NikonGear'23
Gear Talk => Lens Talk => Topic started by: armando_m on March 29, 2017, 03:00:25
-
All this reading about manual lenses and I found this at a very decent price
Surprising how small it is, love the feeling of the focus ring
Everything works , although it is ugly on the outside and the front has taken a couple of hits
Focus is smooth, aperture rings clicks evenly and the aperture lever is as fast as my G lenses
Tried it out, easy to focus even through the D800 viewfinder, no overexposed shots even at F22 at the CH speed of the D800
1. the chewed up front ring
2. very used exterior
3. mount
4. & 5. flowers at 1 m
6. my favorite model at about 1.5m
-
Armando,
Great model, really cool lens, and I always look forward to seeing your images. Hope the new glass is making you smile..
Sam
-
i love the 105/2.5 series :o :o :o
it's amazing in portrait distances ::)
-
"Very used" ?? barely broken in 8) 8).... This lens takes a lot of abuse, that's for sure.
-
Enjoy, Armando, you won't be disappointed.
-
Great lens it is.
Found myself one on the Bay, from Japan. Shipping was more than the price itself.
Mine does look nicer than yours on the outside ;D
-
Armando, enjoy your "new" 105mm f/2.5.
Careful use of an expander should get the filter holder ring sufficiently circular again to take a filter. An old 52mm filter rim with good threads and with the glass removed can then be screwed in and left there as the new replacement thread for the lens filter ring. Then CPLs or other accesories can be screwed into this new filter rim. I suggest an old filter with a hard brass rim as being the best type to use - if you have one.
-
For example, a B+W brass-based filter. They are sturdy and meant for heavy use. The material makes them self-lubricating too.
-
Nice purchase!
I used pliers of an appropriate size to fix the bent filter thread of a Nikkor 28/3.5 that I used for IR. Put a piece of tissue folded two times (so that it will be four-fold) on the bent part, and you can fix it without damaging the thread.
-
Thanks for all the comments
I'll see what to do about the front ring
-
Mmmm....
I'd hang out for an expander - even on an oldy which has many battle scars such as Amandos lens.
Nice purchase!
I used pliers of an appropriate size to fix the bent filter thread of a Nikkor 28/3.5 that I used for IR. Put a piece of tissue folded two times (so that it will be four-fold) on the bent part, and you can fix it without damaging the thread.
-
Mmmm....
I'd hang out for an expander - even on an oldy which has many battle scars such as Amandos lens.
Hugh,
What kind of expander would you recommend ? I've been looking at google but only found things that I do not understand how to use, or look like I do not want to put close the the front glass
-
It's like panel beating of a car. Same principle. Use something not too hard (small wood dowel, rubber hammer) to beat out the dents going slowly and carefully in small steps. Use a hard substrate for the lens front (its outside). Erik will correct me if I describe it wrong but this is the procedure I have followed a few times myself.
-
Here is what I did:
Lens ring resting on 2 points with solid support, the laundry washboard holds the sockets in place
Inside of the ring I used the clip of an old cap , metallic with threads
Screwdriver
Hammer
It only takes a few soft hits to get it bent back to the right shape, it now looks round enough and I was able to easily screw on the only 52mm thing I have, a 52 to 77 extension ring
-
after hitting the lens with a hammer went for a test shot
"the math problem"
-
Mmmm....
I'd hang out for an expander - even on an oldy which has many battle scars such as Amandos lens.
LOL, no worries, Hugh!. Believe me, I did the job really gently and, as Armando reports, the bent part could be brought back in shape without any excessive force.
Armando, nicely done! Apparently the math problem is a LOT more difficult than fixing the bent thread. ;D
-
Seeing how easy it was to fix it, I also see how easy it can be to bend it again, bump the front of the lens while mounted on the camera and the result will be a bent thread
Installing a filter would be a good idea
Akira, I'm not sure if the problem was that hard or she just wanted the paparazzi to go away ;D
-
The more you use it, the more I think you are going to love that lens. I know that I cannot get enough of it. :D
-
the most common way here in Japan is to use a piece of wood with a half-circle depression on it (male) and a half-circle wooden block (female). the hammer used is the rubber mallet. It works VERY well. :o :o :o
I am thinking of buying a filter ring vice for this. ::)
-
Congrats with the purchase Armando. The lens has an own character in that condition. ;) The 105mm lenses of Nikon are superb.
-
after hitting the lens with a hammer went for a test shot
---
I like the sentiment underlying that statement ... a phrasing pleasingly appealing to my culture ... nice portrait of the student as well.
-
after hitting the lens with a hammer went for a test shot
can someone translate that to Japanese and send it to 100years Nikon marketing team? it is hilarous
-
Hi Armando, congratulations on a very neat dent removal job that is both well done and simple in its execution.
If the filter ring material of the lens is soft, then the hard brass rim of an old discarded 52mm filter screwed in and left there as a strengthening precaution is still an option.
************************
Regarding dent removing expanders for filter rings, may I say sorry about my tardy reply.
This is what I had in mind:
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/Pro-DSLRF-Camera-Lens-Vise-Dent-Tool-Repair-Filter-Ring-Adjustment-28mm-to-105mml-free-shipping/32433856948.html?spm=2114.40010308.4.50.PzqsX6
I must say that it is much more expensive than I had remembered, so for a one off repair, your approach is certainly much more cost effective - if more exciting! ;D
Hugh,
What kind of expander would you recommend ? I've been looking at google but only found things that I do not understand how to use, or look like I do not want to put close the the front glass
-
Thank you Hugh
Yes I had considered getting a filter ring and leaving it on the lens
Thanks for the link to the expander.
-
Anyone care to share what they feel is the going rate for a decent AI version? Pick your currency.
-
My guess would be 150-200 USD depending on its condition.
-
My guess would be 150-200 USD depending on its condition.
Thanks Bjørn. I may just dig out my old AI one from the cabinet and put it up for sale. My eyes aren't what they used to be and I find the modern focusing screens quite troublesome to manual focus and rely on AF now to get things sharp. One of the reasons I recently bought the 105mm F1.4E.
-
A well seasoned lens!!
I have 4 105mm f2.5 lenses Sonar to Ai-s. I have 135mm lenses as well but I never use them the 105mm I always grab.
-
Interesting, I was offered a135 f2.8 pre AI for less than $100, but I figured it is to close to the 105, so I didn't buy it
-
The 105mm focal length sets the distance and perspective in my sweet spot for a head and shoulders candid. At 2x normal it just looks right. The 105/2.5 AIS is smooth and fast. The AI which I used to pay a debt has longer throw I'd prefer for live view. They were carefully tweaked for good bokeh at close focus distance and large apertures, both together.
Dave
-
This is one of my favorite lenses and I think you will love it.
In my opinion this is one of the lenses that every nikon shooter should have in their bag. At its price it is an amazing value. Nice bokeh, great sharpness and contrast. If you have a good copy the focus feels wonderful, and the size is great.
I use it for both portrait and landscape. Does well at both.
-
Interesting, I was offered a135 f2.8 pre AI for less than $100, but I figured it is to close to the 105, so I didn't buy it
To me the 105mm and 135mm are close and not. If the lens to subject distance remains the same then the perspective will remain the same but you'll have a tighter crop with the 135mm. If you move back with the 135mm to have the same crop for the subject you'll have flater perspective. Also the 135mm has a narrower field of view so one can be more selective of what is included in the background.
The ability to select what is included in the background is greatly improved by moving from 50mm to 105mm and a bit more from 50mm to 135mm. My preference for 105mm over 135mm goes back to my beginning in serious photography. I owned a 135/2.8 Nikkor-Q over night and traded it the next day for a 105/2.5 Nikkor-P. I was very lucky as it was a straight trade, lens for lens. In the late '60s and early '70s the 105/2.5 was constantly on backorder. To get a 105/2.5 for an insurance replacement one store owner wrote, "Fill all or cancel" on his purchase order. EPOI who was the official importer for the US found a lens. The man's name was Bob Goddard. He was a great help to me when starting to precess my own film and print.
-
Interesting, I was offered a135 f2.8 pre AI for less than $100, but I figured it is to close to the 105, so I didn't buy it
Keep looking there are better deals. I won a Cristal clear glass surprisingly absolutely no internal dust Nikkor Q.C 135mm f2.8 that was factory Ai for under $40.00.
When it arrived I wasn't expecting something this beautiful, I have the 135mm Ai f3.5 as well. But I do have an obsession for the 105mm.
Watch the ending day and time, if it's ending on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday at 1am or later watch it. I use eSnipe at these late hours, been lucky using it.
-
My roughly 1976 late pre-AI version of this lens is my only manual focus Nikkor. Primarily used on a D800. I'm guessing from the serial number this one is about a year or two younger than mine. If it ever breaks I'll buy another.
Curious, by the way, did the optical formula change in any way between this roughly 1973-81 model and the AIS version?
-
There are basically two optical variants of the 135/2.8:
The first has 4 elements in 3 groups, and focuses to 1.5m. It started as the Nikkor-Q in Dec 1965, later the multicoated Q.C and finally the modern looking K (New Nikkor) which discontinued in mid 1975.
It was replaced by the newer version with 5 elements in 4 groups, focusing to 1.3m. This lens is much more compact. It was introduced as the pre-AI K version, upgraded to AI in 1977 and to AIS in 1981.
-
There are basically two optical variants of the 135/2.8:
The first has 4 elements in 3 groups, and focuses to 1.5m. It started as the Nikkor-Q in Dec 1965, later the multicoated Q.C and finally the modern looking K (New Nikkor) which discontinued in mid 1975.
It was replaced by the newer version with 5 elements in 4 groups, focusing to 1.3m. This lens is much more compact. It was introduced as the pre-AI K version, upgraded to AI in 1977 and to AIS in 1981.
Any substantial difference in the way they render images?
-
Good question. I have used the AIS 135/2.8 extensively, but not the older optical design so I can't make any comparisons.
I used the AIS 135/2.8 mostly in the days of film, and a little more recently. It generally performs well, sharpness and contrast is good, background rendering is smooth. I have some doubts about it's performance at infinity and far distances, sometimes it just doesn't seem as sharp as it could be, but other times it works very well. At middle and closer distances I am pleased with its performance provided I can focus it accurately. Like most lenses of this era, it is not that well colour corrected so longitudinal colours aberrations can be visible.
I have heard of good reports from the older lens, this review is quite favorable: http://www.momentcorp.com/review/nikon_135mm_2.8.html
I have an early K 135/2.8 which I hope to convert to AI, so I may be able to do some comparisons in the near future.
-
Good question. I have used the AIS 135/2.8 extensively, but not the older optical design so I can't make any comparisons.
I used the AIS 135/2.8 mostly in the days of film, and a little more recently. It generally performs well, sharpness and contrast is good, background rendering is smooth. I have some doubts about it's performance at infinity and far distances, sometimes it just doesn't seem as sharp as it could be, but other times it works very well. At middle and closer distances I am pleased with its performance provided I can focus it accurately. Like most lenses of this era, it is not that well colour corrected so longitudinal colours aberrations can be visible.
I have heard of good reports from the older lens, this review is quite favorable: http://www.momentcorp.com/review/nikon_135mm_2.8.html
I have an early K 135/2.8 which I hope to convert to AI, so I may be able to do some comparisons in the near future.
I have a very well used 135 QC which doesn't have a large amount of contrast. If I have some time I'll clean it and see if removing some of the internal dust will make a difference.
-
I have a very well used 135 QC which doesn't have a large amount of contrast. If I have some time I'll clean it and see if removing some of the internal dust will make a difference.
That bit of dust doesn't interfere with anything, even scratches on the front element has to be huge and then the lens stopped way down to show up.
The rear element is always an issue but again I have a 105mm f2.5 with a small nick and I haven't seen any interference. I did buy a Tokina 17mm pro from B&H the lens was like new but the rear element had some sort of coating deteroration looked to be from use of the wrong cleaner along the lower edge. That showed up on the bottom corner of all my images. $120.00 17mm PRO Toki was to good to be true, I sent it back.
135mm f2.8 Nikkor QC I haven't messed with it much I shot a few photos with it so far and it's not a bad lens.
Just haven't had the time to evaluate it's limits.
I do mainly B&W so it's not a great way to evaluate it's color contrast. this was taken on a QC 135mm f2.8.
-
That is one heck of an image, Peter !
-
Thanks HDS, Although it's been punched up a bit HDR and Silver Efex PRO 2..
-
... Although it's been punched up a bit HDR and Silver Efex PRO 2..
That doesn't matter (to me), it's the result that counts (again, for me).
-
Computer dark room.. ;D
-
The structure on the right makes me think of a Dalek.
-
An example of an used 105/2.5 ;)
Although there are a lot of micro-mini scratches on the front element (see photo 1), which don't affect the coating, it is one of my sharpest lenses. The rest of the lens is in excellent condition, very smooth focus, no dust, AI'd ring.
-
I have a very well used 135 QC which doesn't have a large amount of contrast. If I have some time I'll clean it and see if removing some of the internal dust will make a difference.
Look for haze in the lens. That can easily cause a loss of contrast. It takes a fair amount of internal dust to cause a lost of contrast. If there is enough dust to cause a 1% loss of image quality would you notice?: If enough for a 10% loss, like that. I've cleaned only one lens out of maybe 50~55 over the years.
If the loss is from flare when pointed in the sun's direction that would be normal for a single coated lens. Even a broad area of hazy bright sky can cause a loss with a single coated lens. Always use a lens hood.
We're spoiled by Super Integrated Coatings and the occasional Nano coating. They do make a difference. Right now breakfast with coffee would make a difference.
Dave Hartman
-
Mine looks like a factory mint sample compared to that beat up one, LOL
However, it is now posted in the Classifieds making way for my new 105mm F1.4E
-
Mine looks like a factory mint sample compared to that beat up one, LOL
However, it is now posted in the Classifieds making way for my new 105mm F1.4E
Are you sure? A 105/2.5 manual focus lens and a 105/1.4 AF lens are vastly different lenses. I would keep both.
Dave Hartman
-
Yep it's going. I like them both but I have gotten used to AF now and find the manual lenses just don't get used that often anymore. Recently sold my 24mm F2.8 AI too. I guess some might call me a minimalist, LOL.
And. . . . . It's gone!