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

CaptainC's endorsement is meaningful.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

only if you have not been able to do that, yet. only if you have not yet been able to do what you want to do. if you have then it is an unnecessary expenditure.

asiafish Loc: Bakersfield, CA

Not at all. I can get shallow depth of field with the Canon 50/1.8 STM, but the 50/1.2 L, while an unnecessary expenditure, was still a very satisfying one.

Nobody "needs" a 105/1.4, but that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of photographers who might want one.

forjava Loc: Half Moon Bay, CA

...it lacks the d lens' optical control. -- Maybe today Nikon thinks the extra DC control is overkill and subject to mis-use? It may be that Nikon has now automated the extra DC control, in favor of simplicity: designed-in linear, continuous defocus from the point of focus, as I think of it in my own words. While Nikon does not explicitly state any such thing, if you are familiar with the design goals of the 58mm 1.4 G around depth rendering -- see nikkor.com -- lessons learned from the 58mm must have informed this design (p=1.0). Having said this, I just saw that my underscored remark is supported: ...smooth alteration from the focus plane, ensuring natural depth of subjects, via the embodiment of NIKKOR's unique design concept of "three-dimensional high fidelity", is now realized while also incorporating an AF system.... The last four words seem to me to support apaflo's and quixdraw's thinking that this offering displaces the (manual-focus) DC.

I notice there is no CP filter recommended as an accessory. I posted a question to Nikon last night about using their 82mm CP II filter with this new lens, in light of yesterday's UHH discussion of suppressing face shine. Note the brutal face shine on the subject in the red shirt at http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-s-nikkor-105mm-f%252f1.4e-ed.html?cid=EML:MKT:072716:Announ:Nikkor:105mm:btn:LearnMore:Other.

cjc2 Loc: Hellertown PA

If one does a significant amount of Portrait work, a 135 would be a wonderful addition. Just for one thing, it would give you a bit more distance to the subject which can be very important for some subjects. It's not for everyone, but it is intended for a specific, mostly pro, audience whom, I will predict, will scoop these up quickly. I might even want to use it for basketball which is a sport I normally cover in whatever light is present.