NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Knut S on June 12, 2016, 23:11:55
-
Just got this old classic Nikkor, and what a beauty it is! I've had a "one-lens-day" today for getting to know this lens. Pure joy. Really like the dof-control on this lens. It's up there with the 35mm 1.4 & 50mm 1.2. I'll be happy if you will join this thread and show what this lens can deliver.
All pics D3x @2.5
-
I think we have already had 105/2.5 thread(s), but why not hammer the message through once again?
Personally I think the 105/2.5 AI and the Nikon Df simply were made for each other. The combination simply is so extraordinarily good and synergetic. This lens covers everything from (relatively) close-ups to portraits and landscapes with the same ease.
There is a faster sibling, the 105/1.8 AIS, that shares much of the same features and some claim it is even better for landscape work. In direct A/B comparison, however, I didn't find much of a difference, and the faster lens by its bigger bulk makes for less smooth handling than the f/2.5 model.
-
A few examples of 105/2.5 images captured with the Nikon Df in recent years.
(the scenery of last one should be familiar to KS)
-
I don't mind more threads on the 105/2.5! The 105/1.8 certainly excels in field curvature, or lack of, CA and flare, but all else is identical. I think for general use, the 105/2.5 has the upper hand for it's filter size alone, though the lighter weight is certainly nice. The 105s are real gems that set an extremely high bar for the money spent.
-
Thanks, Bjørn. Inspirational pictures, as usual from your hand. I really like the 3D rendering of this lens. And yes, I know exactly where #4 is taken. Haha.. ::)
-
I like the elvis on the cadillac pic :o :o :o just because it is elvis ::)
here's mine
-
It's a little long for a lot of things on DX, but it has that je ne sais quoi.
-
For some reason which I can't explain, I have never owned the 105/2,5. To rectify the situation, I have now aquired two of them, both arrived a few days ago. One is an Ai-converted K, the other is Ai-S. Both in mint condition. I enjoy and love using these classic Nikkors more and more, and have a decent collection - 16/3,5 (x2), 20/2,8, 24/2, 28/2, 35/1,4, 50/1,2, 105/2,5 (x2) and 180/2,8 ED.
-
One of my favorite MF Nikkors.
I have "only" the very old ones. Nippon Kogaku 10.5cm (1963) and 105mm (1971), both Sonar's and the Nikkor 105mm PC (1973) which is a Gauss.
These two (105 PC) are from my last trip to Thailand.
-
Matthew and Chris; beautiful! Thanks for shearing. Chris, #2 is awesome. :)
-
If it's about the 105mm f2,5, I'll join.
I currently only own a ~1967 Nippon Kogaku 105mm f2,5 Nikkor-P with single amber coating.
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/8/7421/27417858322_f332a6e19e_b.jpg)
Here are a few sample pictures
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7753/27573245825_98b2fe3a50_b.jpg)
(https://c7.staticflickr.com/2/1526/25061886830_5759c6b3f3_b.jpg)
(https://c4.staticflickr.com/2/1542/25307966355_be3eca5892_b.jpg)
(https://c5.staticflickr.com/1/604/23181240516_fd866da033_b.jpg)
And then these made with the 105mm f2,5 Nikkor-P.C
(https://c7.staticflickr.com/6/5769/23216165310_22147db0e3_b.jpg)
(https://c7.staticflickr.com/2/1641/23814895334_6a96004fec_b.jpg)
(https://c8.staticflickr.com/1/773/20177199703_f0507d8ae3_b.jpg)
(https://c7.staticflickr.com/1/654/20788811022_8324a03c5f_b.jpg)
EXIF incorrect on this one. I also used the 105mm f2,5 Nikkor-P.C in this case not wide open but at f2,8
(https://c5.staticflickr.com/1/327/20255663652_ce29732ff7_b.jpg)
-
This morning I became the proud owner of a used Df in "super mint" condition. Price was Euro 1,500. In the afternoon I was out in a park with the camera and the 105mm 2.5 AI. Here is a sample of the crop.
-
Bjørn's delicate sound of snow is hyper mega extra turbo special!
-
#1 I met this funny guy yesterday.. ;D
#2 I'm so weak for reflections..
And thanks for sharing these beautiful pictures. So inspiring!
-
Knut, are the reflections from Å? Something about the 'rorbuer' reminds me of that small village in Lofoten.
To continue with the venerable 105/2.5, although it can deliver the most delicate rendition with pastel hues, it certainly can make a scene into a graphical image if so required.
This is from the DONG energy works in Copenhagen ('dong' in Norwegian has a pretty vulgar connotation).
-
The softer side of the 105/2.5 (AI) is well documented by this ice cream portrait of Jan Anne.
-
You are absolutly right Bjørn, Å is the place. And that Dong(!) picture is just brilliant. :) I just have to say that the 105mm really is growing on me. And it's not only on the Df it is brilliant. On the D3x it really shines, too. ;) Really a potato lens, can be used for everything. And that silky smooth focusing.. Mmmm. Those old Nikkors are really something. ;D
-
A tight one. D3x.
-
Move over a few metres and this scene appears (Df, 105/2.5)
-
Knut and Bjorn, those last two are very pleasing to look at! :-)
-
More than 40 years separate the body and the lens. The latter being revamped to AI and equipped with a chip, thanks to the joint efforts of Bjørn and Erik :):
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8849/27995060720_2615ea1cb2_k.jpg)
-
I can't take this anymore!!! all this flaunting... so I just ordered mine, 2 minutes ago. can't wait :D
-
I can't take this anymore!!! all this flaunting... so I just ordered mine, 2 minutes ago. can't wait :D
you should buy all 5 versions :o :o :o!
1: tickmark
2: chrome nose sonnar version
3: new-nikkor
4: Ai
5: Ai-S
That's good! everything has a start
-
Then, add the two versions for Nikon S-mount rangefinders (with or without locking studs on the front barrel). They work via an adapter on mirrorless cameras if you haven't got an S rangefinder. (I have most S models, but prefer using these old-timer optics on a Sony A7. Film is so dead).
-
I can't take this anymore!!! all this flaunting... so I just ordered mine, 2 minutes ago. can't wait :D
Yup, Tien,
This a tough place for creating GAS. I have 5 105mm lenses because I love the FL but these days I chose between them and sell the loser (s). I passed on two 105 f1.8Ais not that long ago but may eventually get one ;) . I use them on the Df, D700 , D750 and Sony a7II. I have even used on an EM1 :) . I'm in the same boat with 135mm lenses :(
Bjørn, love the Ice Cream image :)
Tom
-
Then, add the two versions for Nikon S-mount rangefinders (with or without locking studs on the front barrel). They work via an adapter on mirrorless cameras if you haven't got an S rangefinder. (I have most S models, but prefer using these old-timer optics on a Sony A7. Film is so dead).
yes! i am looking for a cheap "mountain nikkor" for myself :o :o :o
-
I use my AI'd 105/2.5 P early Gauss version on a Sony A7
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8773/18233934560_e60d431ff7_b.jpg)
with good results wide open as expected
(https://c7.staticflickr.com/8/7773/18234175030_f2190a6c75_o.jpg)
Testing the Nikkor 105/2.5 P on FF (https://flic.kr/p/tMhUY7) by Arend (https://www.flickr.com/photos/vermazeren/), on Flickr
(https://c7.staticflickr.com/8/7747/17799236414_68e78de967_o.jpg)
Testing the Nikkor 105/2.5 P on FF (https://flic.kr/p/t7RJSs) by Arend (https://www.flickr.com/photos/vermazeren/), on Flickr
-
Now that looks like a "kick ass" combination if ever there was............. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Have fun!
More than 40 years separate the body and the lens. The latter being revamped to AI and equipped with a chip, thanks to the joint efforts of Bjørn and Erik :):
............................
-
@ ArendV: is this not already the Schneider Xenotar inspired version (as mine) ? The pre-70 one being the Gauss-type Zeiss Sonnar
-
@MFloyd, you are right that mine is the Xenotar inspired version like yours and launched by Nikon in 1971. But it is also often referred to as Gauss version (close to double Gauss design) and this may not be correct. Optical design specialists here on the forum will be able to confirm this.
http://www.nikkor.com/story/0005/ (http://www.nikkor.com/story/0005/)
The first version is the Sonnar which was launched in S-mount in 1953 and in a redesigned version for F-mount in 1959.
http://www.nikkor.com/story/0045/ (http://www.nikkor.com/story/0045/)
So question is if we can call our version Gauss or "Gauss like", Nikon does not refer to double Gauss in their story. But I don't think you can call the Sonnar a Gauss design.
-
you should buy all 5 versions :o :o :o!
1: tickmark
2: chrome nose sonnar version
3: new-nikkor
4: Ai
5: Ai-S
That's good! everything has a start
Of course I have to start at the bottom. I picked up an Ai-S :D but as I am leaving on a trip tomorrow and won't be back until the end of next week, it will have to sit on a shelf at the local post office, waiting for me. Poor babe.
This is the babe on a pedestal :) http://www.ebay.com/itm/Nikon-Nikkor-105mm-f2-5-Lens-for-Nikon-35mm-SLR-Cameras-/122018797628?nma=true&si=%252BJXXdKxdfFZwOaj%252FbS8HesIyQPk%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc&_trksid=p2047675.l2557
btw, you, Rick, are one of the absolute worst. I keep reading your blog and having flashes of myself, branding my new Vessel, threatening the lenses "If you don't behave, I am going to take you apart and I know just how to do it ... I think.." :D Yes, me, the mad lens hacker :D
Nikon S-mount rangefinders
of course when master Bear speaks, I have no idea what he is talking about and have to google it :) Thank goodness for Google.
I'm in the same boat with 135mm lenses
Here they go again with the flauntings ... I am going to have to report you to the moderator :D Truth be told, I had a 135 f2 on watch, debating between that and the 105 2.5
i am looking for a cheap "mountain nikkor" for myself
::) aren't you there already ? Me, I will just have to build one myself. Been practicing this song to my wife "Just one more lens honey ..." :P
-
Even the more "modern" Ai-s version is an incredible "convenient" lens... :-) Here musing with chairs at a café's terrace at f/5.6 !
(https://c7.staticflickr.com/2/1669/26098417142_57b789ce08_b.jpg)
Terrasse... (https://flic.kr/p/FLedam) by ArchiVue (https://www.flickr.com/photos/archivue/), sur Flickr with Df and 105mm f/2.5 AI-s
-
The reference to the "mountain Nikkor" is to the 105 mm f/4 Nikkor-T that lived a very brief life around 1960. It was, as indicated by the "T" designation, a triplet optic that conferred a slim, lightweight barrel. The lens used tiny 34.5 mm filters and had a cute preset aperture ring in front and an even cuter little snap-on lens hood.
The name 'mountain' was fetched from the contemporary Mountain Elmar 90 mm f/4 for the Leica M-series. Such lenses were aimed at photographers wishing to travel light-weight.
As far as I recall, there were versions for the F and S mounts concurrently and they in fact only differed in their mounts, as the optics are identical. Th
(https://nikongear.net/revival/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.destoutz.ch%2Fslides%2Flens_10.5cm_f4_405749.jpg&hash=aae0a9c6610e0cbb5352348158af3430b73db293)
I have a nice sample of the F-mount 105/4 T, with CPU of course ... Not a top performer by today's standards, but gets the job done discreetly. It can also do UV passably. Must been 10-15 years ago I got it and it was not very expensive at that time. However, I refrained from getting the S version as asking prices were pretty high back then.
Briefly looked in my archives and found a few more recent images obtained with the 105/4 T. Here is one,
-
Hi, you can request for a tear-down guide if you need to. i have 3 versions of that lens in my notes :o :o :o
just make sure that you have the right tools and a steady hand and you're safe. watch professionals work in youtube as well, that will help a lot.
-
The T-Nikkor is so simple there is no need for any disassembly and if required, I trust Erik does this with utmost ease. The CPU modification I managed myself.
-
i just want to open one just for the heck of it :o :o :o
the 105mm is my entry drug. i started with that lens, now i have 5 dryboxes full of stuff
-
The name 'mountain' was fetched from the contemporary Mountain Elmar 90 mm f/4 for the Leica M-series. Such lenses were aimed at photographers wishing to travel light-weight.
Small correction. The Leica lens nicknamed "Mountaim Elmer" was actually an L-mount 105mm/f6.3 lens. It was also of a Tessar type unlike the Triotar type on which Nikkor 105/4.0 design was based.
-
Well, Leica-lore is obviously not my force. But the 'mountain' concept was of a small, light-weight lens longer than a normal one. Their outline would be somewhat similar. The T-Nikkor was "much" faster though, a whopping 1.3 stops ...
-
Of course I have to start at the bottom.
that is OK. the 105's are not rare at all unlike the 5.5cm which is starting to become even rarer even here in japan :o :o :o
-
Well, Leica-lore is obviously not my force. But the 'mountain' concept was of a small, light-weight lens longer than a normal one. Their outline would be somewhat similar. The T-Nikkor was "much" faster though, a whopping 1.3 stops ...
When the Mountain Elmar 105/6.3 was released in 1932, the 90/4.0 Elmar was housed in a fat lens barrel, unlike the later slim ones released in 1933. Thus the "small and light-weight design" only applied to the 105/6.3 then.
-
But I don't think you can call the Sonnar a Gauss design.
Correct.
The earlier design is the Sonnar-like one; the later design is the Gauss-like one.
-
These are my 3 105's all in mint condition and working fine on my Df.
Nippon Kogaku Nikkor-P Auto 1:2.5 F=10.5cm Sonar from 1963
Nikkor-PC Auto 1:2.5 f=105mm AI-ed (Chipped by Eric) Gauss from 1973
Nippon Kogaku Nikkor-P Auto 1:2.5 f=105mm Sonar from 1971
-
As far as I recall, there were versions for the F and S mounts concurrently and they in fact only differed in their mounts, as the optics are identical.
Not only that, they also belong to the same serial number block, that is, Nikon made one set of serial number rings which were used for the F or S mount lenses.
During the rangefinder era Nikon often made lenses in multiple mounts - S, M39, Exacta, Contax - all belonging to the same serial number block. The Nikkor-T 10.5cm is the only example I know of where F and S mount lenses share the same serial numbers.
-
Correct.
The earlier design is the Sonnar-like one; the later design is the Gauss-like one.
Thanks Pluton for confirming this !
-
The more I use it, the more I like it. Here another usage - shooting mosaics in the pretty dark church of Santa Maria Maggiore, Rome. Df, 12800 ISO, 1/125 handheld, wide open.
The keeper rate with such settings is near 100% on static subject : the Df + lens is heavy enough, and the "quiet" mode is also useful to keep vibration low.
At f/2.5, the lens is sharp and contrasty enough for the Df, at least when the subject is not too close. Here is an example (with 100% crop). Distance from subject may have been 10-15m.
Earlier I thought that f/2.5 was rather for slightly soft portraits, but no.
-
The 105/2.5 gets better with distance. It's shortcomings are really magnified at it's MFD.
-
The 105/2.5 gets better with distance. It's shortcomings are really magnified at it's MFD.
Tristin, that is interesting. My experiences with a couple of different versions of 105/2.5 (all were of Xenotar type. Single-coated, multi-coated K, Ais) equally tell that they are sharper at MFD. None I've had was satisfactory when focused at distant scenes.
-
some people say that a 100X multiplication factor of FL = distance is the optimum distance for a lens :o :o :o
example:
50mm = 5 meters
85mm = 8.5 meters
-
Akira, I particularly mean the lense's field curvature and chromatic aberrations which are much more noticeable up close. The sharpness of the 105/2.5 is good up close, but the area in which the field curvature will allow sharpness plunges strongly in the corners and brings increased CA with it making the image corners and borders look poor. At farther distances the field curvature effects the image less prominently.
-
Akira, I particularly mean the lense's field curvature and chromatic aberrations which are much more noticeable up close. The sharpness of the 105/2.5 is good up close, but the area in which the field curvature will allow sharpness plunges strongly in the corners and brings increased CA with it making the image corners and borders look poor. At farther distances the field curvature effects the image less prominently.
I see. I guess the lens designers thought the mid-teles would be used for the portraits more often than something flat in the entire frame when focused closer. So, the field curvature could be a bit tolerated.
-
some people say that a 100X multiplication factor of FL = distance is the optimum distance for a lens :o :o :o
example:
50mm = 5 meters
85mm = 8.5 meters
I think the lenses without CRC at that time was basically designed for the infinity focus except for Micro Nikkors. But the balancing of the aberrations in different distances should have been dependent on the designers' taste.
-
I see. I guess the lens designers thought the mid-teles would be used for the portraits more often than something flat in the entire frame when focused closer. So, the field curvature could be a bit tolerated.
Precisely.
-
some people say that a 100X multiplication factor of FL = distance is the optimum distance for a lens :o :o :o
example:
50mm = 5 meters
85mm = 8.5 meters
Do these people also explain why they think so?
-
some people say that a 100X multiplication factor of FL = distance is the optimum distance for a lens :o :o :o
example:
50mm = 5 meters
85mm = 8.5 meters
Are the "some people" the folks gathering at tokinon 50/1,4? ;)
-
Are the "some people" the folks gathering at tokinon 50/1,4? ;)
no, i think it was Sato Haruo himself who said that. :o :o :o
read the 5cm or the 5.8cm write up i think it's there
-
Do these people also explain why they think so?
I don't recall but I read it from a credible source. I just cannot remember where :o :o :o
-
no, i think it was Sato Haruo himself who said that. :o :o :o
read the 5cm or the 5.8cm write up i think it's there
Just checked "1001 Nights". I couldn't find any of the notion at least in the sections for 58/1.4, 55/1.2, 50/1.4 or the rangefinder 50/2.0. I'll look into other sections when I have time.
-
Just checked "1001 Nights". I couldn't find any of the notion at least in the sections for 58/1.4, 55/1.2, 50/1.4 or the rangefinder 50/2.0. I'll look into other sections when I have time.
me,too :o :o :o
-
me,too :o :o :o
;D ;D ;D
-
Ai-S version at f/2.5.
-
Nikkor-PC 105/2.5 AI-d
-
The slight softness of the 105/2.5 Xenotar-type at close focus and wide apertures (both together) is a feature not a fault. This is explained in tale No. 5 of Nikkor - The Thousand and One Nights. The 105/2.5 is often used for portraits and smooth bokeh was more important to the designer at say two meters. For sharp photo in close stop down to f5.6 or select a 105/4.0 or 105/2.8 Micro-Nikkor among others. Some complain the bokeh of the 105/2.5 isn't as good stopped down. That is the nature of the lens.
David Ruether notes this soft wide open and close distance (both together) in his subjective evaluations, also 85/2.0 and 135/2.8 (compact versions). Here's a link...
http://www.david-ruether-photography.com/slemn.html
I tested three 105/2.5 Xenotar-types and noted they achieved their sweet spot a bit later than some other prime Nikkors at two meters. Tale No. 5 explained my observations.
Dave
-
1001 nights said similar about the AI 135/2 also. See: http://www.nikkor.com/story/0030/
"The Ernostar type, which features a highly asymmetrical lens configuration, is likely to cause more significant fluctuating aberrations compared to the Gauss-type, which features a symmetrical lens configuration.
However, this lens makes good use of the characteristics; it provides sharp images in the long-range shots and leaves spherical aberration and coma in the short-range photos, thereby representing the smoothly melted edges of out-of-focus images. "
It might be worth noting the Xenotar 105/2.5, having a relatively symmetrical design, can focus closer and performs better at close range than the older Sonnar version.
-
Concurs with my observations. However, at short range for portraits, I would seldom use the full aperture, too much of the face being too obviously blurred, so there is no "problem" for me using the 105/2.5. f/5.6 is often my chosen setting for headshots, no matter the FL, at least if the background is not overly disturbing.
I also reported here, earlier, that (for instance) the old Tamron 90/2.5 was definitely the better lens at 1.0-1.5m distances in terms of sharpness wide open, and LoCA. However the Nikkor definitely has the best background blur under such circumstance. No wonder the Tamron does its job as a (primarily) macro lens...
-
NG contributor Mongo has very recently put his Tamron 90mm f/2.5 to good use here: http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,4287.0/topicseen.html
I have observed similar performance from my uncle's Tamron 90mm on his Pentax bodies.
Concurs with my observations. However, at short range for portraits, I would seldom use the full aperture, too much of the face being too obviously blurred, so there is no "problem" for me using the 105/2.5. f/5.6 is often my chosen setting for headshots, no matter the FL, at least if the background is not overly disturbing.
I also reported here, earlier, that (for instance) the old Tamron 90/2.5 was definitely the better lens at 1.0-1.5m distances in terms of sharpness wide open, and LoCA. However the Nikkor definitely has the best background blur under such circumstance. No wonder the Tamron does its job as a (primarily) macro lens...
-
Indeed. I am nevertheless pleased to use the Tamron, as I did today (more macro shoots). Still OK for general photography but a bit dull.
I can tolerate some *slight* lack of sharpness on portraits, but I would not describe it as a desirable feature, let alone a design goal. Everybody is pleased to get skin blemishes removed, but photoshop (in the right hands) does a better job than "bad" lenses here. Also, while attenuating skin defects is OK, transforming eye lashes into mush does not work for me. And removing the sparkle in the pupils even less. So 105/2.5 yes, because it is definitely good enough, but Zeiss 135/2 APO remains a good choice...
-
This morning, my English Bulldog taking a nap in a ray of sun.
(https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8599/29581487735_9dec63ac23_k.jpg)
Nikkor-P 105mm f/2.5 transformed and chipped by Erik L and Bjørn R.