NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: Akira on August 24, 2016, 23:13:42
-
Hope you enjoy it:
http://www.nikkor.com/story/0059/
-
Thanks for sharing! I am definitely of 105mm segment! LZ
-
Thanks Akira. A very interesting read. It explains roughly why I like my 105/1.8 so much ;)
-
Interesting article. Thanks, Akira, for the heads-up.
I consulted what I wrote up on this lens some ten years ago, and found most if not all points explained and elaborated in the 1001 Nights article.
A nicely balancing lens that is sturdily built and fairly heavy. It produces very sharp and contrasty images within its optimal range from f/4 to f/11. Wide open, image contrast is lowered by internal flare, so the f/1.8 setting shouldn't be used indiscriminately. It is moderately resistant to flare and ghosts under normal shooting conditions. Set it to f/5.6 if you are keen on getting the maximum quality from this lens.
On the D2X, the flare at f/1.8 is even more prominent and it looks more like residual spherical aberration to me. Anyway, image detail is very good at f/1.8 despite the lowered contrast, and by stopping down to f/2.8 you do get very high contrast, and superb image sharpness. The excellent image quality holds up surprisingly well to near f/16, but from here you do get some softening mediated by diffraction effects. There is virtually no chromatic aberration (CA) to be seen at the normal aperture settings, but a tiny amount of CA begins to creep in when the lens is stopped down beyond f/11.
IR: No issues were detected when using this lens for IR work on my Fuji S3Pro UVIR camera. Testing with the D200 (modified) confirms this information.
I purchased my sample of the 105/1.8 around 1989 and it has been with me ever since. Still working as when brand new. Only a CPU chip has been added otherwise no maintenance has been required. The wobbling pull-out lens hood annoys me still, but I tend to put a separate 62 mm lens hood on the 105 to avoid the annoyance these days.
Tristin and I independently have found the optimum aperture for landscapes to be f/11, at which setting nice "star burst" are produced. However, as I already found out long ago, you certainly can use the lens stopped down further than that.
-
Glad you enjoyed the article.
To me the most intriguing part of it is:
"...greater precision in the thickness of the center of the concave element in the rear group was required."
This reminds me of the 100/3.5 Planar for Hasselblad 500 series which was also of Xenotar design. I've read somewhere that Zeiss needed to sort out its corresponding concave elements that satisfy the requirement of precision, which raised the cost of the lens significantly. Understandably the lens was very expensive compared to the more popular 80/2.8 Planar.
I'm big fan and believer of simple design. So, this 105/1.8 is one of my favorite lens, although I had one only briefly during the film days. I'm always dreaming of purchasing it once again.
-
An excellent series. The AI/AIS 85/2 has a very similar optical design, the classic 105/2.5 is a little different:
AIS 105/1.8
(http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/105mmnikkor/105mmf18optic.gif)
AIS 85/2
(http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/85mmnikkor/85mmf2optic.gif)
AIS 105/2.5
(http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/105mmnikkor/image23.gif)
-
absolutely enjoyed this short but very informative read. Thanks Akira
-
looks like his daughter has grown :o :o :o
i get a couple of requests to disassemble this lens but they are currently too expensive ::) ::) ::)
-
Thanks for the heads up Akira! I had been hoping they would put out a 1001 Nights for the 105/1.8! :-)
-
Thanks for posting the link Akira ;)
-
Roland, thanks for the reminder. The 85/2.0 was not regarded as highly as the other Xenotar type lenses. Perhaps the fourth element was not as precise?
Mongo, glad you enjoyed the article.
Rick, yes, I think that could be one of the auther's drive to write the articles of this series. :)
Tristin, yeah, I know!
Erik, my pleasure!
-
Rick, yes, I think that could be one of the auther's drive to write the articles of this series. :)
possible. but i think he used the wrong lens/model. now she looks more like a 柿の種 :o :o :o
-
Oh, Rick, a father won't look at his daughter that way...
-
柿の種
Ume?
-
Please edit your post to English and/or keep a proper tone Rick- Thanks.
柿の種
Ume?
The direct translation is "persimmon seeds", but actually it is the name of very popular Japanese snack.
-
Here's one of the TVCMs of the "Persimmon Seeds":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rsRMBcJnatk
And hiere's a short factory tour:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BL0Rrcjw0VI
Please don't ask for the translation into English! :o :o :o
-
I wonder why so many refer to these 105mm AIS Nikkors as Gauss type lenses when Nikon lens designers refer to them as Xenotar-type type lenses...
"I think you will immediately see that the lens utilizes typical Xenotar-type optics." --Haruo Sato, Tale 59, (Figure 1) "
"Take a look at the cross-section of the AI Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 lens (Fig. 2.). This design is based on the Xenotar-type lens (5 lenses, 4 groups) with thick, convex lenses, rather than the Sonnar type with its many asymmetric components." --Haruo Sato, Tale 5, (Figure 2)
-
Hello, David.
I think it's because they look similar at first glance? :o :o :o
-
Mass production of the lens began in the fall of 1979, and the lens was finally released in September, 1981.
In production for two whole years before being released? That doesn't seem right. Maybe prototypes were made in 1979 and the design finalised, then a year or so for tooling up before production started. I had a slightly earlier release date of March 1981 but this sort of detail is hard to verify.
... Xenotar-type optics. It was explained as a sort of hybrid with the front group of Gauss type and the rear group of Topogon type
I don't know what the technical difference is, they two types are clearly related. Maybe the Gauss type consists of three elements: convex, then convex/concave (cemented or closely associated). The Topogon has two elements, convex like the gauss, and then concave instead of the gauss convex/concave.
That may be why many 50mm lenses are described as "double-gauss" designs, with gauss groups front and rear:
(http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/50mmnikkor/58mmnoctoptical.gif)
-
It seems, after looking at the cross-sections, that the old 105/2.5 can casually be described either as a "Gauss-type"---for it's single Gauss-appearing group in front, or it can be more accurately described as a Xenotar type. Noted.