Nikon 105 and 135 DC lenses to be discontinued? (Page 2): I have the 105 f2.8 macro, in fact I am looking at it now. Guess I will hold onto it.

paulrph1 Loc: Washington, Utah

EddieC wrote:

There are rumors out of Switzerland that two of Nikon's best lenses will be discontinued probably due to the introduction of the 105mm 1.4 lens. I assume this will drive the prices up.

I have the 105 f2.8 macro, in fact I am looking at it now. Guess I will hold onto it.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

Nikon has discontinued the D4s and D3300 cameras. And now the 105mm and 135mm DC lenses, that seemingly are old. I own neither. But the new 105mm 1.4E (not a macro) priced at $2200, the lens Nikon is promoting, and wants it to be another big hit like the D5 and D500 cameras. Most likely it will be popular with wedding photographers. I am unaware of any other brand that makes a 105mm f/1.4 lens.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

paulrph1 wrote:

I have the 105 f2.8 macro, in fact I am looking at it now. Guess I will hold onto it.

I own the 105 f2.8, and will hold into it--although I am not looking at it now.
But, I have an interest in the 105 1.4 because it is a different lense, with a different, specialty purpose: extreme shallow depth of field, creamy bokah--comparable to the 85 1.4, and the 58 1.4.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Kmgw9v wrote:

I own the 105 f2.8, and will hold into it--although I am not looking at it now.
But, I have an interest in the 105 1.4 because it is a different lense, with a different, specialty purpose: extreme shallow depth of field, creamy bokah--comparable to the 85 1.4, and the 58 1.4.

I posted one of my first images with the new 105 here: http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-402154-4.html

forjava Loc: Half Moon Bay, CA

Depth realism was a design goal for the 58mm 1.4.
Is the 58mm 1.4 the pathfinder lens for the 105mm E wrt realism in depth rendering?

The new 105mm E has been followed by deprecation of the 105mm DC.
This may imply that photographers who adjust with the extra control on the DC can't do as well with depth realism as automated by the 105mm E.

Kmgw9v wrote:

I own the 105 f2.8, and will hold into it--although I am not looking at it now.
But, I have an interest in the 105 1.4 because it is a different lense, with a different, specialty purpose: extreme shallow depth of field, creamy bokah--comparable to the 85 1.4, and the 58 1.4.

Ernie Misner Loc: Lakewood, WA

Kmgw9v wrote:

Looking forward to reviews of the new 105 1.4E.

Yes! There is one review or more out there now on B&H or Adorama.... he said super, super sharp but with bokeh to die for at the same time. It should be for the price; I would love to have one if I could justify it! :)

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

forjava wrote:

Depth realism was a design goal for the 58mm 1.4.
Is the 58mm 1.4 the pathfinder lens for the 105mm E wrt realism in depth rendering?

Can you define "depth realism" as a design goal? What exactly is "realism in depth rendering"?

Not some definition you make up on the fly, but please site something credible suggesting that a real live lens designer thinks it is a goal.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

mas24 wrote:

Nikon has discontinued the D4s and D3300 cameras. And now the 105mm and 135mm DC lenses, that seemingly are old. I own neither. But the new 105mm 1.4E (not a macro) priced at $2200, the lens Nikon is promoting, and wants it to be another big hit like the D5 and D500 cameras. Most likely it will be popular with wedding photographers. I am unaware of any other brand that makes a 105mm f/1.4 lens.

and sure enough, it's a G lens - nothing like going cheaper and charging more!

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

wj cody wrote:

and sure enough, it's a G lens - nothing like going cheaper and charging more!

So you equate the G with going cheaper?? Aperture rings went out with buggy whips.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

CaptainC wrote:

So you equate the G with going cheaper?? Aperture rings went out with buggy whips.

not on most expensive lenses for all systems. but think about it for a moment. they have replaced the cost of fitting aperture rings to the lens with a 50 cent burr brown chip. they also have abandoned all nikon film users, and there are a lot of them out there. in addition, that lens, so overlarge, is going to be difficult to handle, unless mounted on a tripod. it is a ridiculous aperture for a 105mm focal length, and damn useless at f1.4 unless you want a 1 inch depth of field.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

wj cody wrote:

not on most expensive lenses for all systems. but think about it for a moment. they have replaced the cost of fitting aperture rings to the lens with a 50 cent burr brown chip. they also have abandoned all nikon film users, and there are a lot of them out there. in addition, that lens, so overlarge, is going to be difficult to handle, unless mounted on a tripod. it is a ridiculous aperture for a 105mm focal length, and damn useless at f1.4 unless you want a 1 inch depth of field.

OK - those are opinions. For me I have not found it difficult to handle in the least, I AM usually on a tripod. and at normal shooting distance the DOF is thin - just what I want but not 1 inch. In practice, most of the time I would be at f/2.2, 2.8 so right in the sweet spot.

I know it is tough when technology moves on, but an aperture ring is useless today. Setting everything with the camera dials works perfect for today's cameras. For you, just use an old lens - probably a lot cheaper.

While I respect your opinion, I believe you are living in the past..

Ernie Misner Loc: Lakewood, WA

I feel your pain if you are looking for lenses for shooting film. It's economics though for the manufacturer and that helps keep the cost down a bit for the majority of buyers. I like the 1" slice of focus at f1.4....:)

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

CaptainC wrote:

OK - those are opinions. For me I have not found i... (show quote)

sigh, there is no such thing as a "sweet spot".

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

wj cody wrote:

sigh, there is no such thing as a "sweet spot".

Certainly not in your demeanor.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

Kmgw9v wrote:

Certainly not in your demeanor.

you bet, baby!