Geek Articles

Nikon 105mm f/1.4 E MTF Bench Tests

Joey recently wrote an article about his new crush, the Nikon 105mm f/1.4 E lens, and has been in the lab about every other day since then, asking me if I’ve run the MTFs yet. “You’re going to be blown away,” he says. And every other day I tell him, “I don’t get blown away very often.”

So finally Friday we had time to run the bench tests, and, well, I’m blown away. From an MTF standpoint, this is the sharpest f/1.4 lens Nikon has made. It may be the sharpest f/1.4 lens, period.

crownkon

 

Let me get the usual disclaimer out of the way first, so that someone online can not read it and then talk about how my review is incomplete. This is not a lens review. There are 762 different places you can read a lens review, and this isn’t one of them. There is one place you can see the MTF results for ten copies of the lens, and you’re here. What follows is the MTF test results for ten copies of the lens, not a lens review.

Optical Bench MTF Results

I’m going to start by just putting the MTF results for the Nikon 105mm f/1.4 ED lens up her all by itself because truly it’s a thing of beauty. Everyone look for a minute. A quiet, “Ooooohhhh-ahhhhh” would be appreciated.

Olaf Optical Testing, 2016

Olaf Optical Testing, 2016

The center resolution is excellent for a f/1.4 lens, which surprised me a bit because most newer Nikon lenses have been willing to give up a little center resolution to maintain good resolution all the way to the edges. Like most newer Nikon lenses, this one does indeed keep superior resolution all the way out to the edge.

This is a spectacular performance, especially for a lens type which hasn’t been available previously in any major mount. It also makes it a bit difficult to give you comparisons since there aren’t any other 105mm f/1.4 lenses for me to put up against it. So we’ll start by comparing it to some 85mm f/1.4 lenses. This isn’t quite as much of a stretch as the numbers suggest since the Nikon actually is 101mm at infinity, not 105mm.

Compared to 85mm f/1.4 Lenses

The Nikon 85mm f/1.4 G lens is an excellent example of what we’ve been seeing from Nikon primes the last 4 or 5 years: not quite as sharp as it’s competitors, but very smooth and even from center to edge. The 105mm f/1.4 keeps that smooth even look, but is far sharper.

Olaf Optical Testing, 2016

Olaf Optical Testing, 2016

 

The Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 Otus is arguably the sharpest 85mm wide-aperture lens available. It is, indeed a little sharper than the Nikon 105mm f/1.4, at least in the center of the frame. Away from center it’s still a tiny bit sharper. But at double the price of the Nikon, it probably should be. So for everyone complaining about the price compared to other Nikon primes, well, consider the price compared to an Otus. It seems more reasonable that way.

Olaf Optical Testing, 2016

Olaf Optical Testing, 2016

Compared to 100mm f/2.8 Lenses

Two full stops of aperture difference make this a very unfair comparison. You would expect a lens at f/2.8 to be far better than a lens at f/1.4. But hey, life isn’t fair, and I’m looking for any reasonable comparison here. The focal lengths are about the same, so I’m going with it.

The Nikon 105 f/2.8 AF-S VR Micro is a far older lens design and is sharper at macro distances than at infinity. I was still surprised that the 105mm f/1.4 ED is flat out sharper at f/1.4 than the 105 Micro Nikkor is at f/2.8. That’s really impressive.

Olaf Optical Testing, 2016

Olaf Optical Testing, 2016

 

Nikon shooters always seem to think I make a comparison to make their lenses look bad, so I reached down and got the Canon 100mm f/2.8L IS Macro lens out for this comparison, because, well at f/2.8 and as one of Canon’s better lenses, this comparison should keep the Nikon fanboys certain I hate their brand, right? Wrong. Even at f/1.4, the Nikon lens is nearly as sharp as the Canon at f/2.8. That’s just ridiculous.

Olaf Optical Testing, 2016

Olaf Optical Testing, 2016

One Last Comparison

OK, I’ve said for a long time one of my favorite focal lengths for portraits, etc. was 135mm. The Sony 135mm f/1.8 would make a spectacular comparison, but I don’t have data on it. I do, however, have data on one of my all-time favorite lenses, the Canon 135mm f/2.0 L. Again, despite giving up a stop of aperture, the Nikon 105 is a bit better at f/1.4 than the Canon is at f/2.0 in the center, perhaps a tiny bit behind in the outer half of the image. But that’s giving up a full stop of aperture sharpness.

Olaf Optical Testing, 2016

Olaf Optical Testing, 2016

 

Sample Variation

Sample variation with wide-aperture lenses can be a weak point. The 105mm f/1.4 wasn’t bad by any means, although you can see that off-axis there is some variation indicating there are some copies with a bit of field tilt, but overall sharpness variation is good.

Olaf Optical Testing, 2016

Olaf Optical Testing, 2016

For comparison, here is the variation graph for the Nikon 85mm f/1.4 which has small copy-to-copy variation. The 105 is as low in the center, meaning overall sharpness doesn’t vary much, but wider off-axis, meaning there are some slight decenters or field tilts in our sample population, but none that were clearly bad.

Olaf Optical Testing, 2016

Olaf Optical Testing, 2016

Summary

The optical bench confirms very nicely what the early reviews have said: this is an exceptionally sharp lens edge-to-edge. Optically, it’s probably the best thing Nikon has put out in several years; it’s a genuinely world-class optic. It’s not inexpensive, but it is less expensive than a lot of other lenses that have optical quality like this.

 

Roger Cicala and Aaron Closz

Lensrentals.com

November, 2016

 

Addendum: OK, I had a moment of weakness and bowed to the requests for a couple of further comparisons. No more, though, OK? I really have to, like, do work and stuff to support this hobby of mine. Remember, again, the Nikon is spotting these other two lenses a full stop of aperture. In theory, it should be much better at f/2.0.

Also, for those who want stop-down tests. No. I’m sorry, but really, I’ve got stuff I need to do. Olaf is getting busier and actually has like revenue generating activities, and stop-downs are another full day of testing. There’s just not time.

Nikon 105mm f1.4 v Zeiss 100mm f/2 Makro-Planar

Olaf Optical Testing, 2016

Olaf Optical Testing, 2016

 

Nikon 105mm f1.4 v Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO Sonnar

Olaf Optical Testing, 2016

Olaf Optical Testing, 2016

Author: Roger Cicala

I’m Roger and I am the founder of Lensrentals.com. Hailed as one of the optic nerds here, I enjoy shooting collimated light through 30X microscope objectives in my spare time. When I do take real pictures I like using something different: a Medium format, or Pentax K1, or a Sony RX1R.

Posted in Geek Articles
  • chrisgull

    Whoa.

  • Thank you! While Lensrentals does just fine, OLAF, which is entirely funded by yours truly, bleeds money like you can’t imagine. Just trying to slow the hemorrhage 🙂

  • Richard Haw
  • Richard Haw

    which is saying a lot.

  • Richard Haw

    Thom has his review up. he said that this lens drops in performance around f/2-f/4. just go read it for yourself. his commentaries mirror the ones made in this benchmark.

  • Gearsau

    Exactly. 50 years ago, people used to laugh at Japanese quality. Not any more though. Many Japanese companies have transplants in China and Thailand. I know because, I used to do a lot of application work there ( engineering). The Japanese still have people there, to ensure quality control is maintained.

  • Because time.

  • Søren Stærke

    Why didn’t you test the NIkon 105 at aperture f/2 and f/2.8 to get a direct comparison with the other lenses at that aperture? It would give a much better understanding of the difference of a full stop or two, when it comes to MTF results.

  • bokesan

    I wonder what the Nikon’s weaknesses are. E.g. the Zeiss MP 100 looks spectacular, too, but many people are put off by it’s LoCA. So far I’ve only read about slower AF than some reviewers would have liked. If nothing else comes up, I’ll be _really_ impressed.

  • RLThomas

    Geez Louise, Roger! All this talk about working and revenue generating activities… You’d think Lensrentals.com was a business! Seriously though, I must say your reviews, er, I mean MTF test results, do induce me to rent (and then buy) some of the better glass you come across. My dream is that someday manufacturers will see the light and provide ACTUAL MTF curves based on multiple copies and copy variation data like you do. Until then, I will wait to see what you have to say before rushing out to get the latest gear because when Roger and Olaf say it’s great – I believe it.

  • Abhijeeth Aarey

    Wanted to echo this comment 🙂 !
    May not directly contribute to revenue, but articles, data and comparisons like these go a long way in me sticking to renting exclusively from LR ( 6 years and counting !)

  • Abhijeeth Aarey

    Thanks Roger ! The 100MP is my personal “reference” lens, so this is useful info. Perfmance like this at a full aperture advantage , especially 40lp/mm and above, and with AF (!) really puts this lens performance in perspective. 135 Zeiss comparison is a bonus !

    Cheers :)!

  • James

    I know we’re talking about f1.4 vs f2 but the Zeiss MP 100 looks rather good.

  • alvareo

    The sensor in the D610 is better than the 5D up to the mk III, ISO 12800 on the 5D and ISO 25600 on the D610 have equivalent amounts of noise, plus you can pull more details out of the shadows on the D610 without gaining a whole lot of noise with it.

  • Andre, I meant, “only a few special people”. I did review the shorter Tamron f/1.8s and they were excellent. But we never got enough 85s.

  • Hey, who are you calling nobody?! I even bought my rental copy! 🙂

    It’s too bad not more people have discovered how good the Tamron 85 is.

  • Unrest

    Nice. Thanks, Roger.

  • Albert, I don’t have an opinion on the image quality of the Samyang, although from what I hear it is excellent. My only advice would be if you buy one, and are in the US, go with Rokinon’s brand. They have repair capabilities, Samyang and Bower really don’t. And they will break.

  • Albert

    Fair enough. Is it on my to-buy list since as much as the forthcoming Sigma 85 ART sounds good, it is not in my budget. Plus I plain love the Tamron 35. I am very curious about the Samyang 135 f/2 though, but want to try it before plunking down $500 on a manual focus lens, and soon discovering it has become a $500 paperweight.

  • Jim A. wins “best comment of the day” award. LMAO

  • Echo

    Case in point: iPhone.

    China builds great gear if your QC game is on point.

  • Echo

    Posts like these may not directly generate revenue, but it’s convinced me (a Canon guy) to rent a Nikon D610 body and this lens. I’m usually a 5D/135mm guy.

    Thanks for the effort in these comparisons Roger. They’ve helped me make many a rental and purchase decision. I’m just waiting for the inevitable 24-105 II MTF testing now!

  • OK, I’ll post it as an addendum to the article in a minute. And I’ll throw in the Zeiss 135mm f/2 also. But the guys requesting Tamron comparisons, well, since nobody ever rents them, we don’t stock enough to test them. Sorry.

  • Albert

    Looks absolutely spectacular. Nice to see Nikon finally doing credit to its name and rep once again.

    Two other lenses that have been compared to Zeiss equivalents I’d love to see put under the Olaf are the Tamron 85 f/1.8 VC (http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Tamron_SP_85mm_f1-8_Di_VC_USD/sharpness.shtml) and the Samyang 135 f/2 (http://www.lenstip.com/442.4-Lens_review-Samyang_135_mm_f_2.0_ED_UMC_Image_resolution.html and CameraLabs say the same).

  • Abhijeeth Aarey

    Hi Roger, thanks for the data ! For completeness, could we also please look at an MTF comparison to the Zeiss 100 MP if possible ? That would be nice, no ?! 🙂

    Thom (whose findings I respect) also posted his review of this lens. He mentions a dip in performance in the corners when stopping down from f1.4 to f2.0 and f4 . Apparently recovers by f5.6. Would be nice to look at the data (if possible) to see if this is consistent across copies and also to understand “how much”- may be helpful to understand this lens better.

    Thanks!

  • Jim A.

    Sharp eyed Canon fans are never far when they hear someone praising a Nikon lens… 🙂

  • DaveHenson

    It is not about where it is made but about the quality control procedures. If Nikon have not set the proper controls in place, blame Nikon not the factory.

    The sample variation is probably due to the complexity of making a high-quality f1.4 camera as evidenced by Roger’s comment “Sample variation with wide-aperture lenses can be a weak point.”
    If you know the issues surrounding camera manufacture better than Roger I would be interested.

  • You are correct. And in a minute the article will be too 🙂
    Thank you!

  • Adam Sanford

    There is no EF 100mm f/2.8 IS II. I believe you meant the EF 100mm f/2.8L IS.

  • I’d say the rather high sample variation is consistent with the lens being made in Nikon’s second-tier Chinese factories, not in Japan.

Follow on Feedly